Dear Michael,
I’m flattered that you consider my blog worthy of your time and attention.
I began writing this as a comment in response to your comment, but I proved too long-winded (surely proving my own need for an editor).
I regret any offense, but I think my statements regarding your book are fair. It is very well written. It is poorly edited (although the second edition is much improved over the first). And it’s very much a statement of 20th Century Church of Christ theology — in line with what would be found in a conservative Church of Christ tract rack — in novel form.
My friend and brother Edward Fudge is also correct in describing your theology as a false gospel. Before I ever began blogging, I wrote a book on that very subject, Do We Teach Another Gospel?
I beg you to take a few hours — these are short books — and read The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace, followed by Do We Teach Another Gospel?
Both are free, fairly short, and very pertinent to your work as an author and evangelist. Neither is in novel form and neither is written by an author as gifted in the art of narrative as you. But, together, they explain Edward’s “false gospel” statement.
Read them and then let me know whether Edward was fair in his assessment.
Denominations
Consider this. We in the Churches of Christ have a very inconsistent position on joining the church. We are delighted to criticize our “denominational” friends for speaking about “joining” a church. After all, we crow, the Lord “adds” converts to the church. We don’t “join.”
And then we turn around and declare then damned for joining the wrong church — which is, of course, by our own logic, impossible. And indeed it is.
In Biblical terms, there is but one church and there are no denominations. Just one church. Period.
What are its boundaries? Well, taking the most conservative position found in the Churches of Christ, the boundaries are: hear, believe, repent, confess, be baptized. Thus, all who’ve done those things are saved and members of the one church that exists. Unless they’ve left.
But what if a Baptist pastor did the baptism? What if a Catholic priest immersed a convert for the remission of sins upon his confession of faith in Jesus? Is that person saved nonetheless? By our own logic, yes. And we are right. There is no magic in the person doing the immersing, and any errors held by the baptizer are quite beside the point. Jesus saves — not the pastor and not the priest.
Or must he join the right church? Which, of course, he cannot do, because as he emerged from the baptismal waters, God added him to the only church that there is.
You see, you think in 20th Century categories and not in First Century categories. Therefore, you ask which is the right denomination? Rather than who is Lord and Messiah? But those who’ve confessed Jesus as Lord and Messiah are saved and added to the only church that there is or ever will be.
Falling away
So this leaves us to ponder when someone might fall away — which certainly can happen, but it cannot happen by virtue of joining a wrong church as there is only one church and God added the convert to it.
In this morning’s post, I briefly addressed falling away. Here’s another approach. You exit the way you came in. If you give up your faith or your repentance, you leave the church.
Moreover, the Plan of Salvation or Five Steps ignore the necessity of trusting Jesus for your salvation. And if I no longer trust Jesus, but instead wish to trust our Five Acts of Worship or our strict adherence to New Testament church organization, then I’m no longer trusting in Jesus.
We in the Churches of Christ are uncomfortable speaking of “trust” rather than “faith” because it sounds so, you know, Baptist, but “trust” is one definition of pistis, the Greek word for faith. And the New Testament uses it in that sense quite often.
But more importantly, Paul teaches,
(Gal 5:2-6 ESV) Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
You argue in Muscle and a Shovel that “law” refers exclusive to the Law of Moses. That’s half true. Paul certainly has Torah in mind, but notice how he argues.
Why is it that insisting on circumcision as a condition of salvation damns? Why? Well, Paul says, because circumcision doesn’t count for anything (doesn’t “avail” KJV). The only thing that counts (or avails) is “faith working through love.” Because circumcision is neither faith nor love (although one might well choose to endure circumcision to show his faith or his love for God), it doesn’t count (or avail) — and as a result, it destroys faith.
Really? Really. “[Y]ou who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” Is this because Law is a terrible, sinful thing? Not at all. The reason — as plainly stated by Paul — is that the Law is not faith in Jesus.
Paul didn’t say: You’re following the wrong law. He said: You’re following Law rather than faith in Jesus working through love. And only faith working through love avails.
Adding circumcision to faith in Jesus as a requirement of salvation damns. And that’s a false gospel — as Paul plainly declares in Gal 1.
So what’s the difference between requiring a cappella singing or weekly communion or a plurality of elders as a condition of salvation and circumcision as a condition of salvation? Both add to faith in Jesus. Both make faith insufficient. None are faith working through love.
Obedience
This is not say that obedience and works don’t matter, but that they aren’t the path to salvation. They are, rather, evidence of salvation because they are fruit of the Spirit — which only the saved have.
You and I should certainly teach what we believe regarding worship or church organization and advocate for that position. But we are not empowered to make those views conditions of salvation. They aren’t faith in Jesus working through love. They just aren’t.
The saved, as possessors of God’s Spirit, will inevitably seek to obey and to be fully committed. Indeed, they’ll work hard to learn and obey God’s will by studying his word —
Studying and understanding the Bible isn’t for the lazy. Studying the Bible requires muscle and a shovel. Mental muscle and a willingness to use honest intelligence (the metaphorical shovel) to dig deep beyond all of our preconceived ideas, our false beliefs and our comfortable traditions.
Studying the Bible takes muscle and a shovel. Peter said to Jesus in John 6 :68 that Jesus had the words of eternal life . How many people today are really willing to take their time and effort to dig down deep where that vein of Truth can be found?
Shank, Michael (2012-06-01). Muscle and a Shovel (Kindle Locations 4354-4363). They’ll do exactly that as part of being penitent people of faith. Exactly.
And they’ll get some of it right and some of it wrong. Perfection will not be achieved in this lifetime — and grace is there to cover our mistakes, both our moral errors and our doctrinal errors — so long as we don’t surrender our faith, our repentance, or our trust and so leave the church via the path by which we entered.
The damned denominations
As a result, it is plainly untrue to claim that every single member of the Episcopalian denomination is damned. Even under the most conservative Church of Christ view of baptism, a great many Episcopalians were baptized by immersion for the remission of sins on a confession of Jesus as Lord and Messiah. I know, because many were baptized by Church of Christ ministers in Church of Christ baptistries.
But there are other denominations that baptize by immersion for remission of sins. We are not the only folk who can read Acts 2:38! And yet we don’t bother to reach out to our brothers and sisters because they’ve joined the wrong church!!
Oh, you might say, but now they partake of denominational errors. Well, adding “denominational” to “error” doesn’t make the error damning. Yes, the Episcopalians are guilty of some errors. But do they have a genuine faith in Jesus as Lord and Messiah? Do they remain true to the penitence with which they first came to Jesus? Do they trust Jesus for their salvation?
In other words, have they all walked back out through the path by which they entered the Kingdom? Obviously, they did not choose the wrong church (there is only one), nor did they join the wrong church (you can’t join; you can only be added).
No, the question is whether they fell away according to the Bible, not are they in error or imperfect or sinners. Yes, they are. We all are.
Please — I beg you — read the books. Then I’d be delighted to talk by phone or email or here at the blog regarding any questions you may have.
I did not see Michael’s response to your blog, but I have been reading the 2 books you wrote and referenced here. I hope Michael takes your advice and reads them.
Grizz
Jay,
Thank you for taking the time to review the book and to share you thoughts with us.
The CofC has traditionally made grace readily available for morale failures to those who get baptism, communion, and IM right. Get those points right and you can have sins wiped out on a daily basis. However, we have taught, or implied, that no matter how devoted to Jesus you are, and how free of moral failures you may be, if your stance on the above mentioned is wrong then there is no grace available for your (perceived) doctrinal error.
Perhaps, many have failed to see the implications of such beliefs. When the above is taught, we are saying God can forgive, say, fornication, but he doesn’t forgive, say, singing with all your heart to God and being accompanied by a piano. How weird is that?
That God takes a hard line approach against people who don’t decipher the code(how to do church) as well as we (think we)have but gives abundant grace to all who know what sin is and commit it anyway and then ask for forgiveness. Now that’s a double standard! One standard of grace for us and one standard of grace for you other guys.
Now, some would come back and want to argue about repentance and such. I understand that. However, my point is that grace is for the undeserving and not for folks that think they got it all right (See the story of the two men who went up to the temple to pray). One man had is “religion” down pat (fasting and praying) but his heart was in the wrong place(conceited and proud).The other man’s “religion”(doing the code right) was in shambles, but his heart was in the right place. (“Lord, be merciful to me a sinner”, he said). Only one man went home justified that day.
Monty comes roaring back 🙂
Jay, I just went to the link for “Do We Teach Another Gospel?” and got a 500 Internal Server Error. The other book downloads just fine.
Monty said, “The CofC has traditionally made grace readily available for morale failures to those who get baptism, communion, and IM right. Get those points right and you can have sins wiped out on a daily basis. However, we have taught, or implied, that no matter how devoted to Jesus you are, and how free of moral failures you may be, if your stance on the above mentioned is wrong then there is no grace available for your (perceived) doctrinal error.”
Bingo! And here’s the rub: even *if* we are 100% correct in our understanding on these practices, our *attitude* toward others’ salvation and our standing with God can render us the teachers of another gospel, if we’ve come to trust our certainty, our rightness, and our obedience rather than trusting in Christ and his grace. In other words, we’ve dodged a cowpie only to step on a landmine.
Having been reared in the hardline Churches of Christ, none of the arguments put forth in this book impressed me. I’m at the point now where I can anticipate these arguments and finish hardliners’ thoughts before they utter them. I’ve been waiting for years for them to start coming up with fresh new ideas. Unfortunately, Mr. Shank’s book is not ground-breaking or even all that useful.
And yes, Mr. Shank, would it have been terribly difficult for you to avail yourself of the services of an actual editor? I don’t mean to be pedantic, but if you can’t construct a simple sentence in modern English, how can I trust you to properly exegete passages of scripture that are thousands of years old? If you can’t spell in your own language, how can you ask us to trust your handling of Greek, Hebrew, or even King James English? You should really seek some help in this matter. It’s not a small issue, certainly not one that can be forgiven just because you wrote a cute little mea culpa on some Amazon reviews..
Thankfully, though, I now have the opportunity to peruse the 2 books recommended in this article. I feel certain that this more than makes up for the time wasted on “Muscle and a Shovel.”
I’m not sure being grammar Nazis and condescending is too productive when trying to win someone over to a more grace-centered view. Quite the opposite, I’m afraid. It would be best to address the ideas and teachings than to make ad hominem attacks.
My 2¢.
Thanks, James. I was thinking the same thing.
Well, in Jay’s defense, we are in the real world where scholarly work is subject to criticism. As Jay pointed out, many readers asked him to review the book and give his take on it. He did so–in a brief manner nonetheless-but is still catching flack. Recall, Jay commented that the book was well written though poorly edited. Keep up the good work Jay.
It wasn’t Jay’s remarks that were ad hominem and condescending. Read some of the comments. They aren’t scholarly criticism, they’re just petty. Recall, the problem I commented on wasn’t the discussion of ideas and the criticism thereof, but personal, petty remarks of mockery of the author.
James is exactly right. Evolutionists and other Atheists levy the same ad hominem attacks against Creationists…”those people are not scholarly enough to deserve a place at the academic table.”
Jay,
I disagree with your reasoning in the “Denominations” section above. You said, “We in the Churches of Christ have a very inconsistent position on joining the church. We are delighted to criticize our “denominational” friends for speaking about “joining” a church. After all, we crow, the Lord “adds” converts to the church. We don’t “join.”
And then we turn around and declare then damned for joining the wrong church — which is, of course, by our own logic, impossible. And indeed it is.”
I don’t think this is inconsistent at all. The Lord does indeed add Christians to His church; however, it is entirely possible for someone to join an institution that is not Christ’s church. That is not logically impossible at all. If Christ’s church exists (and it does) and a man-made institution exists that calls itself a church (I believe that too exists), then it is indeed possible for one to join the man-made institution based on its own man-made rules. Now, we may differ on whether a particular man-made institution is, or is not, the same as Christ’s church, but I’ll wager that we could agree that there is at least one that is clearly not Christ’s church.
I do agree that some on our denominational friends have been added to the Lord’s church by The Lord, but again, it is not inconsistent to also say that some have subsequently joined a man-made institution.
I would say this is true. But it’s also true of that “man-made institution” name-plated as “the churches of Christ”. In this regard, there is no difference between this denomination and the others. Many believers are also members of religion clubs. Members of some religion clubs know that this is not the same as being a part of the Body of Christ, while others conflate their membership in their particular club with their identity in Christ.
Kevin, and possibly others,
I believe that the majority of the confusion about this joining of a church has to deal with the physical assembling or assembly of human bodies. I remember Christ stating specifically that his kingdom (the church or the called out) was not of this world (in reference to this physical world). But in my opinion the church that God adds the saved to is the spiritual church, the spirit that is within us is added to the spiritual kingdom that belongs to Christ. Therefore, all physical assembling of the physical bodies of Christians on this Earth is a man-made or man directed action. Christ is King ruling over these spiritual creations which are contained within our physical bodies, and these spirits are directing our physical bodies in being obedient to Christ. On this Earth there is not and never will be a perfect assembly of physical Christian bodies, anyone that claims to without sin is a lair. Multiple physical bodies gathered together does not create a place of cleanliness (free of sin) or righteousness. A gathering of Spirits that are cleansed from sin and added to His Kingdom, remain sinless by Grace, until that Spirit rebels against God, whether assembled together or not.
Charles,
“But it’s also true of that “man-made institution” name-plated as “the churches of Christ”.”
Would you say that all churches of Christ are man-made institutions and that there are no congregations that are name-plated as a “church of Christ” that represent a manifestation of Christ’s Church on earth?
“But in my opinion the church that God adds the saved to is the spiritual church, the spirit that is within us is added to the spiritual kingdom that belongs to Christ. Therefore, all physical assembling of the physical bodies of Christians on this Earth is a man-made or man directed action.”
Larry,
I have to disagree with you here. If I understand your remarks correctly, you are stating that all physical assemblies of Christians on earth are man-made…i.e. that there is no manifestation of Christ’s Church on earth. That’s not what the Bible teaches. The same Greek word, ekklesia, that is rendered as “church” in Acts 2:47 (Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.) also appears in several other passages in which the context points to a literal, physical manifestation of Christ’s church on earth:
-Acts 5:11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.
-Acts 8:1a And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem;
-Acts 11:22a Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem:
-Acts 13:1a Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers;
If the Christ’s church existed in physical form on earth in the 1st century, there is no reason to believe that it cannot exist in physical form on earth today.
Kevin, every Church of Christ is a man-made institution. And like most other Christian religion clubs, most are a manifestation of Christ’s church in the earth. The fact that some think these to be mutually exclusive ideas is an unfortunate folly. When one Christian religion club thinks, “We are a manifestation of the body of Christ, but those folks in that other club are not,” they raise themselves higher than their brothers. And without any real reason. The church is a spiritual house. We should not conflate it with the creations of our own hands.
Charles,
Thanks for sharing. I am firmly in the group that does see those ideas as mutually exclusive. A particular church either is, or it is not, a congregation of the body of Christ. If a congregation IS a part of the body of Christ, then it IS naturally a part of the universal church; however, if a congregation IS NOT a part of the body of Christ, then it IS NOT a part of the universal church. The congregation cannot be both a part of the body and not a part of the body at the same time. In like manner, a congregation cannot be both a part of the universal church and not a part of the universal church at the same time. Perhaps the congregation is as sound as a congregation can possibly be, or perhaps it is erring significantly. Either way, if it is a manifestation of Christ’s church on earth, then it is most certainly not man-made.
Kevin,
I was not attempting to imply that the church that Christ instituted is not present within those meeting together within a congregation. What I am emphasizing is the physical congregation which we see is made up some very dedicated members, some lukewarm members, some adolescent children and possibly adults, visitors that may attend other congregations, churches and hopefully some of the area residents adults and children that not committed themselves to Christ yet. We should never desire an assembly of a congregation to all be Christians, this would prove that our influence in the outside community was dead. Of course this would only situation where we could boast that our congregation is of Christ’s true Church. My point being, just because some members of the body of Christ are meeting within our assembled congregation the totality of all those meeting are not included in the body because of the presents of some Christians. So now let’s speculate just a little. Could anyone apply a percentage figure of the assembled that would be necessary to claim the title of The Lord’s Church to the whole physical body? This is the problem of the physical. But, if we compare the spiritual portion of the Church with the same assembly, it matters not if only a small number of Christian Spirits are assembled with others that are not Christians, the true Church is still assembled. Anywhere Christians are assembled it is the true Church, but others assembling with them are not sanctified or made part of the Family of God by their attendance. I see this as how the true Church of Christ or Christians can exist anywhere in this physical world, whether in prison, in bondage, under the severest of oppression that this physical world can offer. Christ’s Church exists within individuals. The Church is still the Church while it is not assembled. It is totally out of order to refer to a congregation only while it is assembled as being The Church. A congregation is never fully in or out of The Church. God will not save Christians by congregations, nor will he condemn those in congregations as a total body. God holds each man in account.
WE are the manifestation of the Body of Christ. A 501c(3) corporation with a board of trustees is NOT, no matter how “sound” it may be. If a believer can “become a member” of your club, it is not the church, for the believer is already a member of the church. We can be part of both, just like you can be a member of the Lions Club and an Indian tribe. The main problem with conflating the club and the church is that people often establish an identity with their club which eventually takes the place of their place in the church. It’s like having a wife and a sister. Both are wonderful, but woe to the man who cannot tell which is which.
While I see many inconsistent arguments/falsehoods throughout this book, the point I am most grieved to see is the claim that the Bible does not teach that we can have a personal relationship with Christ.
“having a personal relationship with Jesus is a hoax. It’s one of the greatest false teaching of modern-day religion…it’s not taught anywhere in God’s Word.” (page 108)
Christ disagrees: “Now this is eternal life:that they may know you, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” (John 17:3) Would the author think it more Biblical to have an impersonal relationship with Christ? Is it best to approach Christ as a stranger or only as a group? Should we not seek to know the Lord? Jesus said”I know my sheep and my sheep know Me- just as the Father knows me and I know the Father.” (Jn 10:14-15) Jesus also said to love the Lord our God; love implies relationship. Love is personal. The Bible refers to a believer as a child, adoptee, son, friend, citizen of heaven, member of Christ’s body – all of these imply close connection, affiliation and interaction, which are the words Webster uses to define the word “relationship.”
Having a “personal relationship” can be used by some as a catchy phrase, but it is Biblical. It is never wrong to encourage anyone to spend daily time with Christ and to see it as a personal, individual, intimate and ongoing relationship.
May,
Not necessarily. It all depends on what one means by “personal relationship.” I know people who utter that phrase and mean that Jesus leads them personally through intuition regardless of what is found in scripture. I think you and the author are talking about two different things.
Larry,
Thanks for clarifying.
Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would make known to us what is of Jesus. Kevin, we are not led by intuition, but by the Spirit of God. Personally. In real time. Just like earliest believers were. I think May understood Brother Shanks position quite well and posed her objection quite fairly. Shank’s gospel of intellect and effort is first and last a false gospel. The number of copies of that book snapped up by members of the CoC saddens me greatly.
No, I disagree. I think the author has read and would agree with the passages to which May refers. I don’t think he would disagree with her statements above and the way that she defines (at least in this post) “personal” relationship. I suspect this is not the “personal relationship” to which the author is referring in the book. My family members who use this term certainly go well beyond what May mentions.
Are they baptized for remission of sins acts 2:38. Are they in Christ gal 3:27. Are they heirs according to the promise because they are christ’s and of the seed of Abraham. Who received the promise. Do they have the Ernest of the Holy Spirit which is received upon baptism acts 2:38. Another question what about Paul why do you think he talked so much about being in Christ. I was babtized into the father the son and the Holy Ghost. I am Christian only there still a lot of Adams and eves wanting to do it there way. Look up if you love me you will keep my commandments. I don’t want to take a chance with my soul. I’m digging in the scipture and every other man better be like the berians. They were noble. No man has authority only god’s word. Trust in the word. It says my people or dying for lack of knoeledge
“Take a chance with my soul?” What does that mean, exactly?
this book is nothing more than a moment of good clean fun and the understanding of one mans experience. its not doctrine or anything more than a imperfect humans story. Cofc is far from “just another denomination, or bible club” we are the body of Christ submitting all authority to him. Episcopalian, baptist, mormon, methodist, catholic or any other group claiming to hold to Christ and wearing any title other than Christian are completely mislead. Christ built one church and condemns division, wearing a man made title as a symbol of your religious beliefs puts that soul in error among many other things this world would like to pass around as ok. I believe Joshua said it rather clearly in Joshua 24:9-15, paul in romans 16:16, and in titus 1:1-3. I don’t claim to be perfect but like minded as paul I will continue to press on toward the goal, Philippians 3:12-16. May you all have a blessed day
Samuel wrote,
Samuel,
Do you want to maybe reconsider what you just said? The book is chock full of doctrinal arguments. Why pretend otherwise? I’ve read the book. Yes, it’s also a story of an imperfect human, but it’s the story of his discovery of the doctrinal views of one element of the Churches of Christ.
I’m happy for you to defend his work, but let’s not pretend it’s something other than what it plainly is.
In other words, you say that everyone else is damned because they aren’t part of the body of Christ, as the body of Christ is exactly co-extensive with the Churches of Christ? Seriously?
Do you seriously believe that only those in the Churches of Christ submit to the authority of Jesus? Again, Christians are required to be honest, in all things but especially when they discuss matters related to Jesus. And it’s just not true that the Churches of Christ are the only ones who seek to submit to the authority of Jesus.
As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
Really? Where is the Bible are we required to wear the title “Christian”? It’s certainly authorized, but is it mandatory?
And given that the Episcopalians, Baptists, etc. ALSO called themselves Christians, why do they fail this test? And even if it’s somehow sin to call oneself a Methodist (as well as a Christian), why is this sin so reprehensible as to necessarily exclude every Methodist on the planet from God’s grace? Indeed, where in your understanding is there room for God’s grace?
And so, if wearing the title “Methodist” is error, does that mean that it damns? Does all error damn? Or is it just certain errors? And if just certain errors, how can I tell which ones damn and which ones don’t?
Delighted that you don’t claim perfection, but why is it that you’re saved despite your imperfections and the Methodists are not? Why do you receive grace for your errors and the Methodists do not receive grace for theirs?
Your entire arguments runs along these lines:
1. Look! I found an error that every believer is guilty of other than those in the Churches of Christ. (Not true; there are other denominations that refuse all titles other than “Christian.”)
2. Because they are in error, they are damned. (Really? There’s no grace for error? Any error at all or just this special error?)
3. Therefore, only those in the Churches of Christ are saved. (And no one in the Churches of Christ is guilty of error? Or is God only really concerned about whether we call ourselves “Christian” and not both “Christian” and “Baptist.” Which means, I suppose, that those who admit to being “institutional” or “multi-cup” are also damned because they use labels in addition to “Christian.”)
This whole line of reasoning is based on bad facts, bad logic, and really bad exegesis.
I find it sad that we can’t seem to just do what Jesus ask us to do in life. Love never fails. To have the idea that everyone is out of step but Johnny is not a teaching of our Savior.
Jesus said, “if you love me you will keep my commandments” John 14:15. We have to be careful not to let our feeling (emotions) get in the way. Remember, God is the same God that was from the beginning of time. Remember what happened to Sodom, Lot’s wife, and many countless other events where destruction was the punishment for not obeying. The same will come to those who are not willing to obey God’s New Testament commandments.
Lloyd,
You write in favor of keeping God’s “commandments” and I agree that we ought to obey God’s commandments under the new covenant put in force by the shedding of Jesus’ blood and His death. To be clear, though, could you list what you meant by “God’s commandments under the new covenant??
I just want to be sure we’re talking about the same thing. Okay?
Grizz
Interesting you accuse another brother of being a false teacher and who preaches/writes a ‘false gospel’, strong charge indeed, hope you have a lot of God behind you on that. Hate to accuse a brother of being a false teacher, when God Himself hasn’t. From an elder who firmly believes in grace covering doctrinal errors, and would afford that grace to every other religion but can’t afford any grace to brother Shank. (‘and grace is there to cover our mistakes, both our moral errors and our doctrinal errors.’)
Also interestingly enough you state ‘This is not say that obedience and works don’t matter, but that they aren’t the path to salvation.’ Something that couldn’t be far from biblical truth. ‘He became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey Him…. Hebrews 5:9, along with countless other scriptures on obedience. As for works James would say that they matter that much that our faith is dead without them 2:14-26. As for genuine faith, I would side with Jesus when He says it is to do the will of the Father.
In Christ
Paul McGinty
Paul, at some point, we must differentiate between those who merely teach that we should obey God and those who would also provide us with a different path to eternal life than what Jesus said. We are reconciled to God by faith in Jesus Christ. This is God’s gift to us. Jesus directly says that the one who believes HAS eternal life and will not be condemned, that he has crossed over from death to life. The one who would deny or marginalize this reality offers us a different gospel than the one Jesus has revealed. The one who offers us the keys of “intellect and effort” to open the doors of the Kingdom has contradicted the Lord of Glory. Such a one is not merely mistaken on a minor point of doctrine, nor on a matter of freedom, nor simply misunderstands a few passages. Such a one goes to the core of mankind’s reconciliation with our Creator and denies the source of its power and its efficacy.
Neither Jay Guin nor Ed Fudge are known for reactionary or aggressive approaches to brethren who disagree with them. Heaven knows Jay and I have disagreed sharply on this or that, and I have always been shown respect. But Shank teaches damnation (“headed toward eternal destruction”) for membership in any clan other than his own, even for one who believes in Jesus. This is simply not true. One who makes threats on God’s behalf when God has made no such threat is not to be listened to. He is, rather by definition, a false prophet who repeatedly says “God has said” what in fact, God has NOT said. God has not threatened to kill his sons if they join a religion club which has “Baptist” on the letterhead.
Oh, and this old canard about “It’s not about what I think, but about what the Bible says” is so clearly disingenuous that every time I hear it, I wait for the human interpretation about to be offered. I am seldom disappointed.
It’s like going to a used car lot called “Honest John’s”. If he really was honest, he wouldn’t have to tell us. It’s like a father who beats his son unmercifully for an offense and says, “It’s for your own good.” It sounds good, but we all know better.
Charles
Thank you for your reply. I completely agree we must differentiate, bible gives us continuous warnings about false gospels, false teachers and those who would twist the message etc but tell me what is so false about brothers Shanks message? You quote Jesus but I also think you know we can’t just quote one passage and state that settles it. Because as you say, ‘nor simply misunderstands a few passages’, could one not bring the charge that you have misunderstood the passage that you quote from John 5:24? You state a false prophet is (and I agree) one who says God has said when in fact God has NOT’ So when did God say ‘The one who offers us the keys of “intellect and effort” to open the doors of the Kingdom has contradicted the Lord of Glory.’ As far as the Apostle Paul would say it is a ‘faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life.’
As for threats, if I said one who denies that Jesus has come in the flesh is antichrist and therefore hell bound, would you state this simply is not true?
You say Shank teaches damnation (“headed toward eternal destruction”) for membership in any clan other than his own, even for one who believes in Jesus. (I let brother Shank reply to that) but as far as I understand he simply states being in Christ, (I think his clan is other brothers and sisters in Christ). Can one claim salvation and not be in Christ? You understand you can claim to believe in Christ and yet not be in Christ. Our Lord was clear on this: ‘not everyone who says Lord, Lord…’.Even people who will do great things in His name, Jesus will declare ‘I never knew you’. The Gnostics believed in Jesus yet the Apostle John calls them antichrist. Jehovah Witnesses believe in Jesus as do Mormons, would grace cover their doctrinal errors? Would you say ‘Jesus directly says that the one who believes HAS eternal life and will not be condemned, that he has crossed over from death to life.’ for JWs, Muslims and Mormons? You state ‘The one who would deny or marginalize this reality offers us a different gospel than the one Jesus has revealed. ‘For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than was preached… 2 Cor 11:4. So what is this different gospel you speak off? And how does one deny or marginalize this reality?
You state ‘God has not threatened to kill his sons if they join a religion club which has “Baptist” on the letterhead.’ Again would you include: JWs, Mormon, Unitarian, Pentecostal, on the same letterhead? But in the same breath you believe God will kill his sons (brother Shank) because he teaches damnation and offers a different gospel! ‘If one teaches a different gospel let them be eternally condemned.’ Gal 1:9 Tell me doesn’t brother Shank believe in Jesus? Or is his Jesus completely different from yours? I leave you with this please help me understand what gospel brother Shank is teaching that is so damning? Thanks again for your reply, look forward to hearing from you.
In Christ
Paul
If your faith is in the name on the door, whether you worship in exactly the right way, whether you understand completely what baptism means, on your ability to follow rules based on conjecture of what silences mean, anything other than faith/faithfulness in Christ as King then you should carefully study Galatians. Salvation is based on His grace accessed through faith, it can not be earned and adding requirements to that is a false gospel.
Tell me Johnny if a Mormon’s faith is in the name on the door, (as Mormon’s do place their faith in Jesus. Their Articles of Faith state 3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. 4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are: first Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ) would you accept him as your brother?
Paul
I am friends with several Mormons and while they are good moral people I do not believe they are Christians. I base this on their belief about the nature of Jesus. The “Jesus” they believe in is just not the Jesus revealed in scripture. They also have a works based belief system in where one earns their position in the afterlife.
Paul,
I’ve written a reply to your comment that will appear as a post tomorrow morning. Please take a look and let me know what you think either in the comments or by private email.
Jay
Johnny just a couple of things if I may, you seem to know the difference between someone who has the correct faith in Jesus and someone who has a faith in Jesus but that faith won’t save him because he places his faith in a false Christ, as you clearly state the Mormons do, could you explain who Jesus is and what it means to place your faith in him? And just one other thing, what would be an example of an ‘adding requirement’ to placing your faith in Him? Would baptism (as you bring up Galatians 3:26-27) be one of those adding requirements? Thank you.
Paul
Pingback: “Muscle and a Shovel”: In Reply to Paul McGinty | One In JesusOne In Jesus
Paul, have you thoroughly studied Mormonism? They believe they will become God’s like Jesus. They believe our Bible is corrupted and thus they only trust the book of Mormon. They taught and practiced polygamy. They won’t allow a Christian to worship with them in their temple…
Paul, I think Jay answered your question better than my meager ability to do so would have.
Skip I have studied mormonism thouroughly, my point was simply to say you can’t make a blanket statement ‘all you need to do is have faith in the name on the door’. I’m afriad there is lot more to it than that.
Actually Johnny Jay didn’t really answer. I have replied in detail to him,(will post it here) one being simply that he didn’t reply to my questions. And Johnny I think your meager ability would be alright.
Jay, thank you for your reply. I have taken careful considerations to your reply I only ask you give me the same curtsy. It is long so please bear with me.
As you have concerns for the souls of brothers and sisters in the conservative Churches of Christ, do you have equal concern for brothers and sisters in the liberal Churches of Christ? Just on the point of being conservative, how would you define conservative? As I look at Jesus and how He lived and some of the things he taught I wouldn’t call Him conservative, ‘give up everything’ I would call Him an extremists, am I wrong there? Also I take it when you say ‘fear of souls,’ you believe the conservative brother is lost? So it would help if you define what a conservative is and how your soul is in danger of being lost if you’re a conservative Christian?
Let me start with what you state at the end of your comment:
‘My request of you and the rest of the Churches of Christ is simple: trust God’s promises. Please.’
So you assume then I don’t trust God’s promises. Amazing, you don’t even know me and get from a post that I don’t trust God? And were in that post do you see that I don’t trust God again? Since you’re a blunt man (calling someone a false teacher and damning souls because they are conservative is pretty blunt), please allow me to be blunt myself.
I’m really not sure why you gave this long post, you state this is in reply to my comments, which for one you didn’t address and didn’t reply to the things I asked you. I asked you for the evidence that shows Michael Shank is a false teacher. Just as a side note I did reply to Royce, here is what I said, since he probably would notify you anyway:
‘Jesus says ‘anyone who says ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell’
I read Edward’s comment, I’m wondering if you, like Edward Fudge know Michael Shank that well to call him a false teacher, who teaches a horrendous gospel and is blatantly sectarian, a strong charge indeed. Will you be like Edward totally confident on the day of judgment, accusing Michael Shank, knowing that God will be able to see that when the crunch came you were not silent but confidently condemned brother Shank? Also shouldn’t you not also condemn the ‘Christian Chronicle’ for endorsing such a false teacher and promoting this horrendous false gospel?’
I would also ask the same of you, should you condemn the ‘Christian Chronicle’ for endorsing such a false teacher and promoting this horrendous false gospel?
You also state that grace covers our doctrinal errors (but apparently not Shanks) and please could you post the Scripture that states ‘grace covers our doctrinal errors’, as yet I’ve searched and cannot find it, only warnings not to change, twist, let go off, and not put up with other doctrines. Also one who is so enamored with grace you sure do a lot of condemning especially the conservative churches.
You didn’t address Hebrews: ‘Jesus is the source of salvation to those who obey’. Again I ask is obedience necessary for salvation? You seem to think it is not ‘This is not say that obedience and works don’t matter, but that they aren’t the path to salvation.’
You didn’t address James faith without works is dead. You go into this long dissertation about faith, which I don’t deny, have never denied, and then finish of with a request that I trust God, of course again clearly implying that I don’t. Amazing you get that from one post. Your main point seems to be a cappella which I didn’t even mention on my post and the fact is I don’t have a problem with worshipping with an instrument, not sure why you constantly bring this up.
But please allow me to address some of the things in your comments:
You constantly bring up faith in Jesus to which I never have never will disagree with, so I’m not sure why you would bring this up. Do you understand why I put my faith in Jesus and how I understand what it means to put my faith in Jesus?
You state: “Indeed, the issue was rarely whether Jesus really walked the earth but whether he is Lord and whether we submit to him as such. And to submit to someone as Lord involves both faithfulness and trust.’”
I think the Apostle John would strongly disagree with you on this point, to deny that Christ came in the flesh (walked on this earth in human form) is antichrist.
You state: “Certain Judaizing teachers were insisting that believers in Jesus could not be saved merely based on faith. They taught that circumcision was also necessary, because the Torah commands circumcision. But Paul teaches that faith is sufficient.”
And many will insist that believers in Jesus can only be saved merely based on faith alone and they would say that baptism is an added requirement to that faith, so therefore it is wrong. But you don’t believe this right; ‘Therefore, we enter salvation by faith (normally at the moment of water baptism).
You state: “Study v. 6 very carefully. (Gal 5:6 ESV) 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. Note the “only.” Paul’s argument is that circumcision may not be added, not because circumcision is a wicked practice, but because it’s not faith working through love. And this is the culmination of an argument that goes all the way back to chapter 2, insisting on the sufficiency of faith –“
His argument is not that circumcision may not be added, or ‘because it’s not faith working through love’, it was because they were saying you had to be circumcised, you just stated it yourself ‘They taught that circumcision was also necessary, because the Torah commands circumcision.’ It was a salvation issue, remember to be circumcised also represents the keeping of the law of Moses, that is why the Jews we calling upon people to be circumcised Acts 15 to be saved. Paul’s argument is not that circumcision may not be added, he circumcised, but that you can’t claim circumcision in order to be saved, not because it’s not faith working through love, its part of a dead law. Since you bring up Galatians, that is the argument Paul is putting forth ‘Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to OBEY THE WHOLE LAW’ 5:3. The Jews were stating you have to be circumcised; you have to be justified by keeping the old law. So just on your exegesis do you believe baptism is faith working through love?
You state: “Paul argues to the same effect in Romans. How does this fit with the meaning of “faith”? Well, God promised Abraham and Israel, through the prophets, to save those with faith. Either we trust God’s promises or we don’t. If we trust him, then we don’t need to add a cappella music to faith as a second salvation issue”.
Again you bring up a cappella is that your main issue? Are you equating a cappella with circumcision, you have to be circumcised in order to be saved? You can only worship a cappella to be saved? Again I don’t believe a cappella is a salvation issue. And again simply add instruments to where you worship.
You state: “ the usual retort at this point is to cry that we must obey God, which, of course, we must do because obedience is a natural, inevitable, necessary result of having faith. Faith will always produce obedience because faith includes submission to Jesus as Lord, as explained above.’”
But you still didn’t address the point is salvation based on obedience? You say we must do because obedience is a natural result but again I ask you is it necessary?
You state: “The next retort is to insist that obedience requires a cappella singing only. But in making that argument, we make a subtle shift in the meaning of “obedience.” In normal English and normal Greek, I can say that my son is “obedient” to me, even though he sometimes disobeys. Otherwise, there’d be no obedient children at all!”
Got to be honest with you Jay you keep bring up a cappella is that the false gospel you talk about, you have to worship a cappella?
You state: “You see, the normal meaning of “obedient” is that the person’s heart is in submission and wants to obey and so normally does obey. But obedience does not require perfect obedience — or we’d all be damned.”
Not sure who is saying ‘obedience requires perfect obedience anyway, but the bible does call for obedience for salvation, just like faith, confession, repentance etc .
You state: “if someone were to sing with instruments unaware of this rule, we’d still refer to such a person as obedient. That’s a fact. Indeed, even if someone mailed them a tract on a cappella singing and that person were unconvinced, without rebelling, honestly intending to obey, they’d still be “obedient.” Obedience is a state of the heart — or else we’re all damned, because none of us is perfectly obedient.”
‘And so, even if a cappella singing only is really required, So are you saying a cappella is only required? If someone was to sing with instruments they would be fine because no where in the bible does God condemn someone for worshipping Him with an instrument. There is no need to be ‘unaware of this rule’ there is no rule in the bible that states you cannot worship God with an instrument.
You state: “You see, your and my salvation does not depend on our being experts in theology or hermeneutics. It depends on our having enough faith to confess our Lord and submit to baptism. And then we really are saved.’”
First of all where does faith come from? ‘faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.’ Romans 10:17. So it does depend on being experts in the message of Christ right. Because someone can come along and say ‘hey Jay Jesus is not God, but was created by God, place your faith in Him.’ And you would have no problem with that theology right? Our salvation depends on our knowledge of Jesus, ‘a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life’. Again if my theology is Jesus is a created being but I still accept him as savior are you saying it wouldn’t matter as long as you have faith?
You state: “And I am saddened and dismayed beyond my ability to express by the fact that so many in the Churches of Christ do not trust Jesus enough to believe his promises.”
‘So many….’ not sure that I have personally been with countless churches of Christ to make the comment that so many do not trust Jesus, again a bold statement to condemn so many who do not trust Jesus.
You state: “‘(Gal 5:5 NET) 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait expectantly for the hope of righteousness. Do you do that? By faith in Jesus or by faith in your understanding of a cappella singing and weekly communion? Is your confidence in Jesus or in your own understanding of how to discern the silences of the texts?”
You’re the one who keeps bringing up a cappella, then changed and use instruments and see what reaction you will get at your own congregation. Change the weekly communion to monthly as well? Yes my confidence is in Jesus and no I don’t discern the silence of the Scriptures, man lives on the very words of God not the silence of them.
You state: “Gal 5:6 NET) 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision carries any weight – the only thing that matters is faith working through love. ‘Do you trust that promise? Really trust that that only thing matters is faith in Jesus working through love? I do. But if you think a baptized believer must understand the necessity of engaging in five acts of worship weekly on a Sunday to be saved, then you just don’t trust the promise.”
So do you really trust that promise? Don’t you believe your congregations must understand the five acts of worship weekly on a Sunday to be saved, otherwise again use an instrument, partake monthly, give quarterly etc. these things are not the necessity, so you won’t have a problem changing them or if members of your flock do not participate in them or agree with them.
You state: “‘And the very sad result of this lack of trust is the very, very long list of things that must be believed in addition to the Lordship and Messiahship of Jesus to be saved. Indeed, the conservative Churches of Christ seem to be adding to the list of “salvation issues” every year — and each addition takes away that much more hope from the unfortunate members who must agree with the preacher on hundreds of obscure doctrinal points — many built entirely on silence.”
So the list would include what….. Worshiping a cappella, having to give on the first day of the week, have to take communion weekly, have to meet twice on Sunday, have to meet on a Sunday….. again you will change these right because they are not “salvation issues.
‘Churches of Christ have a long heritage of a cappella worship, that is, we sing without instruments. Words and music will be projected on screens to help everyone participate.’
Is this act of worship (a cappella) simply a tradition built entirely on silence?
I know this was long but I do hope you will read with an open mind as I have done and I look forward to your reply.
Yours in Christ
Paul
Thought these facts were of interest to the above referenced A Capella singing:
Present-day Christian religious bodies known for conducting their worship services without musical accompaniment include some Presbyterian churches devoted to the regulative principle of worship, Old Regular Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Plymouth Brethren, Churches of Christ, the Old German Baptist Brethren, the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church and the Amish, Old Order Mennonites and Conservative Mennonites. Certain high church services and other musical events in liturgical churches (such as the Roman Catholic Mass and the Lutheran Divine Service) may be a cappella, a practice remaining from apostolic times. Many Mennonites also conduct some or all of their services without instruments. Sacred Harp, a type of folk music, is an a cappella style of religious singing with shape notes, usually sung at singing conventions.
Opponents of musical instruments in the Christian worship believe that such opposition is supported by the Christian scriptures and Church history. The scriptures typically referenced are Matthew 26:30; Acts 16:25; Romans 15:9; 1 Corinthians 14:15; Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16; Hebrews 2:12, 13:15; James 5:13, which show examples and exhortations for Christians to sing.[9]
There is no reference to instrumental music in early church worship in the New Testament, or in the worship of churches for the first six centuries.[10][11] Several reasons have been posited throughout church history for the absence of instrumental music in church worship.[nb 1]
Christians who believe in a cappella music today believe that in the Israelite worship assembly during Temple worship only the Priests of Levi sang, played, and offered animal sacrifices, whereas in the church era, all Christians are commanded to sing praises to God. They believe that if God wanted instrumental music in New Testament worship, He would have commanded not just singing, but singing and playing like he did in the Hebrew scriptures.
The first recorded example of a musical instrument in Roman Catholic worship was a pipe organ introduced by Pope Vitalian into a cathedral in Rome around 670.[13][nb 2]
Instruments have divided Christendom since their introduction into worship. They were considered a Catholic innovation, not widely practiced until the 18th century, and were opposed vigorously in worship by a number of Protestant Reformers, including Martin Luther (1483–1546),[15] Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin (1509–1564)[16] and John Wesley (1703–1791).[17] Alexander Campbell referred to the use of an instrument in worship as “a cow bell in a concert”.[18] In Sir Walter Scott’s The Heart of Midlothian, the heroine, Jeanie Deans, a Scottish Presbyterian, writes to her father about the church situation she has found in England (bold added):
This came from Wikipedia which is nuetral in all respects to religion. No instruments until the organ un 670 A.D.? Wonder why? Not widely practiced until the 18th century, why? Aren’t we suppose to be the 1st century Church in the 21st Century?
Before I respond in detail, Lloyd help me out here do you, not what history or Wikipedia says, do you believe the bible teaches it is sinful, wicked, evil whatever word you want to chose, to worship God with an instrument and therefore a salvation issue?
This is a Sermon outline that for sake of me typing it all again I posted for you. It is exactly how Worship in the Physical sense is gone and Worship in the Spiritual sense has taken its place in everything we do.
INTRODUCTION
1. At Jacob’s well, Jesus and the Samaritan woman discussed the matter
of worship…
a. Samaritans and Jews differed as to where one should worship – Jn 4:20
1) Samaritans believed they should worship on Mt. Gerazim
2) Jews understood that it should be in Jerusalem
b. Jesus said the time was coming for a different kind of worship
– Jn 4:21-24
1) Where worship would not be defined by its location (though Jews
had been right)
2) Where true worshippers would worship the Father in spirit and
truth
2. What does it mean to worship the Father in spirit and truth? Many
say it means…
a. To worship God from the heart (“in spirit”)
b. To worship God as He directs in His Word (“and truth”)
3. Yet note the contrast made by Jesus…
a. The Jews had worshipped correctly by going to Jerusalem
b. But the time was coming when place would not be important
— A contrast is being made between OT worship and NT worship
4. Somehow Old Testament (OT) worship had not been “in spirit and
truth”…
a. Yet God required worship from the heart from the Jews – cf. Deu
6:4-7; Isa 1:10-18
b. And God required worship as directed by His Word – cf. Deut 5:32-33
[If “in spirit and truth” does not mean “from the heart and in harmony
with God’s Word”, then what does it mean? Let’s first consider…]
I. WORSHIPPING GOD IN SPIRIT
A. MEANS TO OFFER “SPIRITUAL” WORSHIP…
1. In contrast to that which is mostly physical
2. This explanation is in keeping with the context – cf. Jn 4:24
a. Jesus began by saying “God is Spirit…”
b. The worship of God is to be “in spirit” (i.e., spiritual)
3. Note these comments:
a. “…men must offer a worship corresponding with the nature
and attributes of God.” – J. W. McGarvey
b. “Since he is Spirit, he must receive spiritual worship…”
– B.W. Johnson
c. “A pure, a holy, a spiritual worship, therefore, is such as
he seeks the offering of the soul rather than the formal
offering of the body – the homage of the heart rather than
that of the lips.” – Albert Barnes
— A worship was coming that was more in keeping with God’s
nature!
B. AS OPPOSED TO “CARNAL” ORDINANCES…
1. OT worship consisted of carnal (fleshly) ordinances – cf. He 9:1-10
a. A physical structure (tabernacle)
b. Special priesthood, clothing for priests
c. Lamp stands, burning incense
d. Instruments of music
e. Feast days
f. Animal and meal sacrifices
— All which appealed to the carnal or physical senses of man
2. NT worship is geared more toward the spiritual side of man:
a. God’s temple is now spiritual, made up of Christians – 1Co 3:16; Ep 2:19-22
b. All Christians are priests, offering up spiritual sacrifices
– 1Pe 2:5,9
c. Our prayers are as sweet incense – Re 5:8
d. Our music is making melody with the heart, not the harp – Ep 5:19
e. The Lord’s Supper – Ac 20:7; 1Co 10:16-17; 11:17-34
f. Spiritual sacrifices of praise and service – He 13:15; Ro 12:1-2
— The emphasis is on the spirit of man, not his physical
senses!
[Physical ordinances of the Old Covenant were until “the time of
reformation” (He 9:9-10), which occurred with the coming of the New
Covenant. As Jesus proclaimed, the new worship is more in keeping with
the nature of God (“God is Spirit…”), designed to relate more to the
spiritual side of man. Now let’s examine…]
II. WORSHIPPING GOD IN TRUTH
A. MEANS TO OFFER “TRUE (REAL)” WORSHIP…
1. To worship according to the commands of God?
a. Certainly we should do this
b. But this is no contrast to what God expected in the OT – cf.
Deut 5:32-33
c. Jesus admitted that the Jews were right in their worship
– Jn 4:22
2. What then is the contrast between worship that was and that
which “now is”?
a. Not between true and false worship
b. But between that which is true (real) and that which had
been a shadow
— A worship was coming that was more in keeping with truth and
reality
B. AS OPPOSED TO “SHADOW (SYMBOL)” WORSHIP…
1. Many elements of worship in the OT were simply a shadow or
figure of that to come
a. The Tabernacle was a symbol – He 9:8-9
b. The Law with its worship was only a shadow of that to come
– He 10:1
2. Christ is now in the true tabernacle (heaven)- He 9:11-12,24
a. We should expect the worship of the true to be different
from that of the shadow
b. We have already seen that to be the case:
1) Old Covenant worship, which was but a shadow, was
physical in nature
2) New Covenant worship is according to the true realities
(God is Spirit, Christ in heaven) and is therefore more
spiritual in nature
— The emphasis is on that which is true (real), not which was a
shadowy symbol of things to come
[This explanation of worshipping God “in spirit and truth” is more in
keeping with the immediate context. Since God is seeking “true
worshippers” who worship Him accordingly (Jn 4:23), some thoughts about
our worship today may be appropriate…]
III. WORSHIPPING GOD TODAY
A. NOT ALL WORSHIP IS ACCEPTABLE…
1. There is vain worship – Mt 15:7-9
a. Based on traditions of men, while ignoring the commands of
God
b. Offered without involving our “hearts” (spirits)
2. There is ignorant worship – Ac 17:22-23
a. Ignorant of the true nature of God
b. Ignorant of the worship He desires
3. There is will worship – Col 2:20-23 (KJV)
a. Self-imposed, not God-directed
b. What we like, what we think is good
— Just because we worship God, does not mean He is pleased with
our worship!
B. MANY OFFER CARNAL WORSHIP…
1. When they appeal to the OT for their authority for how they
worship
a. For instrumental music, burning incense, clapping, etc.
b. They seek to justify that which appeals to the flesh
(senses), not the spirit
2. When they offer that which appeals to their fleshly nature
a. Preferring what is based on how it sounds
b. Preferring what is based on how it feels
— Striving to be more spiritual, some revert to becoming more
carnal, a reason to be concerned (cf. Ga 4:9-11)!
C. GOD SEEKS TRUE WORSHIPPERS…
1. Who worship God “…with their spirits” – Matthew Poole
a. Seeking to engage the spirit (mind) more than the organs of
the body
b. Content with the simplicity of worship that stresses the
spiritual side of man
2. Who worship God “…according to the rule that he hath
prescribed, in truth and reality.” – ibid.
a. Not desiring to return to the carnal ordinances imposed
until a time of reformation
b. Content with the worship ordained in the New Covenant
3. Who can worship God anywhere, anytime, with true spiritual
worship – e.g., Ac 16:25
— God seeks such worshippers, who seek to worship Him in spirit
and truth!
CONCLUSION
1. Matthew Poole offered this explanation of our text in his
commentary…
“God…is a spiritual Being, the Father of spirits, and requires
a spiritual service proportioned to His being; and therefore those
that pay a religious homage to him, must do it with their spirits,
and according to the rule that he hath prescribed, in truth and
reality.”
2. How can we be sure to offer spiritual and true worship acceptable to
God…?
a. Look to the New Testament for our authority in worship!
b. Worship in ways ordained by Christ and His apostles! – cf. Ac 2:42
3. As God is Spirit…
a. Our worship should be spiritual and not limited to special places
b. The emphasis should be on the spiritual (e.g., meaning of the
words), and not the physical (e.g., how it looks, sounds, feels)
Remember…
“…the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will
worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking
such to worship Him.”
Lloyd,
You posted this twice. It was automatically moderated by my spam software due to its length. I’ve allowed one of the two posts to appear.
Ultimately, your argument depends on the Regulative Principle, the theory that silence is a prohibition and that authority is required for each particular of worship. We’ve covered it many times here and I’ll not bore the readers with a repeated rebuttal. However, doesn’t it seem odd that Jesus would be interpreted as saying to the Samaritan woman “Look to the New Testament for our authority in worship!” That seems highly unlikely that Jesus meant her to understand that, given that not a book of the NT was written when he spoke to her.
Paul and Lloyd,
I’m not insisting, but we’ve covered the instrumental music controversy here many times. And the point I’ve been trying to make is that it’s not a salvation issue, regardless of who is right on the question. Too often, we assume that “being right” = “salvation issue.” Therefore, when we ask whether IM is a salvation issue, we pull out the traditional — and VERY familiar — IM arguments — when we’d be far better off expending our energies asking whether all error damns or all sin damns or why it is that IM damns and so many other errors and sins do not. What is the standard that tells us which sins are damnable and which are not? You see, even if you were to prove beyond all doubt that God considers IM worship a sin, you’d not have shown that he damns for that sin — it’s two very different questions.
Lloyd in all that you still never answered the question, DO YOU believe that using an instrument in worship, is sinful, wicked, evil etc Do YOU believe it is a salvation issue? DO YOU believe the bbile clearly teaches this?
Paul wrote,
Paul,
Christians who violate the teachings of Gal 5:1-7 are in danger of falling from grace. I’ve already explained how I believe certain conservative Church of Christ teachings violate this passage — particularly the claim that certain practices, such as instrumental music, damn even when participated in by faithful baptized believers in all good faith, utterly without rebellion.
I’m gratified that Paul’s teaching in Galatians seems to be primarily pointed at those who teach this error, as opposed to their victims.
I accused him of teaching a false gospel. And, yes, having read his book as well as his web site, it’s true. He teaches that all those in denominations other than the Churches of Christ are damned because, among other reasons, they use instrumental music. He even says this on his website. And this is not only false, it’s false because he makes the error condemned by Paul in Galatians.
I have not declared him damned. I’ve said he teaches a false gospel. I believe that, and I’ve studied the issue in great detail. I think the right thing to do is to warn those who are in jeopardy because they appear to be in violation of Galatians.
Frankly, I was none too happy when my studies of Galatians led me to this conclusion, because I knew that having seen this, I’m obligated to issue a warning. And I knew I’d be criticized for not being gracious on this issue when I’m so gracious on others.
But this particular error divides the church. It causes Christians to declare Christians of all other denominations to be damned. And it makes it impossible for Christendom to display the unity for which Jesus prayed
It seriously harms the evangelistic efforts of the Churches of Christ. This “we’re the only ones going to heaven” attitude closes a lot of doors. And it causes people — people I know and hear from all the time — to doubt their salvation because they don’t think they’ll ever measure up.
I appreciate reader Alabama John reminding us over and over of the good people who die in the Churches of Christ in terror that they’ve “not done enough.” And I’ve seen it, too.
I’ve also seen people die knowing the grace of God, comfortable of their welcome into Jesus’ arms. I know which kind of death I want to die.
[to be continued]
And I don’t think the Christian Chronicle has “endorsed” point of view. They’ve reported it.
Would you argue that “iniquities” does not include doctrinal error? Do you seriously contend that any doctrinal error at all damns?
On the other hand, I’m sure we agree that some doctrinal error does damn. If you deny that Jesus is the Christ, you are not saved. So how do we draw the line? Well, I offered my understanding in the post. What is yours? Where is the line? Or do you contend that every error damns?
Obviously, the Hebrews writer says nothing of faith, and yet faith is essential. How can this be? Get the context —
We’re also told that Jesus learned obedience and therefore became a “source of eternal salvation” to those who obey. Why?
I forget where I first heard this (C. S. Lewis, perhaps?) but Jesus could not be obedient until he was in submission to God and was asked to do things he did not want to do (as a human). Thus, his crucifixion, for example, taught him how to obey. Why does that matter to us?
Well, because of what the writer says in Hebrews 8 (his themes stretch across the chapters). He quotes a prophecy from Jeremiah 31, which says,
I am about to cover in a series of posts the connection of Jeremiah 31:31 ff with a train of thought that begins in Deuteronomy and culminates in Romans 8 and Hebrews 8. If you’ll check back in a few days, you’ll see the discussion. The gist of this is that God promised in the OT that, through the Holy Spirit, he would write his laws on our hearts. He even promised to cause us to obey. See, for example,
(I also believe that the work of the Spirit within us can be resisted and even doused or quenched. Therefore, we can overcome what the Spirit wants in us.)
Hence, to someone who knows his OT, such as the Hebrews writer and his readers, the ones who “obey my rules” are those who possess the Spirit. And Jesus, having learned obedience, is able to teach us obedience through the Spirit. That’s how it works.
(If you deny the personal indwelling, this is nonsense to you, of course.)
And so it fits very nicely. Jesus learns obedience, and this enables him to teach us what he previously did not know, through his Spirit — exactly as promised by Jeremiah and Ezekiel (and others).
The Hebrews writer does not mean that faith is not necessary (because only those with faith receive the Spirit) or that we can obey well enough to earn our salvation.
This interpretation is exactly parallel with N.T. Wright’s explanation of Rom 8 and the “Torah of the Spirit of life” found in his books Justification and Paul and the Faithfulness of God. That is, those who are led by the Spirit and who obey God’s will are those who possess the Spirit and who obey on account of the Spirit. Maybe the clearest explanation is found in Wright’s commentary on Romans in the New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary series (a great read, by the way, easier for me than the other two).
After all, there are people who are not saved who are better people than some who will be saved. It’s not ultimately about merit but about faith, grace, and the Spirit — and the Spirit produces the only obedience that matters.
[to be continued]
I’ve covered this many, many times here. It’s a standard CoCo argument and it’s routinely used in an effort to set up a contradiction between James and Paul, with James’s supposed position winning. Obviously, James and Paul do not disagree, and obviously Paul teaches salvation by “faith and not works” over and over and over. Moreover, you can’t read Romans or Galatians through the lens of James, as though Paul expected his readers to read his letters with a copy of James in their laps to correct Paul’s language.
I addressed the relationship of works and grace and faith in detail in a series called “Faith That Works.” /?s=%22faith+that+works%22 (the link is in reverse chronological order).
Here’s another link that’s shorter but not as complete (it’s just one post): /2009/04/how-to-argue-like-a-christian-what-is-faith-part-1-james-and-paul-and-the-spirit/
I quote 1 John 4:2-3, which makes exactly that point. You read “the issue was rarely whether Jesus really walked the earth” as though I deny that fact or consider it non-essential. I plainly say to the contrary later. My point is that when Paul says “faith” he is usually thinking more about faithfulness or trust than belief that Jesus is the Christ, not because Paul denies it, but because Paul is making a different point.
Except that is not what he says in Gal 5. Or the rest of Galatians. What he says is —
His point (and this is clear from his argumentation from chapters 2 through 4) is that because we’re saved by faith (working through love) we can’t be saved by something else.
To make this clear, he preceded that verse with —
His emphasis is (a) it’s through the Spirit and (b) by faith — that we have hope. Faith brings the Spirit, which is why we have hope.
This is why he spent chapter 3 explaining that Christianity is “by faith” because of God’s covenant with Abraham, which was also by faith. It’s not just that the Law does not save, but that faith does. (Remembering that “faith” includes belief in Jesus, faithfulness, and trust.)
[continued]
I’m delighted that you aren’t trapped by the a cappella teaching of many in the Churches of Christ, but this discussion began as a conversation about Michael Shank’s book, and he considers a cappella a salvation issue. And, yes, I believe he and many others in the Churches of Christ treat a cappella singing that same way the Judaizing teachers were treating circumcision: an essential touchstone to be saved.
The link above (/2009/04/how-to-argue-like-a-christian-what-is-faith-part-1-james-and-paul-and-the-spirit/) lays it out in detail. The NT teaching, I believe, is that obedience comes from the indwelling Spirit which comes from faith. However, there are people with a very genuine faith who are physically or mentally disabled so that they cannot obey as well as you or I. They can’t make the assembly. They can’t teach the gospel. Their obedience is severely constrained by their afflicted bodies — and yet they are saved, I’m sure, because of their faith/faithfulness/trust. (You could read John Milton’s “On His Blindness” at this point.)
Except as noted, a genuine faith will necessarily produce obedience. Therefore, if someone lacks obedience (except as noted above), they are not saved. (Logically, the second sentence is the contrapositive of the first. They are logical equivalents.)
Notice that it isn’t “works cause salvation.” Rather, it’s “salvation causes works” and so “no works means no salvation.”
Context! What is the message?
The “message” is the gospel, which is what is to be believed. It’s all about faith in Jesus. Paul here is not discussing how to organize a church or set up a worship service. He’s talking about the necessity of missionaries to preach the gospel so people can be saved by coming to faith in Jesus.
[continued]
No. I thought I said,
Why make such an accusation? It’s plainly false. There are better ways to argue about Jesus.
“So many” would be too many if it were one person. But I’m a third generation Church of Christ editor, I read the Gospel Advocate and Spiritual Sword, I graduated from Lipscomb, I sent two kids through Harding, and I’ve spoken at several lectureships. I get emails daily from readers struggling with the legalistic teachings of their churches. I post here daily and have received tens of thousands of comments from readers all over the world. I correspond routinely with some of the leading thinkers of the conservative Churches.
I am distressed at the teachings of many in the Churches of Christ for very good reason.
[the end]
Jay,
IN the latest response I have read from you – the 2nd in a series, due to length one supposes – you deny that Paul and James disagree, and you go on to offer some mockery of this idea that they disagreed by saying you doubt readers of the letters to saints in Rome and/or Galatia were expected to have James’ letter in their laps as a corrective to Paul ‘ terminology. Oddly, your approach puts Romans and Galatians in the laps of James’ readers!! Your own approach is weak for the same reasons you claim against others’.
How much of this fickle reasoning is one supposed to ignore?
Why teach from a position of “I really haven’t figured any of this out”? Why not refuse to spread speculation as though it is teaching?
Does that leave your followers any less confused than you are?
G
Lloyd,
I was going to give a blow by blow response until it got to 4 pages before finishing the second point in rebuttal. Suffice it to say that your comment has much error and very little truth.
G.
Ps- Feel free to ask for the detailed rebuttal at [email protected].
Jay,
I heard someone was talking about IM/AC and decided to come to the party. Just kidding, brother. In all seriousness, I am enjoying the discussion about the book and its author. I pray your health is better, and will keeping reading as I once gain fade into the background.
PS: Hello to Charles, Grizz, and everyone who remembers me.
Glenn,
Could you give a brief explanation what has given you the incite that the James readers would have Romans and Galatians in their laps? Other than just to oppose Jay’s comment.
Larry,
That’s just it … IF there is agreement between James and Paul (and I believe there is), then it hardly matters. Where there is agreement, there is no need for any such guide. If we miss it, then we have understood NEITHER writer.
Do I have to explain why neither of them is contradictory? Why? You are a good reader and thinker … as are most who come with open hearts to learn of God. Listen … this is the essence of being still before the Lord of hosts. Let God’s Spirit show you … and do not trust any voice who claims God’s writers were led by His Spirit to contradict one another.
Wait for it, Larry. God will be faithful to show you. As for me, I am learning to trust His Spirit to give you understanding.
G
Lloyd,
If I follow the gist of your sermon, it looks like you got the conclusion while missing the application. Making rules about dates and places from inferences and picked apart examples are the epitome of carnal approaches to worship. Even making rules about music or vestments (dress codes) fits under carnal approaches. To encourage homage to God (spiritual worship) is to ask one another to express appreciation for who God is and what God does which will, when observed by others (either believers or non-believers), cause them to honor or even glorify God.
If someone psalms … plays an instrumentand perhaps also sings … or sings a spiritual song … or even speaks in song as Jay did on this blog when he shared the video of Jon Guerra singing (and playing) ‘I Will Follow’ … Ephesians 5:19 says this is acceptable because it is evidence we are filled with the Spirit and not with wine. IM or no IM is a carnal approach. From the heart my soul can sing through a shout … a trumpet call … even a gong or cymbal … or a rap or beat box or a Gregorian chant (if that is how you express yourself emotively) … in celebration to/of/for God. A mute person’s soul can sing. How it shows up physically (if it does … a smile? a laugh? a clap?) … is irrelevant. Like Louie Giglio shows with stars and whale song (and some iPad editing and mash – up tech) … God can hear creation praise Him in ways and things that get past us all the time.
You came close, Lloyd … just tweak the application to align with the conclusions reached.
G
I am confident in the reponse I left (though really long) and feel there is no change to the Conclusion. As a response to another comment above, I completely agree with Michael Shank and don’t know where anyone would get the idea that I am accusing him of anything. This has been an interesting discussion covering many different topics which are all in some way included in Shank’s book. I also look forward to staying looped in the discussion here. I believe instruments, Lying, Adultery, Idoletry, like any other sin that you choose not to turn away from is Blaspheme. I see that I am not getting anywhere with those involved in this discussion so I think it is time to “wipe the dust from feet”.
Lloyd,
Not sure how you can put instruments in with direct commands forbidding, lying, murder and stealing. Those things are repeatedly warned against. Is there a secret memo God put out, that others didn’t get. Please give book, chapter, and verse,(isn’t that the mantra?) and without deductive reasoning, please. Surely, if instruments carries the same weight as lying, and stealing it must be in there somewhere.
That’s just it, no sin is greater than another. That is the point I am trying to make. A sin is a sin is a sin. A white lie is no different than murder in the weight of severity. The only unforgivable sin is the one that you never repent of and do not turn away from. Some people deal their entire life with certain sins that rule their lives, You have to continually try to overcome that sin. Your “deductive reasoning” should have told you that. No sin has more weight in God’s eyes, they are all the same.
Lloyd,
I said, nothing about one sin being greater than another. You assumed that instruments was a sin, and lumped it in with lying. .”I believe instruments, Lying, Adultery, Idolatry” ….I simply asked where you came up with instruments being a sin? Where is that one located? I can show you plenty of the others where they are located. If Jesus commanded everyone to play an instrument, then everyone would have to play regardless if they knew how or not, that would be quite chaotic and to not play would be heresy, if commanded. Clearly God doesn’t command instruments(for good reason), but he doesn’t forbid them either.
But while we are on the topic, I take it you believe that, we are not under a constant state of grace, and that every sin committed must be said a prayer of “I’m sorry Lord forgive me”,in order to be cleansed “again.” If you die without asking forgiveness for that one sin, you’re doomed. Now perhaps that’s not what you believe and I’m assuming wrongly. But it sounds a lot like we are saved by self will. If you try hard enough you can overcome, if you don’t, you won’t.
Jay wrote,
“Christians who violate the teachings of Gal 5:1-7 are in danger of falling from grace. I’ve already explained how I believe certain conservative Church of Christ teachings violate this passage — particularly the claim that certain practices, such as instrumental music, damn even when participated in by faithful baptized believers in all good faith, utterly without rebellion.”
Jay
And of course Gal 5:1-7 does not apply to liberal churches of Christ. You bring up the instrument again, yet you and your congregations worship a cappella. Now I’ll go out on a limb here and say even though you claim it is a tradition, you will not worship with an instrument because (I could be wrong here) the congregation would see it as wrong, right? You condemn someone who says you can’t worship with an instrument, yet you worship without an instrument. And of course you only do this because it is ‘long heritage of a cappella worship’,
You state : “I’m gratified that Paul’s teaching in Galatians seems to be primarily pointed at those who teach this error, as opposed to their victims.
So why aren’t the Christians who violate the teachings/doctrines of Galatians ‘who teach error’ not afforded the grace to cover their error as you firmly believe. Or is it only doctrines that don’t cause one to fall from grace? Those who teach the error are damned but not those who believe the error?
You state: I have not declared him damned. I’ve said he teaches a false gospel. I believe that, and I’ve studied the issue in great detail. I think the right thing to do is to warn those who are in jeopardy because they appear to be in violation of Galatians.
Well since we are sticking with Galatians ’if anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned.’ Gal 1:9. So in fact you do declare him damned. As you have already stated ‘And this is not only false, it’s false because he makes the error condemned by Paul in Galatians.’ Again it’s not an error it’s a flat out false gospel which you believe, to which as you say the Apostle Paul condemns.
You state: Frankly, I was none too happy when my studies of Galatians led me to this conclusion, because I knew that having seen this, I’m obligated to issue a warning. And I knew I’d be criticized for not being gracious on this issue when I’m so gracious on others. ‘
Again since we are studying Galatians, the Apostle Paul didn’t issue a ‘warning’ he flat out condemned those who would preach a different gospel, in fact he would go so far as to say ‘I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves,’ Strong condemnation indeed, your not obligated to issue a warming, if you go by Galatians your obligated to condemn, but will you?
‘But this particular error divides the church. It causes Christians to declare Christians of all other denominations to be damned.’ Aren’t we calling the kettle black on this? I never meet someone so damning (particularly to conservatives) than yourself.
You state : “And it makes it impossible for Christendom to display the unity for which Jesus prayed”
Your wed-site is one in Jesus (which I am absolutely for, I’m just wondering (I could be wrong here) have you reached out to brother Shank because you desire that oneness with him? I’m not talking I‘ve read his book, he’s a false teacher so I will condemn him, I’m talking getting together and seeking unity?
You state: “And I don’t think the Christian Chronicle has “endorsed” point of view. They’ve reported it.”
I think giving someone a two page spread in their paper is a huge endorsement. I think the good people at the Christian Chronicle have the biblical sense to know that if Michael Shank is a false teacher, teaching a false gospel (which you clearly believe) would give him a two page spread to promote his false gospel. That would be insane. This guys a false teacher, with a false gospel, sending people to hell but hey we’ll do a two page article on him and his book. Also in that article Brittany Clements reads Shanks book and is baptized and says “thanks to your guidance in the book…I am finally finding the truth I have been craving for years.’ But Jay that can’t be right, because Shank is a false teacher, giving a false gospel which sadly Brittany has embraced.
To be continued
Of course I believe one can fall from grace or the Bible wouldn’t have taught it. We have to ask forgiveness of our sins if we are to be forgiven. There is no such thing as “once saved always saved”. No one is perfect and we will all fall short of the glory of God. About the instruments, It is the fact that it is not authorized….. If God authorized it then it would be ok. He did not so where the Bible is Silent I must be also.
Jay You state: “Would you argue that “iniquities” does not include doctrinal error? Do you seriously contend that any doctrinal error at all damns?
On the other hand, I’m sure we agree that some doctrinal error does damn. If you deny that Jesus is the Christ, you are not saved. So how do we draw the line? Well, I offered my understanding in the post. What is yours? Where is the line? Or do you contend that every error damns?”
Ok so then we agree doctrinal error is a sin, as you state ‘“Would you argue that “iniquities” does not include doctrinal error? Sin is lawlessness, we would agree, so then wouldn’t we also agree that doctrinal error is lawlessness? And yet you claim grace can cover some lawlessness, in regards to doctrinal error but will not cover others, the example you give to deny Jesus is the Christ and then you ask ‘so how do we draw the line?’ first of all still waiting for the passage that States ‘graces cover our doctrinal error. You quote Isa 53????????????
Well since you bring up Isa 53 you will notice the very opening reads ‘Who has believed our message…’ of course you can’t if the message is in error not matter how much grace covers it. Also verse 13 ‘by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many……’ Again how can the servant be justified if the knowledge is in error? Really can’t see how Isa 53 says anything about ‘grace covers doctrinal error.’
The Apostle Paul (as I think you will agree) is the champion of grace, a recipient of grace and taught of God’s magnificence grace, but the same Apostle is constantly warning us of doctrinal error more than anyone else. As an example, he condemns Hymenaeus and Philetus, and their belief that the resurrection was already past (2 Tim. 2:15-18). This is decidedly doctrinal, not moral. You may say well this is doctrinal error that damns as long as it’s not a salvation issue? So list the doctrines that Jesus gave us that do damn and the ones that do not.
Again the Apostle Paul, the chief exponent of salvation by grace, would not tolerate such doctrinal error. In all the places he mentions doctrine (and please check) not once does he state grace covers doctrinal error. Watch your doctrine and life closely (he would tell Timothy). Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers 4:15-16 The same Apostle would also give this charge command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 1:3 a far cry from grace covers your doctrinal errors.
The only time Our Lord Jesus uses the term error in regards to doctrine is to condemn it not to endorse that grace covers it Mark 12:18-27 their doctrinal error they don’t believe in the resurrection. As Christ Himself would state a true disciple is one who holds to my teachings John 8:31 The church in Pergamos was rebuked for holding to doctrinal errors of Balaam and the Nicolatians. Also the church in Thyatira. Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ, you can’t Lord one over the other. Yes Jesus I’ll take your grace but you won’t mind the errors of your truth.
Once again and this will settle the matter just post the passage that states ‘grace covers our doctrinal errors’ and I will concede the matter. You say Where is the line? Or do you contend that every error damns?” My line, what I contend ‘What shall we say then shall we go on sinning that grace may increase? By no means we died to sin how can we live in it any longer,’ As doctrinal error is a sin, as you clearly point out, shall we carry on in doctrinal error? As the Apostle would state how can we. The line: as Jude would sate there are those who would change grace into a license for immorality. Of course there is nothing immoral about doctrinal error. And as the Apostle Paul would tell Titus in 2:11-14 graces teaches us to say no to sin. Doctrinal error is sin, graces teaches us to say no to doctrinal error.
To be continued
Llyod you say ‘If God authorized it then it would be ok. He did not so where the Bible is Silent I must be also.’ The churches of Christ have spent billions of dollars building buildings and yet God has not authorized it. The bible is indeed silent, so must you be silent on building buildings?
Now you are being rediculous. The structure in which we worship has no bearing on the Worship we offer to God. They worshiped by the river side, they worshiped under ground, in houses, and in many other places. The place means nothing to God, it is the Worship that pleases him and he did not Authorize the use of instruments to worship Him.
Paul, Lloyd is an example of what Jay is saying. He would consider me lost during the 40 years I was a professing believer who worshipped in a Baptist Church.
And from my reading of his work so would Mr Shank.
Lloyd’
Can you give book chapter and verse where God authorized prayer in the OT? Did God authorize singing before the Israelites broke out in song after crossing the Red Sea? Did God authorize Miriam to get out the tambourine and lead all the ladies in a dance and song of worship? Where does it say that God authorized men to call on Him, before men did so, in Genesis 4:26. Were those people wrong because God hadn’t authorized it ?
Where is man commanded(authorized) to pray to God, before the scriptures speak of someone actually doing it? Are all those who prayed to God without being authorized, doomed? What about those who fasted before God, where is the authorization for that? Are they condemned or did God accept their attempts at humility and worship? Where is the Lords Supper authorized every week? If it isn’t authorized specifically every week then we can’t do so without sinning (according to you). How often we take it isn’t authorized, right? The only authorization is “as often as you do this.”To say or believe someone is going to hell(even someone baptized for the remission of sins) who doesn’t observe it every Sunday is man binding tradition on man. What do you believe about that Lloyd? Would it be OK (in your opinion) to take the Communion on a Wednesday night in addition to Sunday. Wouldn’t that honor Jesus’ command? (“as often as you do this”) What about just skip Sunday morning altogether and take it Sunday night, like Paul did in Acts 20, of course(tell the members in advance)or would they run you out of town on a rail, for heresy? Why wouldn’t that be OK, Lloyd? Tradition maybe?
What about giving? Every Sunday, right? What about the member who gives once a month, when their SS check comes in? Are they sinning Lloyd? It isn’t “authorized” on a monthly basis, is it?Could you give us a thorough check list of all the practices that cause damnation? Hand-clapping? Praise teams? Do you or your group, believe the sick should call for the elders to pray over them and “anoint them with oil?” Isn’t that specifically authorized? Lots of people did religious things, worshipful things, before, or without being “authorized” to do so.
Paul,
I’ll be responding only briefly to your comment, having invested so much time already in this conversation.
Frankly, I stopped reading at “Really can’t see how Isa 53 says anything about ‘grace covers doctrinal error.’” If your contention is that there is no grace for error, then we’re all damned. I’m sorry that you hold to a doctrine that grants so very little hope.
HistoryGuy!! Delighted to have you back. The best kind of commenters are the ones who actually persuade me I’m wrong — and HistoryGuy did much more than his fair share of setting me straight. (Not that he’s always right, of course.)
As I recall, you had your fair share of health issues. I hope you are doing well, as well. I’m much improved. Today I worked nearly 8 hours — so nearly up to a full work day!!!
Jay
Is that a round about way saying I can’t really answer you? You stopped reading because you know you couldn’t reply and you knew you were being convicted. Frankly I’m amazed that I went as far as I did with your comments, most of them bizarre indeed. But you did reply so I did feel obligated to respond. When someone who claims to be biblical and makes a statement like ‘grace covers doctrinal errors, see Isa 53 clearly shows this, it’s time to hang up. A last point proves your reasoning, once again a bizarre comment ‘” If your contention is that there is no grace for error, then we’re all damned. I’m sorry that you hold to a doctrine that grants so very little hope.’ Please post for everyone to read my contention that there is no grace for error? Truly amazing since we are discussing doctrines. But then again that tells it all doesn’t it.
I’m sorry that you have an incredible cheap view of grace and throw grace around like it doesn’t matter what you do, you’re covered. I have a confident hope in our Lord and I hold to the gospel of Jesus Christ. I’m sorry that I‘ve had discussions with (and sadly an elder), one of the most condemning men in the church. In all sincerity I pray that your bitterness and condemning attitude don’t consume you.
In Him
Paul
Jay,
I am wrong daily, sometimes twice! Yes, I have learned to live with my health, and been busy with homeless families, preaching, academic pursuit, and welcoming sanctification. I never left, just posted less. I could not help but chime in last night after realizing this thread is grappling with at least four complex and passionate issues: the visible & invisible church, covenant & spiritual worship, a high view of salvation & low view of sanctification, and the path toward apostasy vs. apostate. I will leave those issues to everyone already immersed in them.
Regarding the book, I appreciate the author sharing his story of migration to churches of Christ. I am partial, sure, and believe the Stone-Campbell Movement (SCM) has much to offer Christendom, today. 1st generation leaders in the SCM had their convictions while being gracious to the “Christians in the sects.” However, Muscle and a Shovel reflects a fairly hard-line 20th Century COC perspective. I agree with you that the book contains several grammatical issues and logical fallacies. Additionally, it is my opinion the author would benefit from and appreciate a different theological trajectory, which would allow him to affirm most of his convictions while being more gracious to others.
I am sure you will agree that either this blog or The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement is a good place for him to begin.
HG,
I urged Michael to read The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace, which is a free download available at this site. It wrestles with the core issues you identify and does so with a Church of Christ readership in mind. Couldn’t disagree with either this blog or the ESCM, as well.
Jay – I know we’ve had discussions in other posts about related issues, but I think your statements here can be re-framed.
“So what’s the difference between requiring a cappella singing or weekly communion or a plurality of elders as a condition of salvation and circumcision as a condition of salvation? Both add to faith in Jesus. Both make faith insufficient. None are faith working through love.”
If these are works down because of trust in Jesus, then they are a part of faith working through love. If one assumes that faithfulness means trust in Jesus, and trust in Jesus means doing what he says, and if what he says is clear on these matters (ah, back to our knowability discussion), then these are a part of faith working in love. Now, I understand that one can view these things as check list items of a legal system of salvation by works, but what if we don’t put them in that framework, but rather in the framework of a relationship based on love, but that it has rules, and if we follow those commands then we show our faith working in love?
Justin wrote,
It’s a tempting argument to make, but why wasn’t circumcision a work done because of trust in Jesus? It seems clear that the Judaizing teachers were nominally Christians, claimed faith in Jesus, and insisted on circumcision as a matter of obedience and salvation. If they’d confessed Jesus as Lord, then they considered themselves to be obedient to Jesus. Indeed, they would have surely argued from God’s covenant language with Abraham that circumcision was very closely tied to Abraham’s faith — the faith that Christians are called to emulate, as Paul himself argues. I say this because in Gal 3/Rom 4, Paul rejects this argument — surely because it was being made.
1 John 5: 13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.
I appreciate the strong affirmation John gives to the “once saved, always saved” position that Baptists espouse. His concluding remarks in the his first epistle brings great focus to the idea that those who have put their faith in Jesus have entered into eternal life already…not hoping to gain eternal life in the future, but currently possessing this gift. The logical question that must be answered is this…How long is eternal? One who has entered into eternal life cannot re-enter the temporal zone of non-eternal life…or it was not eternal, but temporal. The Church of Christ cannot be counted as authoritative on the peripheral issues of faith as long as it misses the central theme of salvation through faith in Jesus.
Gary,
I don’t mind readers posting their views on the perseverance of the saints (POTS), but I don’t want the Comments to be a debate on that topic. We’ve covered that ground several times, and the focus of the current posts is the disagreements between the conservative and more progressive elements of the Churches of Christ, both of which reject POTS (with some exceptions, of course).
Gary,
What makes you think “eternal” life is a durational term? In – depth examination of both the term and it’s usage in the inspired scriptures reveals a term most often descriptive of quality, NOT duration. So why do you assume it is about duration of life, and not quality of life?
Grizz
Hello Jay, I am a pastor serving a non-denominational church in Tennessee. I found your site after doing a Google search on “Muscle and a Shovel.” A Baptist man I know was given a copy of the book and is offended by the hard line Church of Christ doctrine that judges all other flavors of faith as deceived and bound for hell. I am well acquainted with Church of Christ doctrine and have had many friends over the years who are members of the church. I must say I am delighted to find your reproof of this doctrine and warmed by your advocacy for accepting that many believers legitimately claim salvation apart from the tradition you have chosen.
You are the moderator of this delightful forum and I will happily submit to your ultimate decision regarding the acceptability, direction and relevance of my comments. I didn’t realize you wanted to narrow the contributors down to just members of the Church of Christ as you discuss your differences of Bible interpretation among yourselves.
My interest in this conversation has to do with the core foundational essence of the Gospel rather than simply the POS which I view as an inseparable side effect. One’s understanding of scriptures is critical and I’m hoping to more clearly articulate what I believe and preach as I encourage my Baptist friend and others in the defense of their faith. I also want to clearly understand your position as well. I fully concur with your gracious statement, “But those who’ve confessed Jesus as Lord and Messiah are saved and added to the only church that there is or ever will be.” Also, I readily agree with, “This is not say that obedience and works don’t matter, but that they aren’t the path to salvation. They are, rather, evidence of salvation because they are fruit of the Spirit — which only the saved have.”
I too believe the first part of your following statement, but differ with you on the latter part, “And they’ll get some of it right and some of it wrong. Perfection will not be achieved in this lifetime — and grace is there to cover our mistakes, both our moral errors and our doctrinal errors — so long as we don’t surrender our faith, our repentance, or our trust and so leave the church via the path by which we entered.”
The implication drawn from your statement is that salvation is entered by a path of faith, repentance and trust (which I fully agree), maintained by these same three dynamics and can likewise be exited by a loss of one or more of the same three.
I am puzzled by your concept of the Holy Spirit’s position of residency in the human soul and role in salvation. Are you saying that coming into the Church is what constitutes salvation rather than receiving the Holy Spirit? Which comes first? Do you view them as synonymous and simultaneous? You seem to view the soul as similar to a container of a liquid that can be poured in or poured out by human choice. I, however, view the Spirit entering a human as an act of conception…precipitated by faith, repentance and trust…creating a whole new being through spiritual reproduction…resulting in one entering into the Body of Christ (the Church) and eternal life. Yes, eternal life…nothing less and not probationary.
Jesus told Nicodemus that one must be spiritually born again to be saved. Yes, there is an intellectual and willful process required of a human to receive God’s salvation that involves faith, repentance and trust. Those three actions precipitate receiving the Holy Spirit which produces the required spiritual new birth. My understanding is that this action causes the regeneration of a human soul and produces a new eternal being that cannot be aborted or reversed….an action which produces eternal life in the here and now.
I will happily bow out of your conversation if you do not wish to engage me on these matters. Regardless…blessings to you and I must say I am encouraged to read the reasonable positions you advocate.
Hello Glenn (Grizz), You raise an interesting question regarding the meaning of the word “eternal” (aionios).
I believe John would have chosen a different word if he wanted to encourage the reader in regards to the “quality” of life one attains by faith in Jesus. Perhaps he would have chosen the same word Jesus used for “abundantly” (perissos) when He said in John 10: 10 “The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.”
I find nothing in the context of this passage implying anything other than everlasting spiritual life when John uses the word eternal (aionios). A Christian living by the precepts of the Bible and guided by the Holy Spirit is acquainted with the joy produced by the “abundant” life and generally does not need scripture to affirm this peaceful state of living. However, due to the limitations of human intellect and reasoning, most believers struggle to grasp the unfathomable riches of God’s love, grace and mercy which ushers the believer into the “eternal” life rendered as a result of saving faith in Jesus. I believe John’s intention was to allay doubt and fear regarding one’s secure standing through the new birth.
John wanted the reader to understand, salvation through Jesus, though initiated by a willful and intellectual decision, actuates spiritual regeneration, producing a new, created, eternal being that cannot be undone through a reversal of one’s will or intellect.
Glancing through my concordance and lightly examining the passages, I find nary an instance supporting your idea regarding quality of life as opposed to the eternal duration of time when the word “eternal” is used.
Gary V,
I reject POTS and OSAS based heavily on Hebrews, in which a major theme is to avoid the real danger of falling away due to unbelief or rebellion. (And I take c. 11 to be an amazing lesson on faith as trust.) And I think Paul agrees —
(Gal 2:11 ESV) 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
And Gal 5:1-7, with which I’m sure you’re familiar.
We’ve often discussed Calvinism here and I’ve explained my views many times and have been challenged many times. And there are regular readers here with whom I disagree, but they remain welcome to participate, and they do.
It’s just that I’ve only got so much time in the day, and in addition to chatting in the comment section, I really need to finish up my posts on M&S. So I try to keep things fairly close to the topic at hand — but I’m not very good at it.
I’ve not said much about the Spirit because the topic hasn’t come up in M&S yet. My views are fairly orthodox (I teach the personal indwelling, as fulfillment of Deu 30:6 and many passages in Jer and Eze and a very cool parallel with Exodus). I just see too many passages about falling away, but I think the normal course of a Christian’s life with God is to become saved, receive the Spirit, remain saved, die, and experience the resurrection into eternal life. That is, I think the ordinary case is perseverance; but just as the elect of Israel who rebelled against God died in the desert, so can we. I think that’s what Hebrews teaches.
You are welcome to explain why I’m dead wrong, but I’ll most likely not reply further on that topic. Got some writing to do …
Pingback: "Muscle & Shovel": Chapter 8C (Everyone Else Goes to Hell, Part 2) | One In JesusOne In Jesus
“So what’s the difference between requiring a cappella singing or weekly communion or a plurality of elders as a condition of salvation and circumcision as a condition of salvation? Both add to faith in Jesus. Both make faith insufficient. None are faith working through love.”
However, acts of worship and church structure are specified – commanded – in the New Testament. Circumcision is not.
Clint,
Are you saying that obedience to every NT command is a requirement for salvation?
Musical instruments have not divided the church over the centuries. This is simple nonsense. Actually, the only sizable group who does not use musical instruments is the Orthodox, and they will tell you that this is not a doctrine but a tradition. They certainly do not make issue with anyone over it. That leaves a couple of small denominations who have an issue with it. In the grand scheme, it’s a tempest in a teapot. I know this is a huge deal in the CoC, but I really wish my CoC brothers could see from the perspective of the rest of the body of Christ –that it is nothing more than a minor curiosity, like the Amish wearing black or Oneness Pentecostal ladies not cutting their hair, or Mennonite sisters wearing ugly shoes.
Jay–what’s the matter with me?(4th generation coc) I was so relieved when this topic came to an end,an was so looking forward to a discussion of the Psalms but this morning the blog came up in it’s entirety–I read the ‘whole thing’ over. It was a much needed conversation and was conducted in the most part with respect and politeness. I’m not sure anyone could have moderated this but you. Thanks so much for what you do,please take care of your health issues -I am praying for your recovery,as I’m sure are all your other daily readers–again thanks charlsie
“Are you saying that obedience to every NT command is a requirement for salvation?”
I’m saying the effort to obey is the least we can do. Blatant disregard for God’s instructions just can’t be a good idea, can it? What other commands can we choose to disobey then? Certainly none of us are going to be sinless; however, I for one am going to do all I can to not just ignore God’s instructions. I don’t think that’s the intent of grace. Paul didn’t think so either – Rom 6:1.
Jay’s assertion that grace covers error is an important one, but it does push open another door of discussion. Actually, it simply brings into the light what has been tacitly divisive for so long. The assertion is that while there is grace for the believer who does wrong or who believes wrong, that grace is not all-encompassing. We have actually believed this for years without verbalizing it. We simultaneously declare that our obedience is not entirely perfect AND that we must obey God completely or be damned. The conclusion is obvious: according to this standard, we are all damned. But we don’t believe that WE are damned by this circumstance. We hold two inconsistent views on the subject. This incongruity leads us to the question, “Well, just what does grace cover and what does it NOT cover?” That question is not well answered, because it leaves the defendants sitting on the jury trying to rule on each other. We stagger about with this issue, tossing around ideas like “doing our best” or “following the plan of salvation” and talking about other people’s sins as though they were felonies while ours are mere misdemeanors. It’s all relative nonsense with us winding up “not like other men are” and invariably better than they. We are not getting anywhere with this, except to bite and devour one another.
The only legitimate answer to this conundrum is a radical one. That is, we must entirely drop our self-defense and accusation and self-righteousness and acknowledge that neither our own good works nor our evil works matter as to whether or not we are saved. We are saved by faith. While this sounds radical, I am of the opinion that it is not that far from us. No, I believe the only real problem we have in accepting this reality is that we are inexcusably, indefensibly, astonishingly PROUD. We are proud enough to feel qualified to judge whether or not another man has faith in Jesus. (This is a task, BTW, never EVER assigned to us.) We cannot seem to help ourselves from sorting the sheep from the goats (again, not our job) and pulling the tares out of the wheatfield (again, not our… oh, you get the picture). Can you imagine what would happen to us if we could (my most radical fantasy) just STOP DOING THAT?
Here are some things that would NOT happen: 1. Correction about doctrine would not cease, nor even need to slow down. We would simply have to stop putting those “Express Shipping to Hell” stickers on select targets. We can still teach each other. But we have so long had this habit of trying to manipulate other believers by literally scaring the hell out of them, that we have forgotten how to really speak the truth in love– because our love today ends where you don’t do what we say. Can you imagine that a believer might learn better without our gun to his head? 2. Believers would not simply “live however they want”. Why? Because God (again, not our job) is forming us into the likeness of Christ. HE disciplines his sons, not you-know-who. (You’re sensing a theme by now, I hope.) God is faithful and pretty darn good at his job of fathering. My daddy was a strict disciplinarian, but he never used me to discipline my younger brother. Wise dad. 3. No unbeliever would get to heaven illegally because they got past our screening process and God failed to catch ’em sneaking across the border. 4. We would not have any more heresy to deal with in the church than we do already. Do we really not understand that all this division we have created by our judgment makes it EASIER for heresy to take root?
OTOH, here are some things which would happen: without our judging each other’s spiritual status, division would decline. We would not need to divide so much, because disagreeing- in and of itself- would not have to divide us. We would be suddenly safe in each other’s company. We would be more likely to listen to each other about our incorrect understandings. Why? For the same reason you listen to your loving father better than you listen to some stranger threatening you with imminent, horrible death. So, without our taking turns holding Damocles’ sword over each other, we could build trust among the body of Christ. We would turn our efforts to the truly lost, those who do not know Jesus, since we would be out of the sheep-sorting business. Having no one else to hold up to examination, we might even let God apply that process to ourselves, and finally see the beam in our own eye.
Not one more person would be saved or lost the day we stopped judging each other’s faith. Because our judging never got anyone saved nor did God ever take our word for whom to condemn. But life as believers would be a lot sweeter; we would grow up into the Head much more readily; and once we sold off the guillotine, we might even start to be identified not by how well we know who’s damned, but by our love for one another.
Is our black robe really SO hard to hang up?
Clint,
I entirely agree that blatant disregard of God’s commands is a very serious offense. However, that is rarely the case. If you and I disagree about the sinfulness of instruments and I choose to worship with instruments prayerfully convinced that God approves of such worship, I have not blatantly disregarded God’s will even if I’m wrong. We can’t impute bad motives to our opponents to win a doctrinal debate.
No one is arguing for intentional violation of God’s will. That is not the subject at hand. Rather, if the Christian Churches, for example, worship with instruments in good conscience, having prayerfully considered the issue, are they saved by grace even if in error as to instruments? We cannot presume evil intent.
Now if grace covers other sins continuously, as taught in 1 John 1:7, how do we have the right to declare certain errors as outside of grace? We are like the Catholics except our “mortal sins” are instrumental worship and quarterly communion. We make some sins damning regardless of the heart of the sinner — all so we can damn “the denominations,” and it’s wrong.
Grace covers the sin of Christians unless and until they fall away. Period. They fall away by rebellion — deliberately continuing in sin (Heb 10:26-27).
Sin is sin and covered by grace whether it derives from moral weakness or intellectual weakness. We cannot declare that doctrinal error is outside of grace unless we are willing to assert that we are doctrinally perfect — and we most certainly are not. Besides, God rewards the humble. not the proud. To claim perfection in doctrine is nothing but arrogant — and always wrong.
Charlsie,
Thanks for the note. I’m presently in the hospital with pleurisy. Hit me Tuesday. Felt like a kidney stone – except worse. And narcotics made it hurt even more. Really. Unbelievable pain.
But antibiotics and antivirals settled it down by the end of the day — leaving me to endure days of testing to see what really happened. But I should be discharged tomorrow. And the pain has been minor since late Tuesday.
I’m guessing that it’s a result of the sepsis earlier this year. Sepsis attacks all the organs, which may have set this up.
I grew up in the Methodist church & never heard of the ‘church of Christ’ until I was a freshman in college. I began a serious study of the scriptures at that time & quickly came to the conclusion that the teachings of the ‘church of Christ’ mirrored the teachings of the New Testament church, to a degree that no other denomination came close.
For those in denominations who are shown the truth about baptism from the Scriptures, but adamantly reject that truth, does Jay teach that God shrugs His shoulders & does not hold them accountable to that intentional rejection?
When I studied the Scriptures on my path to conversion I learned that the only way to escape condemnation was to be ‘in Christ’ (Rom. 8:1). Then I saw that the way to be ‘in Christ’ was to be immersed into Christ (Gal. 3:27). Those not immersed into Christ are not ‘in Christ’ & therefore subject to God’s condemnation.
.
Having grown up in a denominational church I can assure you the liberal & disrespectful attitude towards God’s word is sickening. It amazes me that so many of my brethren seem to want to embrace this same liberal, disrespectful attitude.
I left family & friends to turn from Methodism (which is no where found in the Bible). Mr. Guin apparently would say I endured that pain needlessly. It was needless because Mr. Guin appears to teach that IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT ANYONE BELIEVES. God’s grace covers everything. No where in the Scriptures is this false teaching taught.
Muscle & a Shovel teaches the truth, Jay Guin teaches false doctrine.
–bill walker/professor/faulkner university
I think I just heard Jay return to his computer. 🙂
Well, many folks do take on new beliefs at age 18 and never outgrow them. This happens across the spectrum of faith. But in this case, the painfully poor reasoning demonstrated by a gentleman who holds academic credentials at a CoC university does not speak well for that institution. Sometimes passion loosens our grip on reason.
Charles,
You’re response is hardly any better than Mr. Walkers. Rather than dealing with what he wrote (and I am not suggesting that I agree with his conclusions), you attack his reasoning abilities and insinuate that he is perhaps irrational. You then stereotype an entire academic institution based on six paragraphs in a blog.
Mr Walker,
Are you of the opinion just as Mr Shank has professed, that no believer can be immersed into the body of Christ unless it is performed with the oversight of a member of The Church of Christ? Now if you have not arrived at that conclusion from reading the book, please direct me to the portion of the book that does not convey that message.
Bill,
Please explain to the readers —
1. Why you label me a “liberal”? A “liberal” in theological circles is someone who denies such supernatural elements of the scriptures as inspiration, resurrection, and miracles. I deny none of these. So why the label?
2. You declare “Mr. Guin appears to teach that IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT ANYONE BELIEVES.” Just where did I teach this? Because I know it’s just not true.
3. You accuse me of teaching “God’s grace covers everything.” Again, where did I teach this? I don’t believe it to be true, and if I taught it by mistake, I need to correct the post.
4. You seem to assume that I have a “disrespectful attitude towards God’s word.” Again, where have I been “disrespectful” toward the scriptures? I understand that there are those who disagree with many of my interpretations of the text, but I would be devastated to think that someone believes I’m not trying to honor God’s word. I strongly believe, and often teach, that those who are saved must respect the scriptures, based on —
My critiques of Muscle & Shovel will be found at /muscle-shovel-review/. It’s quite a lot of material, but I try to be thorough and understand what the other guy is saying before I criticize him in a public forum.
I do disagree with Shank, for many reasons, but not because I’m liberal, disrespect the scriptures, or believe the things you accuse me of. I’m happy to discuss the real reasons Shank and I disagree. You see, I think Shank teaches contrary to the scriptures — and I respect those scriptures so very much that I couldn’t stand by silently.
Mr Walker,
Considering your credentials, professor/faulkner university, believing that you may be able to accurately determine messages in scripture, leads me to ask a question about one of your communications.
“When I studied the Scriptures on my path to conversion I learned that the only way to escape condemnation was to be ‘in Christ’ (Rom. 8:1).”
My question is concerning the the escape from condemnation that you mentioned. While studying the scriptures that told of men who were teaching and the men who were committing their lives to Christ, I did not encounter the concept that the purpose for their commitments was to avoid or escape condemnation. Those on The day of Pentecost might possibly have feared condemnation, but that is not an absolute, their statement actually is more in tune with the concept that they desired to be within God’s favor, you see they really thought that they were purging false teaching from God’s people The Jews, something they were commanded to do by the Law . While becoming aware that the actions they performed were in opposition to God they desired to amend their actions to be accepted. Do you see these men as motivated from fearing condemnation?
Reading the remaining accounts written portraying men committing to follow Jesus, I do not find fear of condemnation as being the driving force for changes in their lives. Therefore, I see escape of condemnation as a totally selfish act, escape of condemnation as the driving force for commitment to God can be performed by an individual without an ounce of Love for God or Christ. We should all know that God’s desire is our Love, stated from the beginning and throughout scripture.
With the mindset not containing Love produces all kinds of abnormal understanding of scriptures. Remember what is quoted in scripture, about those who do not love truth, (God).
In response to your statement:
“For those in denominations who are shown the truth about baptism from the Scriptures, but adamantly reject that truth, does Jay teach that God shrugs His shoulders & does not hold them accountable to that intentional rejection?”
You have erroneously arrived at this concept because of the lack of reading Jay’s comments. Jay has repeatedly attested to the fact that he holds men responsible for intentional rejection of any direct commands in scriptures. Intentional rejection is to be condemned.
Jay
I have enjoyed reading these comments but outside of all these vast opinions and truths we are back to an overall belief of faith through grace. Jesus is the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through Him. It appears that there is much confusion by many who think they are “the way, the truth, and the life.” Maybe some of the pharisaical views of those (including me) that have become so legalistic will be changed and they will come to the Father as children. Thank you for your love and trust in our Lord and Savior.
Vick,
Thank you.
What is cofc???? I know coc is CHURCH OF CHRIST. What is the F in there???
“Jesus saith unto him, I am THE WAY, THE TRUTH, and THE LIFE: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me”. It seems if anyone who TRULY understands what Jesus is saying to us in John 14:6, they would not be on this page arguing utter minutia. Additionally, how can Jesus be any more explicit than His declarations in Matthew 21:25 and Matthew 15:7-9? He describes organized man made religions with all contempt in Matthew 23 There is not a better description of the modern visible churches than the one Jesus provides in Matthew 23;27. Please do not come back at me that Jesus was speaking ONLY to the people of that time. Such a response denies who Jesus is. I am a former member of the COC, and after leaving their environment of Scripture abuse, I was then placed on the enemies’ list of the church’s leader, which was borrowed not only by other members of that specific congregation, but other’s as well. I fail to see any Jesus in that kind of behavior which is apparently a common practice in the COC The “errors” within the COC far exceed doctrinal. Their abuses and applications of Scripture to inflict guilt and shame on others, is unacceptable.
One of the biggest problems within the “conservative” coC is labeling. It is easy to do and once done hard to undo so it creates a fear factor. If you do something different, let’s say eat communion around a table, you will be labeled a “liberal” or “progressive” or in the worst case “sinful”, even though you are closer to how the original LS was conducted. This is because once you declare your system superior and right, then anything out of that system is inferior and wrong. Now having said this there are many things within the coC theology that are right, but not all things and you should not judge others by a different set of rules than what you apply or don’t apply to yourself.
It seems Bill has moved from one doctrinal belief system to another and puts his faith now on this system, thus this system will never be wrong. God’s grace doesn’t cover everything, but it does cover everyone, otherwise we would all be lost even if we did many things that are Godly. We maynot all be in a life boat, but we are all on the same ocean and we need to respect that.
Labeling is not unique among conservative churches of Christ. I have been among both those on the right and the left, and I have heard labeling emanating from both. For every “liberal” / “progressive” / “sinful” label from the right, I have heard “legalist” / “patternist” / “sinful” from the left.
Wow! I went to the COC for over 30 years. My husband was a elder for over 15 years. We left the COC for a number of reasons. When I read all this back and forth it just must make our Savior so sad for his children to be fighting and debating Him. When we debate Jesus all we do is inflate our own egos with how much we think we know. Jesus is never glorified or honored when debates like this go on. I love Jesus more now than I ever have and I know I am in Him and His Holy Spirit is in me. That is what Jesus told his disciples that was going to happen. He had to leave so His Spirit could come to live in His children.
I makes me so sad that books like this come out and make the COC look so arrogant. I think so many people will be surprised who they will see in heaven.
If we spent as much time worshiping and praising Him as we do debating Him some amazing things would happen.
This is the verse that comes to my mind.
Matthew 11:30. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.
God does not want us to be lawyers of His word but lovers of it. He had the Pharrasies for that!
Ann,
Certainly the way in which some Christians (including posters here and myself) debate doctrine can be sad as you suggest, but I think you are entirely incorrect if you are suggesting that ANY debate / discussion is sad. In fact, I think most of the discussions on Jay’s blog are very helpful. Can those discussions be contentious at times? Sure. Is that necessarily a bad thing? No. According to Ray Vander Laan, our Western way of learning is SIGNIFICANTLY different than both the Eastern manner of contemporary Jews and 1st Century Judaism. IOW, there is nothing inherently wrong or sad with debating Christ or doctrine. Now, the manner in which we do so can be sad, and conclusions that we may draw from debate may be sad.
One of the biggest flaws in the American church is the lack of healthy conflict among people who love each other more than the conflict. Rather than engage with our differences, we simply snort and split. This is not what God intends for us.
I believe that without disagreements and debating we would never see the full picture described in scriptures about some subjects. If we all just accepted what the educators taught to those who became our teachers Christianity would look very different today. Where would you be in you walk with the Lord if there had not been for men like Martin Luther? Would we still be listening to a message from one man? Or a government controlled message?
One of the things I have been trying to do with my brethern is discuss, but we want to debate. It seems beyond most of us to look at the scriptures and talk about it as we want to take a position first and then defend our position or attack the others position. We mostly intend for our preacher to tell us how to be and can’t take it beyond that.
I recently got badly burned by talking to another “brother” and found out that he took my personal words with him and he maliciously broadcast them on the internet grossly out of context. He judges me and everyone, but himself and his group as sinful and apostate. And then I got slammed again for having had the discussion with him by our preacher/elders after his broadcast was sent to the churches that consider themselves as conservative and our church was named in it. All for the sake of discussion. Obvously that didn’t deter me, but let it not deter anyone else. The more we talk of Christ in our lives, the more we should become like Him.
I have problems of inconsistency when I read members of our brotherhood calling folks of different churches “dammed” (condemned). How can we do so if…
1. We read all sorts of Bible translations done by them?
2. We use and quote their commentaries and exegetical tools?
3. We sing hymns and spiritual songs written and composed by them?
4. We use and quote their books on all types of subjects, e.g., family and marriage counseling?
5. We copy their ideas from building architecture to effective ministries?
6. We keep an eye on their perception of a godless world out there?
7. We use their best arguments and debates for the existence of God, Science and Faith, infallibility of Scripture, resurrection of Christ, etc.?
* James 4.11-12
Bequem,
Thanks for your note. I couldn’t agree more.
Dear Jay
I found you comments in you Falling away section hard to follow and it seemed to me that you switched from the plan of salvation and those five acts, as you called it, to 5 acts of worship? Maybe this was a typo or maybe I just didn’t understand where you were going.
Larry (not Larry Cheek) wrote,
I wrote,
Well, I was speaking of the Five-Step Plan of Salvation in terms of becoming saved. Then I addressed the question of falling away. In conventional, conservative Church of Christ thought, I can get all Five Steps right but if I mess up on the Five Acts of Worship or attend a congregation that is not “scripturally organized,” I’m not only sinning, but I’m damned — so that instrumental music damns or an elder having no children damns.
I don’t believe that. In fact, I believe you exit the Kingdom by the same door through which you enter. If you lose your faith or your penitence, you can lose your salvation. Merely being in honest error on fellowship halls or the use of the church treasury or instrumental music says nothing about your faith in Jesus or your penitence — since it’s honest error — and so say nothing about your salvation.
Further to Larry (not Larry Cheek) —
The point is was making is also about trust. One element of the Greek word translated “faith” is trust in Jesus. This is not usually preached in Churches of Christ, but we don’t entirely deny it. We just aren’t used to thinking in these terms. But when Abraham was saved by his faith, his “faith” was trusting in God’s promises.
One of the great weaknesses of our legalistic approach to salvation is that we want to trust in our own intellectual accomplishments — how well we discern the silences of the scriptures — confident that we are saved because we’re the ones who care enough to know that kitchens in the building are wrong and such like.
It’s merely that we make kitchens into sin, but we make them into salvation issues, putting them on the same level with faith in Jesus as Messiah. We thereby require all strongly held doctrinal positions to be right on penalty of damnation — making our intellects our saviors — rather than Jesus.
But we are saved by grace, not by brilliant exegesis of the silences of the scriptures. We are saved despite our imperfections and even our erroneous positions on kitchens and fellowship halls and instrumental music — by grace.
Hence, one of our core problems is a failure to trust in God’s promises. God promised to save us by faith —
(Eph 2:8-10 ESV) 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Either we trust his promises or we don’t. And we don’t — which is a very, very dangerous place to be.
I was raised very “denominationally” in the CoC, and have been so hurt by the choosing of what is right and wrong by people and not scripture. My brother recently left his wife of 20 years for another woman, and has been forgiven for that (because of his ability to lie throughout their relationship) also leaving 4 boys to be raised by others, but I have to hide that I drink by putting my wine underneath my house even though I have never in my life been drunk, but in my parents mind, and their Church, it is a sure ticket to hell. I went to a Christian school and am so hurt by my family’s lack of grace and weighing what they think is right and wrong, I will never enter an earthly church again. No book can explain what goes on in this church setting, and how aweful a feeling it is to be judged constantly. No matter what anyone tells you CoC preachers have interpretations of what they believe is truth and twist scripture based on their opinions. A very painful experience of which I will never return from!!!
Sherese, I recommend you watch the services at the Hills
http://www.thehills.org/
It is where I attend now and there are many there like you and I. I too attended a cult-like cofC and know vey well the harm these cult churches can to do adults and children.
God Bless,
Red
Sherese’s experience is a tragedy IMO, but it could have happened virtually anywhere. I know of some Southern Baptist congregations in Georgia where this could have happened…today. This is not unique among churches of Christ. While I disagree that consuming a moderate amount of alcohol equates to sinning, I know a lot of wonderful Christian men and women who do, and they are far from belonging to a cult.
Dwight,
I think I know where you are coming from, and I agree. But I would phrase this differently. IM isn’t a question of grace and love vs law. If IM is sinful, then we should abandon the practice and oppose its use…expecting grace to automatically “cover” a sinful practice (law) would be presumptuous and sinful in itself. Love would demand that we alert others of the sinful nature of the practice. If, on the other hand, IM is not sinful, then there is no opposition between grace & love vs law. Semantics, I know, but an important semantic.
Kevin wrote,
Well, yes and no. What you’ve written is exactly right as a matter of logic. 100%. But what it overlooks is that grace is not merely a legal principle. Grace reveals the character of the Gracious One. Grace helps us to understand the personality and purposes of God better than law because God is a God of grace.
Therefore, once we come to understand grace, not only have we learned a new principle, we’ve seen God more closely, more exactly. And when we see God better, we better anticipate and understand his laws. And if we really understand grace — and understand it well — it becomes obvious that IM is no sin.
For many, it’s intuitive but obvious. For others, there’s a more concrete line of reasoning from premise to conclusion. For example, grace reveals a God not likely to hide commands in the silences of the text. Grace reveals a God anxious for a real, authentic relationship, not mere form, not mere ritual. Etc. Etc.
When we ponder grace, we find ourselves coming to understand God all the better — and some of the supposed laws, well, they evaporate. They vanish.
(Mat 9:13 ESV) 13 Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
What does it mean? Well, it means that we need to understand God better. It’s not about refining the lines of doctrine so much as refining our relationship with God and understanding what he really wants. Which is? Mercy, not sacrifice. And as we learn the meaning of the verse, we realize that God cares nothing about things like instrumental music.
Hence, while grace is obviously not a license to sin, it is a window into the mind of God.
(1Co 2:14-16 ESV) The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
And so grace opens our minds to spiritual things, to spiritual discernment. And it changes everything.
Steven, “citing scripture” is no guarantee of presenting truth. In fact, scripture itself tells us that quoting scripture can produce exactly the opposite. Stacking scriptures and concatenating verses no longer impresses most of us. It is a demonstrable understanding and association of the individual contexts within the broadest understanding of scripture to which we are prepared to listen. You offer your own interpretations and opinions and tell the rest of us to leave ours out. If I look at the history of Jay’s posts, his high regard for scripture is clear and unmistakable, even where he and I might disagree.
Charles, where did I offer an opinion as scripture, remove a scripture from its context or present a private interpretation of Scripture? If I did, I will gladly apologize and correct it. I am not concerned with impressing anyone other than God and would hope the same of any Christian. I find nothing but false accusations and lecturing in your reply. Certainly I found no direction from you on where I had said anything contrary to scripture. If my concern offends you then I am sorry it is not received in the light it is intended.
Steven Jackson, Jay said, “And they’ll get some of it right and some of it wrong. Perfection will not be achieved in this lifetime — and grace is there to cover our mistakes, both our moral errors and our doctrinal errors — so long as we don’t surrender our faith, our repentance, or our trust and so leave the church via the path by which we entered. – what part of that statement do you disagree with? And if there is no disagreement, then you have more in common with Jay than you think.
Or do you feel that God only covers the doctrinal errors in the CofC? Are those who do err to the right in the CofC bound for eternal punishment? The one cuppers? Will God forgive them?The no Sunday Bible class? Will God forgive them? Don’t they bind where God has not bound? Or are you of their persuasion? Is it only the error of those to the left of where you stand that God doesn’t forgive? By the way, who stands “exactly” where you stand on all matters of doctrine(I mean, it is just the Bible right, let it speak for itself, right)? Why are there, as someone said, 27 variations of the CofC? You know that even in your own congregation(if it’s any size whatsoever) there would be those to your left and perhaps even to your right, if given say a 100 question quiz on where they stand on divorce and remarriage and instrumental music just for starters.
I used to use the phrase when studying with those not in the CofC, “why is there so much religious division in the world?” Then I would say ,’God is no the author of confusion.” and people would agree with me as I pointed out all the various 1000 or more denominations, all the while knowing that my own little group for all of it’s protests to the contrary, was splintered into many many groups.
I always struggled with God could forgive the sins of the flesh (I commit) but (so I was led to believe) couldn’t, no wouldn’t, forgive the sincere, good hearted (better than me morally)Baptist trusting in Jesus death on the cross, of their doctrinal error. I don’t struggle with that one any more, thanks in large part to Jay Guin.
Steven, you are suggesting that if one disputes your interpretation of the conditions of salvation, that he is challenging God. Such intentionally conflates your words with God’s. I would also make note of phrases like, “If God had wanted our input into how to construct the perfect law of liberty, then I have no doubt He would have asked.” Pure opinion, when you chastise Jay for offering his. Yes, Stephen, right here in your words. As to other opinions, you suggest that Jay is saying “…that it is acceptable to ignore any New Testament direction of scripture. In attempting to loose where God hath not loosed…” Again, Steven, you are offering your mind-reading as though you knew the mind of another man, to whom it appears you are only half-heartedly listening. As to “false accusations and lecturing”, well, the reader reviewing your post should thus put that concern to bed. That’s all you offered to Jay.
Charles, I did not attempt to set conditions of salvation. I challenged the idea that we can assume or teach that any command, inference or example is not a condition of salvation. Only God will determine what those are. I only asked the question, why would we do anything other than take the summation of the Scriptures at their face value. I provided Scriptural examples of individuals who took liberty with God’s law and met consequences they did not expect as rationale for asking the question.
As for my comment, I did not present that as a scripture and yes that is my opinion that God would have asked us and it is no more than an opinion. However that opinion was not offered as a substitute for scripture nor an explanation for any doctrinal issue. In retrospect, my off-hand comment, offered for effect, added no value to my question and I should have left it out.
Lastly, you left off the first part of my quote. I made no claim to know Jay’s mind. I responded to his summation of his second point, “So what’s the difference between requiring a cappella singing or weekly communion or a plurality of elders as a condition of salvation and circumcision as a condition of salvation? Both add to faith in Jesus. Both make faith insufficient. None are faith working through love.” We cannot parallel adherence to commandments made in a prior dispensation to accepting current dispensation instruction at face value without suggesting that we have authority to bind or loose because there is clearly a difference between circumcision (work of the law of Moses) and God’s prescription for organization and worship under the law of Christ.
I appreciate your attempt to turn tables on lectures and false accusations with, “you did it first!” but you have yet to support your concerns on comments with a single scripture. My intent was to challenge Jay’s position with the scriptures that support my concern. If your assertions were supported with scripture I would not be able to take exception to them.
Monty,
Scripture (I John) teaches that the blood of Christ continually cleanses us so long as we continue to walk in His light. We will all stumble from time to time both morally and doctrinally. If we walk in the light, as He is in the light, then we’re forgiven. Doesn’t matter whether we’re erring to the right or to the left because they’re equally errant. However, whether morally or doctrinally, if we live in rebellion to one of God’s laws then can we say that we’re walking in the light?
Paul “lived in all good conscience before God” while he was attempting to destroy the church. But despite him doing what he was doing in attempt to serve God, he was lost in his sin. I agree fully that it binding is just as wrong as loosing. Certainly I neither adhere to, nor do I condone it.
As to people agreeing completely on every point, I also agree that they won’t. That however does not mean that I am absolved of doing everything in my power to align my beliefs as closely to the Lord’s word as possible. If I love my brethren and lost souls as I’m commanded to, then there is no way that I can stand by silently while something contrary to God’s Word is being taught or excused. It was clear that Apollos was sincere and an excellent teacher, but because he was teaching only part of the gospel (the baptism of John) Aquila and Priscilla were compelled to take him aside and teach him the way more perfectly. Certainly they did so out of love, but that love was one which drove them to address error.
There are plenty of schisms within the religious world, both inside and outside buildings with church of Christ on the sign outside. But there is no division in the Lord’s church. He’s either added us to His one church or he hasn’t. My challenge is to make sure that when I find myself morally or doctrinally at odds with His word, that I change my position rather than trying to justify my position or rationalize that issue as being non-essential to salvation. I hope everyone makes it into Heaven. I trust Jesus and the Father to do everything we are told they have done, are doing or will do. However I would not risk my salvation or anyone’s by trusting God to do something contrary to His own word.
Steven J,
Do I correctly perceive that you are a follower of the Volunteers from the mountains of East Tennessee? Always glad to have an SEC fan here at OIJ, even if a Tennessee fan. I figure Paul had you all in mind when he wrote,
But I believe UT has found themselves a quarterback. Glad we won’t see him again until next year.
So we disagree about intercollegiate football teams. Let’s see where else we might differ …
Steven Jackson,
My first impression of your original post was that you thought Jay was not reviewing (Mussel and Shovel) fairly. Now I am not sure. Did you read the book (Mussel and Shovel) thoroughly? If I had read the book many years ago, my comments would have been yes,yes yes, or go, go, go this will set the record straight. It was not only Jays review to the book that helped me to see many errors within the content, but my own studies had previously brought many of the concepts he places into a position of fellowship or in other phrases lost from God’s plan to question. Did you read Jays full review I mean 30 some posts? If not please make the effort.
Steven J wrote,
Really? Read the blog. Read the several articles I’ve written regarding Muscle & Shovel. It wouldn’t surprise me to find that I’ve cited more scripture than any other author in the Churches of Christ, electronic, print, or otherwise. I post about 1500 words a day, most posts filled with scripture.
There are plenty of criticisms that you could throw at me that might just stick, but this only shows that you’ve not taken the time and trouble to understand me or the points I make. My posts on Muscle & Shovel are indexed at /muscle-shovel-review/. You’ll find more than enough scripture being cited by me there and in the thousands of other posts written here. If you care to understand my disagreements with Michael Shank, the posts are there, as are the scriptures.
By the way, even Satan can cite scriptures. The challenge is to cite them for what they actually mean. We should never be impressed by the mere presence of scriptural citations.
That review had a lot more utility than just the review of Shank’s “Shovel”. The review, and the conversations that sprang from it, addressed a number of common issues that are worthy of surfacing and addressing. I’m with Larry on this one; it is worth the effort.
Steven J wrote,
Just where have I suggested such a thing? This is a sheer strawman argument.
Steven J wrote,
Really?
(1Co 2:14 ESV) The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
— which I quoted. You argue that Paul is speaking solely of apostles, but the text will not stand such an interpretation. Notice the contrasts he draws.
In v. 14, he contrasts the “natural person” with, in v. 15, the “spiritual person.” Which are you? As a Christian? Do you believe Paul is referring to all but the apostles as “spiritual” and everyone else as “natural”?
Notice these other translations —
(1Co 2:14 NET) The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(1Co 2:14 NIV) The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
The NET Bible translation notes explain,
So, since all Christians possess the Spirit (Acts 2:38, Rom 8:9-11), all Christians are “spiritual persons” and not “natural persons.”
THus, we might paraphrase,
(1Co 2:14-15 ESV) The [non-Christian] does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The [Christian] judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.
That’s a fair rendition, except that, of course, a Christian is “spiritual” only to the extent he yields himself to the work of the Spirit within him. Hence, there are differences in degree.
This language, as challenging as it may seem, is consistent with other verses, such as —
(1Jo 2:27 ESV) 27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie– just as it has taught you, abide in him.
The anointing is, of course, the Spirit possessed by all Christians. So what does this verse mean? Do I explain it away because it’s a little uncomfortable?
(1Jo 2:20-21 ESV) 20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge. 21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth.
(Heb 8:10-12 ESV) 10 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.”
(Rom 8:9-15 ESV) You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. 12 ¶ So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”
(2Co 3:17-18 ESV) 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
In fact, the scriptures are filled with texts that speak of the present influence of the Spirit on Christians. So, yes, we are most definitely told that the Spirit opens our minds to spiritual discernment.
Or if these texts aren’t describing the direct influence of the Spirit on the Christian, what do they really mean?
We disagree about other things, but let’s try to keep the conversation constrained to a couple of key topics. At this point, I perceive that we disagree about (among other things)–
* Whether the Spirit has a present influence over Christians through a personal indwelling.
* Whether God’s grace covers sin. After all, you seem pretty clear that grace only applies to those who obey. But what about those of us who sometimes sin. Does grace cover sin? Isn’t sin, by definition, a failure to obey? And if grace only applies to the obedient, then it doesn’t apply to sin, and then it doesn’t apply at all. But maybe I got lost somewhere. But you seem to be saying that only the sinless receive grace — and, of course, they don’t need grace. So I guess I’m confused.
Or are you saying that some sins get grace and some sins don’t? If so, where is the line to be found? What do the scriptures say?
Jay,
My comments pertain to yesterday’s brief discussion.
You wrote:
“Well, yes and no. What you’ve written is exactly right as a matter of logic. 100%. But what it overlooks is that grace is not merely a legal principle. Grace reveals the character of the Gracious One. Grace helps us to understand the personality and purposes of God better than law because God is a God of grace.”
I am having trouble following where you are going. I get the “Yes” portion of your answer, but I don’t understand the “No” portion. It is not so much that I overlooked “grace not merely being a legal principle” as much as I just didn’t address it. Of course grace is not merely a legal principle. That goes without saying. In fact, numerically speaking, I would argue that God’s grace impacts us more each day in a non-salvation manner than in a salvation manner. Naturally, the grace that pertains to salvation, being of eternal consequence, is qualitatively greater though it may not be quantitatively greater. Just my opinion.
Anyway, I don’t understand your “No” answer. My point is that we are wrong to align grace vs law. Are there some situations in which God may not hold us accountable for transgressing his law? Of course. John states in 1 John 1:7, “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” We sin and God forgives. I’m sure we can think of other examples; however, just because God doesn’t necessarily condemn us for sin doesn’t mean that sinning is “okay.” It’s not. I sin frequently, and I am automatically forgiven frequently, but that doesn’t mean that I should continue sinning or that sinning is not unimportant.
I love Matt 9:13, but I think you may have overlooked the context. The Pharisees were condemning Jesus (and falsely so) for eating with sinners. They were both unmerciful AND incorrect in their condemnation. These Pharisees were great at going through the motions, but they lacked both love for their fellow man. Christ compares the Pharisees with Judah and Ephraim of Hosea’s day. Jesus is not teaching that we can ignore law whenever it suits us. While He will forgive us for sin (whether moral sin or doctrinal sin), He will not do so if we intentionally, with willful disregard and impenitent heart, sin and keep on sinning.
From what I understand “Muscle and Shovel” is the telling of a man who found his way to the right church system and thusly the right path to God, but in the early days, man found God, then assembled with those who had also found God.
I am not really sure where Jay had said something that was out of line in the above. In the truest sense faith and works do not save, Christ saves and we must have faith in Him and do the will of the Father who sent Him in obedience. Christ was the one sacrificed for our sins.
I do not even really wholly disagree with Steven J. in regards to scripture, but rather his general assessment of Jay’s specific assessments of the book, which is dead on in many aspects. I can critique a movie by showing logic flaws without stating the dialogue of the movie or the book it was based on and usually in spite of it.
Kevin, in regards to IM, I believe God is not vague, I mean if God could tell the Jews what kind of animals he intended them to not eat in detail, then why do we believe we must determine His will by implication and bad implications at that. I do not believe this is a matter of grace, but law, but the perfect Law of Liberty. Paul taught against those who sought to impose as law those things that were not given as law. He taught against those who sought to teach that you couldn’t partake of the New Moon feast, etc, which were actually commands on life ad religion from the OT law. IF we seek to regulate worship, then we should also seek to regulate life as that God had made laws on all of the Jews life. If IM is out due to silence in worship, then so is entertainment as God never commented on that at all and then we have to go down the list of things that God spoke for in the OT and then was silent on in the NT. Since God was vehemently against gluttony in the OT, but doesn’t mention it in the NT by name, are we to assume that God is now for gluttony. If IM was a sin, by command, then God would have said so by command, but otherwise we are at liberty by law.
God Bless
Dwight,
I am not arguing against you. I just wanted to point out that I don’t think we can frame the issue as grace & love vs law or, rather, “grace & love over law.”
I attend a non-instrumental COC, and I am fine with that. I wouldn’t encourage its introduction at this congregation, and, in truth, I think it’s a bad idea generally unless a congregation has overwhelming support for it. Even then, I would question its introduction if it meant a break in fellowship with the broader churches in the area. Others may disagree, and that’s fine too. But if I get a vote, that’s my guidance.
With that said, I liken IM to military orders. God told us what to do (sing), but He didn’t tell us how to do it. Singing with IM is still singing. God told us to preach the Gospel, but He didn’t restrict us in the method. Audio sermons, writing, drama, even singing can preach. God told us to “Go”; the how us up to us…missionaries, internet, radio, airplane, VTC; all useful. Just so, singing with our w/o musical accompaniment is still singing.
How many of us have hummed a few words when we didn’t all the lyrics?? We knew the melody but the exact words escaped us? If IM is sinful, so was that momentary lapse of humming according to the argument because we often define singing so narrowly.
Larry, I did read the book in question thoroughly. Given the late hour at which I stumbled across this site, I will readily admit to not reading all 30 something responses. My concerns were based on the content of the first couple of responses only. So there very well may be valid concerns raised that I have not seen because I did not read them all. To your core question, I am not really concerned about the book review, only any misunderstanding or misapplication of scripture that might have been used in reviewing or conversely in writing the book.
Jay,
As I responded to Larry, I will readily admit that at 1am this morning when stumbling across the blog, I did not read all or even most of your posts. I read the first few and was forced to stop and respond with just my three initial points. My reference in citing scripture was based solely on the posts that I read where you disagreed with positions espoused by the book’s author. In those instances he had cited supporting text and your response did not offer the same.
Could you have already cited that text in another blog post, sure, but your disagreements with the author of a book written by man are not the point. What concerned me and what I commented on, were the positions you appeared to be taking that do not appear to line up with scripture. If I left the impression I was commenting on all of your work, that was not my intent. Only the first several posts in this thread.
I am aware that Satan used scripture and used it out of context. No where did I endorse that. There are certainly more folks using it incorrectly today (broad is the way) than there are correctly. But you cannot rightly divide it, if you aren’t using it to begin with. So someone may not be impressed with quotation of scripture, but the absence of scripture is far less impressive still.
Jay, you suggest I have constructed a strawman. My comment was directed at the following quotation:
“So what’s the difference between requiring a cappella singing or weekly communion or a plurality of elders as a condition of salvation and circumcision as a condition of salvation? Both add to faith in Jesus. Both make faith insufficient. None are faith working through love.”
You are attempting to parallel instruction and example given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit during the Christian dispensation for those living under the same, to a command given by God in the law of Moses for those under it. The Spirit’s condemnation for those attempting to bring over tenets of the old law into Christianity was that they were making the law of Christ of none effect by rejecting God’s grace offered through him, in favor of the works of the law (Rom 2-4).
Singing (Col 3:16; Eph 5:19) is a command and at face value, unexplained by man, it sits alone without accompaniment. Examples and commands we have of New Testament worship (Acts 20, I Cor 16) and observation of the Lord’s Supper indicate that Christians met and were to meet on the first day of the week. I Tim and Titus record the Spirits instruction through Paul about appointing “elders” and each reference to New Testament elderships indicate plurality. Are these not direction of scripture?
If we suggest taking these at face value is unimportant and can be dismissed, is that not a “private interpretation?” (II Pet 1) If this is acceptable, then could we not similarly say that meeting to worship regularly is no more a condition of salvation than circumcision? We’re instructed to love God and loving God is keeping his commandments (Jhn 14&15). If the instructions given by the Spirit are not prerequisites for demonstrating our love for God, which commandments are and which are not important? Is II Tim 3:16 still true if some are applicable at face value and some are not?
Jay, maybe I can better identify my issue with I Cor 2. I wasn’t arguing that it didn’t mean what it said. I asserted that vs 14-16 cannot be taken out of context of the whole chapter, much of which is Paul explaining their inspiration. But my ultimate destination was to clarify that I Cor 2 does not define grace. Your quote:
“Hence, while grace is obviously not a license to sin, it is a window into the mind of God.
(1Co 2:14-16 ESV) The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
And so grace opens our minds to spiritual things, to spiritual discernment. And it changes everything”
You seem to be asserting that God’s grace is manifest through the miraculous indwelling of the spirit. Titus 2 tells us two things about God’s grace: 1) it hath (past tense) appeared to all men, and 2) it brought salvation. Christ, not the Spirit, brought salvation (Acts 4:12,Gal 3, Rom 6, John 14:6, etc). No doubt we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit when we submit ourselves in baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). But to assert there is an indwelling that rises to the level of directing our actions and revealing mysteries today would make I Cor 13 untrue (when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away with [paraphrased]). That which is perfect or complete has come, the Word of God. The Spirit’s inspiration of the writers provided us that Word and He works through the Word. You cite I John 2:27 as justification for a controlling indwelling of the Spirit, but you ignore the preface to 2:27 in 2:24, “Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.” They had already been taught and that teaching is what they were commanded to abide in.
As to the question of grace, I’m not sure why you’re confused, but clearly you are. Grace cleanses us from our sins at the point we submit ourselves to God in obedience. “Obeying the gospel” and “walking in the light” are never confused for perfection in scripture. You seem to be attempting to separate the cleansing blood of Christ from saving grace. Again, Titus 2, grace hath (past tense) appeared. God could provide no greater “unmerited favor” than the gift of His son for the redemption of mankind. He provided it and while he remains long-suffering and not willing that any should perish, that grace remains available to us if we will accept it. Our acceptance is through our faith in him, a faith which is marked by our love for God. That faith and that love are demonstrated and perfected by our humble obedience to His gospel. Not perfection (Rom 3:23) but our pursuit (I John 1) of Christ’s perfect example and an open access to God’s second law of pardon for that continual cleansing when we do transgress.
Grace is available to all. Those who obey the gospel, accept that grace and to use your phrase, “it applies to them at that point.” To suggest otherwise would be to suggest what? You think that grace saves those who are disobedient to the gospel? Those same folks the Spirit said Christ would take vengeance upon (II Thes I)?
As far as which sins grace washes away, the scriptures tell us plainly which sins. The ones of those who are in Christ, through faithful obedience to His gospel and who are walking in His light.
We can make everyone feel good by lying to them and saying that as long as you’re sincere and you mean well, that you’ll be ok. We can attract big crowds, become socially relevant, amass power bases, conscript large sums of money and teach people something that could very well lead them straight to Hell (Matt 7:21-23). The problem is that there’s not a single New Testament scripture, nor Old Testament example, that would suggest that God will depart from the framework he laid out when he sacrificed his son and accept their “offering” any more than he accepted Cain’s.
Last point, in this thread there is an amazing amount of debate about which is worse, sins of morality or sins of doctrine. Sin is sin. It separates us from God. Living (continuing in) as a false worshiper is no different than living as (continuing in) an adulterer.
Steven Jackson, said, ” If I love my brethren and lost souls as I’m commanded to, then there is no way that I can stand by silently while something contrary to God’s Word is being taught or excused.”
That was sort of my point, I was getting at. If you sir have every example and necessary example “all interpreted correctly” (and God’s grace only applies to you or your group, if you do),as you said, ” However, whether morally or doctrinally, if we live in rebellion to one of God’s laws then can we say that we’re walking in the light?” Then it behooves you to list, post, write a blog, pass out what they are at church, write to brotherhood papers, and inform everyone exactly what they are. If you mean by one of God’s laws a “thus sayeth the Lord” then of course I am in agreement, but even then grace is there in our weaknesses and when we fail. I often fail to live like I know to live. Knowing how I’m supposed to live is not really a problem, it’s the obedience part.
If the one cuppers are preaching heresy, are you silently standing by? Are those in your own congregation who believe differently than you, in danger? Shouldn’t the CofC (if we have it all figured out perfectly have some type of manual, and who gets to document everything that is right and wrong? If there comes a time when congregation A studies and disagrees with one of the tenants that congregation B has carved in stone, are they no longer faithful, if they still preach and teach Jesus, and baptize believers?
You’re a newcomer here, and that’s great, glad you’re here, there is much to learn. I know from experience. But your version of believing the gospel is believing that you have to have everything interpreted correctly to be saved. That’s not the Good News. Your version of the Gospel(and the church) is that of a balloon that is blown up that cannot sustain even the slightest of pinpricks before it pops and is reduced to a nothing. That is not the way it is at all. What saves a man, is the redeeming work of Jesus on the cross. It is sufficient. I believe the Good News. I become a disciple of Jesus through believing in Jesus and submitting to baptism(of course with a penitent heart over my sorry condition). Then I begin to learn and grow as I follow HIs teachings. I am in a state of grace, sins covered, unless I stop believing in Jesus or begin living a lifestyle of unrepentant moral corruption. Walking in the light is not having to have every example or necessary inference determined correctly(if so, I would suggest we’re all doomed). Walking in the light is loving my brother, loving God, not living in open rebellion to God, or saying and teaching something heretical like Jesus didn’t really come in the flesh. Again, walking in the light is not misunderstanding an inference. Your version of what the Good News means that the church(again as you understand it) didn’t exist until whatever group you now align yourself with began teaching all the things(as you see them) that are damnable if you miss one of them. Is that what you would call an unbeliever of off the street to do? “Hey,Come follow me and my group, we believe in Jesus-wink-wink, but what we really believe, if I’m honest, is that if you believe we have correctly dotted all our i’s and crossed all our t’s you’ll be good enough to be saved.” “And if you missed one of the t’s”, they ask? Is your answer,” hey, trust me, we didn’t.” Sorry, that doesn’t sound like anything I want to put my faith in. I know people like that, I used to believe that, sadly I still see some people like that in my own congregation. Years of preachers pounding that into their heads will do that.
Thank God, for Jay’s blog. If it was about my ability to figure scripture out to a T, Jesus death was unnecessary. God’s word has the power to save us, but not the Tinker-Toys of human hermeneutical gymnastics. Drop a Bible on a deserted island to a guy stranded there who owns a guitar or any other instrument, he isn’t going to say after he reads the Psalms I’d better not play and sing and praise this God I now have come to believe in. He’s also, not going to read Colossians or Ephesians and say ,”Uh-Oh, I’ve been doing something wrong, I’ll be out of God’s grace if I don’t stop.” Sorry, not going to happen. That interpretation comes from the guys with those Tinker-Toy sets.
Kevin, This is how I understand it also as I attend a congregation that doen’st have IM. My biggest issue is not with or without IM, but out judgment of those who decide to do something that isn’t called sinful by God as sinful by us. We interject ourselves into the given law, much like the Pahrisees did, in order to broaden its borders.
We are indeed told to sing and we should. An interesting thing that I have fallen victim to in the past is that when in the presence of those who are singing with instruments as I have come across, is the concept that we are sinning by joining in song. Now I might struggle with my conscence, but what I am really doing is resisting a direct command to sing by God, by acknowledging a derived implication by man.
Then we argue that it is the words and the spirit, then we have music class so that we can become technically better in our efforts at hitting the notes and following a emotional melody.
You sir, don’t have a clue what I believe based on this. You ascribe a bunch of beliefs to me that I neither hold nor espoused in an effort to support your preconceived notions of anyone who questions the scriptural assertions made on this site. Obviously you have reached a higher plane of understanding so I will step out of the way where you cannot further twist and abuse my comments to spread false teaching.
Steve, I whole heartedly believe in commands as things we are to do, but then again we are to do them within the context of us doing them and not just being commanded. Meaning that we are told to sing, but what happens if I don’t sing, as I am not singing now, am I in jeorpardy of not doing God’s will. Many of the laws in regards to worship were to be taken at face value, but are also subject to us in the doing of them as we are the Temple of God and the priest. In James 5:13 we are told “Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms.”
Does this then mean that whenever we are cheerful we must sing and when ever we are suffering we must pray, after all we do have examples of this in scripture. Jesus prayed in the garden and Paul and Silas, although in jail, sang because they were obviously cheerful.
The Lord’s Supper, should be done as Jesus said to do it and He gave specific foods for specific reasons, but we, and I say we, have upturned the Lord’s Supper from a uncommon meal done in remembrance into a thing that doesn’t largely resemble what Jesus and apostles did.Meaning that we are very good at keeping somethings the same and very bad at not saying we are doing it exactly the same, even while ackowleding that we dont have to because we are fufilling the spirit of eating around a table and taking larger amounts of food while facing each other.
This is just one of the things were we are at the mercy of God in.
Steven Jackson,
I believe that you were asking questions with a real concern for legitimate answers. I personally did not see that you were attacking Jay or his message. Some of the topics and information that we discuss here needs much clarification to someone first encountering this sometimes very opinionated blog, many who have been here for many years and discussed some very heated topics tend to come down far too hard on someone just arriving. That is wrong, maybe some of the other posters know of you, I don’t, but, I would like offer my condolences to you and ask you if you would read Jay’s pdf book above ” The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace” you can read it on line or download and print it. Please read it even before reading any more of the comments on Muscle and Shovel.
Steven, I understand your frustration, but remember Jay was commenting on the book, but he never condemns it or the man, but does question some of the concepts held within.
You initially stated, “Why would we even want to attempt to do anything except EXACTLY what He’s asked of us, given how much He has already done for us?’
This kind of goes to the issue.
Do we do exactly everything we are asked by God? Do we partake of the Lord’s Supper exactly how they did it? We, tend to think we do and then when we are questioned about the fact it doesn’t look exactly like how they did it, then we remark that we are following the spirit of the command. So we can be just as cagey as anybody. We cannot and should not condemn others in something that we ourselves falter on.
Steven, My suggestion for you, and it is only a suggestion, is to not get mad, even when confronted with something you don’t beleive in and then shut down conversation. This isn’t a site where one mode of thinking rules and I have been writing here for months. It is about discussion. Some of the conversations might be direct and confrontational, but if we can’t put up with it, then we are going to have a hard time conversing with anybody unless they totally agree with us and then we might as well be talking to ourselves.
I personally do not agree with everything Jay writes in everything, but I do in some things.
If you believe your point to be good and you have some good ones, then clarify and discuss, but remember that this is a blog and many points of clarification by others have been said or posted elsewhere and you are catching glimpses of an ongoing discussion many times without context.
God Bless
Steven,
I encourage you to stay around as well. The blog needs different perspectives. Jay does a terrific job of writing thought provoking pieces, and the comment section can be quite interesting and educational…and yes, sometimes heated. However, if you are willing to discuss and engage in meaningful Q&A, your time here will be well spent. FWIW, I typically lean to the right on a lot of issues, and most of the commenters have been very cordial even when disagreeing.
V/r,
Kevin
Steven J,
If your comments were directed at me I apologize if I came on too strong. But you have to admit you came on a little strong to Jay. Maybe I inferred too much with what you said. Those inferences can be a booger sometimes to interpret. I assure you that not many(if any) regular posters on here believe in not obeying the commands of God. This blog will definitely challenge what you believe about key issues and cause you to reconsider what you’ve (perhaps) thought to be true, whether you studied it for yourself or as my professor in Bible College used to say, “just opened our mouths like a baby bird and gulped that worm down the parents fed us.” It’s definitely not for the faint of heart or for anyone who believes the answers were all “reasoned” out for us in the last century.
Again, my apologies, if I offended you.
Steven J,
I’m going to try to limit myself to one topic per comment — and limit myself to two topics, being the two I identified in yesterday’s comments. There’s just so much time in the day, and I think these two topics are whether we most disagree. If we can find common ground on these two, the rest will work itself out.
1. The personal indwelling of the Spirit.
2. The boundaries of grace — more precisely, which sins are covered and which sins are not?
The Spirit
The series I’m presently posting on 1 Cor will shortly make its way to the “that which is perfect” verse, and we should deal with that argument then.
In the meantime, I ask you to consider what the scriptures say about the Spirit holistically — that is, from Torah to Revelation.
I’ll take this in small bites, beginning with Deu 30:6 —
(Deu 30:6 ESV) 6 And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.
You find this verse echoed a number of times in the NT. It is, in fact, the first of a series of prophecies about the Spirit, as shown by —
(Rom 2:29 ESV) 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
And we need to add —
(Deu 10:12-16 ESV) “And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require of you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to keep the commandments and statutes of the LORD, which I am commanding you today for your good? 14 Behold, to the LORD your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it. 15 Yet the LORD set his heart in love on your fathers and chose their offspring after them, you above all peoples, as you are this day. 16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.
Here’s how I see these three passages fitting together —
Deu 10:12-16 is part of Moses second presentation of the Law to Israel, just before they crossed the Jordan and conquered Jericho. He was teaching God’s law to the second generation of Israel. And after a lengthy reminder of what had happened in their history up to that point, Deu 10:12-16 is a call for obedience — but contrary to much teaching today, Moses insisted that Israel obey from the heart.
Indeed, the command is for each Israelite to circumcise the foreskin of his own heart — to get his heart right with God — to want to obey, to obey from the heart. But the onus was on each Israelite to do this himself.
Deu 28-30 is prophetic, speaking of a future falling away and exile. And in 30:6, Moses declares that God will gather his people together once again and God himself will circumcise their hearts to obey (this passage is the foundation for much of Rom 9 – 11, by the way).
Notice the change? The onus shifts from each man having to make his own heart right to God making his heart right. It shifts from human effort to God’s effort.
Paul himself interprets this passage as speaking of the gospel and Christianity in Romans 2 (and 9 – 11), and he credits the Spirit with this work.
Now, this is plainly not the representative through the word only view, because Deu 10:12-16 is speaking of man fixing his own heart in response to the inspired word. Deu 30:6 and Rom 2:29 are speaking of a CHANGE from that — something more — that God himself does, according to Paul, through the Spirit.
If this is not a direct working by God on the heart of the Christian to soften his heart to wish to obey, to desire obedience, to defeat (not completely, but significantly) our stubborn nature and help us to yield to God, what does it mean?
I should add that there are many other scriptures that add to this argument. You should also consider, for example,
(Jer 31:31-34 ESV) “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
(Quoted in full in Heb 8 where it is applied to Christianity and applied — continuing into Heb 10.)
Ezekiel interprets Deu 30:6 (and context) as follows:
(Eze 36:24-27 ESV) 24 I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.
There are more such prophecies, which are easily looked up once you know to look for them.
Then if you read Romans 8 in light of Deu, Jer, and Eze, it’s plain that Paul sees the indwelling of the Spirit as fulfilling these very prophecies. Paul assumes that we know our Old Testaments well enough to be familiar with these passages.
And, of course, he’d already mentioned the circumcision of the heart by the Spirit in Rom 2:21. He then says,
(Rom 7:5-6 ESV) 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
What is the “New way of the Spirit”? A better book? Better laws? No, it’s having our hearts circumcised by the Spirit so that we want to obey, so that we desire what God desires. It’s being changed from the inside out by the Spirit! Really?
(Rom 8:13-14 ESV) 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
“Led by the Spirit” doesn’t mean “obey the rules by human effort.” That is not what the passages promise. They promise that God himself will write his laws on our hearts, in contrast to our attempting to circumcise our hearts for ourselves.
Hence, it’s no surprise to read —
(Phi 2:12-13 ESV) Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
God works in me to will (desire) and work for his good pleasure? Exactly. Just as promised by Moses, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah.
Now, none of this requires miracles or faith healing or even tongue speaking. Just a heart that is softened by the hand of God himself — circumcised by God to desire what God desires.
Jay,
Your second post to Steven (Boundaries of Grace) is one of the best pieces that I have read on this blog. You lay it out very well. The “boundaries of grace” question was the first instance in which I diverged from many of my “conservative” (bad label but I don’t know what else to use) peers. Why will the use of IM damn, but the insistence of using one-cup will not? Why will a belief in premillenialism damn but a belief in the literal indwelling of the HS (or representative indwelling through the word) not? Why will support of missionary societies damn but support for Church of Christ disaster relief not? Why is IM sinful but listening to Christian radio not?
In my experience many will lean on 2 John 1:9 – “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” Unfortunately, we tend to interpret this verse to mean that we must be doctrinally perfect with regard to IM, premill, and a litany of other theological questions. Yet we accept differences with respect to literal indwelling / representative indwelling. Well, what is the scriptural basis for allowing disagreement on this topic? Clearly someone is right and someone is wrong. And if someone is wrong, how can they be abiding in the doctrine of Christ as traditionally defined in many COCs? Perhaps this verse doesn’t mean what we think it means (genitive).
The “boundaries of grace” question is a question that has been asked over many years to those who are in legalistic churches. These are not new questions, all of these questions have been asked by people from other churches over many years.
None of the questions are new, they’re just new to those who are now asking them.
It’s nice to see! And with the ones who are now asking them there is the opportunity to show their fellowship with other churches rather than belittling them.
God bless you on your journey with grace and peace!
Grace, There are no new questions & no new answers. But we all live either with an open mind or with a closed mind to those questions and answers. Grace has no boundaries, but we do in our following and obedience. Hitting a wall is different than going over the wall, but sometimes when we talk of grace we want to move the wall around, closer, the further away, then sideways and we can’t do this, because it is God’s wall. David was a man under grace but he also always kept God in his view as well, even when he comitted heinous sins. David did ask for forgiveness, as we should, but our life should also be dedicated to humbleness to where out life is always seeking God and his pleasure, while knowing that God has brought us under his wing. Unfortunately we want to make everything in the scriptures to have a value of sin or not sin, but we as Chrsitians are to “do all things in the name of the Lord” to where our life itself either is in sin or our life is living in God, even while we fall and stand. Many people fall and see the ground and then start digging themselves in further, this is not living a Godly life. We must daily renew our minds.
Grace, I meant to start the above conversation with, “You are right, there are no new…”Otherwise it sounds as though I might be disagreeing with you.
Dwight you said: “Grace, There are no new questions & no new answers.”
I didn’t say the questions or answers are new, I said:
All of these questions have been asked by people from other churches over many years. None of the questions are new, they’re just new to those who are now asking them.
We agree then, cool! 🙂
Jay,
I just read a blog over at Start2Finish regarding the basis of unity, and its remarkably similar to your position on grace. Perhaps things are changing quicker than you think.
I attend a rather conservative coC and they are starting to focus more on grace as well with the broader understanding that we are all under it. Of course this doesn’t diminish the things we should do and some of the more unsightly views by the leaders on certain things, but it is more in the right direction from what I remember many years ago. But of course there are some that are going the opposite way into more legalism and bondage of human traditions as God’s law.
A thought. Is grace a spiritual blessing? If you believe it is a spiritual blessing, and all spiritual blessings are found in Christ, and further to be in Christ is to be in His one true church, then grace is only applicable to those in The Church. Grace does not cover your” doctrinal sins” that are in denominations. I hope you are correct in your thinking, but I must live my life by scripture only, not yours nor any man’s ideas. God’s grace is reserved for His children, those who have followed His law and His plan. “Ye must be born again” still applies today. We can’t be taught wrong and saved right. God bless Michel Shank and his wonderful book, it has been a tool to open many doors.
Keith,
If grace does not cover doctrinal sins, and if doctrinal sins “are in the denominations” only — then there is no doctrinal error in the Churches of Christ. Which is obviously untrue. Right?
So are you contending that YOU are free from doctrinal error? And your preacher? And your elders? And you all agree on every single issue? EVERY SINGLE ISSUE? I doubt it.
So if doctrinal error damns, and if you disagree with your preacher or your elders or your wife on any doctrinal matter AT ALL, then one of you is damned. Denominational, even.
Do you see the problem? You’ve created a standard that cannot be met by anyone. Who dares claim to be free from all doctrinal error AT ALL??
Keith,
You raise a very good question. Jay provided a good answer because it goes directly to the slippery slope. I would like to discuss your argument more directly. I am following you perfectly up to the point in which you refer to the one true church. Do you mean the universal church? My understanding of scripture is that anyone, anywhere, at any time in history since Acts 2 who obeys the Gospel is added to the one true church as a Christian. Is that what you mean? Or do you mean that there are no Christians in any of the denominations because none of them have obeyed the Gospel and consequently haven’t been added to the church? Surely you don’t mean the latter, do you? Because I know plenty of people in the denominations who have heard the Gospel, believed, repented, confessed, and been baptized. Wouldn’t you agree that those people have been added to the Lord’s church by the Lord? If so, aren’t they subject to spiritual blessings?
Trying to gel both previous comments into one answer here. Do either of you contend that being sprinkled instead of immersed is an acceptable method of baptism? That is a “doctrinal error” that prevents an adding by the Lord. What about being saved and then two weeks later being immersed? In accordance with Biblical teaching or doctrinal error? The question becomes, Does God mean what He says, or does grace cover everything? I do contend that every person that follows the Biblical teaching and pattern (I.e. is saved) is therefore added to the church. There is only one church, one Head over one Body-the church. We have grasped very well the concept of only one Head, but the idea of one body goes against our politically correct society. Now, as to disagreement with my preacher or my elders or my wife- an issue or disagreement within the body is totally different than outside the body. Paul withstood Peter to his face. In more modern times, Bro. Franklin Camp and Bro. Gus Nichols had differing views on the Holy Spirit, yet they remained brothers. A “doctrinal error” as I was using, pertains to issues such as (but not limited to) how one can be saved, can one fall away, how often should I partake of the Lord’s Supper, should instruments be used in worship, should women preach? If we take Jay’s view of grace to it’s conclusions, can a polygamist have grace cover that sin? Should we continue in sin that grace may abound? (on a side note- I may not always see eye to eye with all “my elders” on some things , but doctrinally we agree, and I know because I serve as an elder with them)
Keith,
You divide “doctrinal error” between two types. One type is “within the body.” In this type, you include “differing views on the Holy Spirit,” likely referring to the nature of the Spirit’s indwelling.
Another type is “outside the body,” and in this type you include “issues such as (but not limited to) how one can be saved, can one fall away, how often should I partake of the Lord’s Supper, should instruments be used in worship, should women preach?”
Now, I have this question: How do you decide where to place an issue? You refer to the history of the Churches of Christ, as though the way we’ve treated such issues necessarily defines what is right in God’s eyes. Shouldn’t you draw your lines based on the scriptures rather than Church of Christ history and practice?
I agree that some disagreements take one outside the body and some do not. On that we agree. But I believe the distinction may be found in the scriptures. You find the distinction in our history. I disagree.
You say, “I may not always see eye to eye with all “my elders” on some things , but doctrinally we agree, and I know because I serve as an elder with them.” Really? On every single issue? You interpret every single scripture the same? Or is it that you can disagree on some things and still consider each other brothers within the same body?
Again, how do you decide? What is the standard that makes the Holy Spirit an issue where we can disagree and remain in one body but not instrumental music? Where does the BIBLE draw this line? And if the Bible doesn’t, how dare we impose our opinions to fill in the gap?
Where does the Bible say that error as to instrumental music damns but error as to the Holy Spirit does not? I mean, the scriptures are silent on instrumental music and speak directly and frequently about the Spirit. Why is the Spirit not “doctrine” (meaning “teaching”) while singing is?
i have not seen a specific place recently to post about “personal indwelling” of the spirit. So may I do so here in the post of a “Broken Cup ” letter I have presented in another setting. If this seems a bit out of place, I apologize.
THE CUP IS BROKEN
Dear Dad,
I broke THE MEASURING CUP the other day. I know the family has treasured THE MEASURING CUP for generations; I had been trying to protect it as best I could, but the light of truth came through a crack in the door, struck THE measuring cup and shattered it, perhaps beyond repair. I had not realized that it was so fragile, even though I had been warned severely about not getting to close to THE MEASURING CUP or I might get hurt, burned, or worse. Yes, Dad, I’m writing about THE MEASURING CUP of the Holy Spirit.
I was not trying to break THE MEASURING CUP at all. I was just seeking Biblical truth in the gospel of John and Acts. Some of the commentaries you had taught me to hold in high esteem spoke of the “full measure of the Spirit, the Apostolic measure, the miraculous measure, and the ordinary measure of the Spirit”. To be sure, I was taught to acknowledge the gift of the Holy Spirit through baptism in the ordinary measure; and at times was even told that the gift of the Holy Spirit was the word of God only. It sounded good and even safe at the time, because we did not want to be accused of emotional excess or worse; our logical approach to Biblical truth and THE MEASURING CUP would certainly protect us from danger.
I think the light of truth first came when I was studying John 3:34 “For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.” KJV While this verse was the premise our beloved commentators used to craft THE MEASURING CUP, I was not reading the King James, but the Greek, which seems to give a different sense. I know neither of us is a true Greek scholar and have to work our way through slowly, but look at the Greek: in John 3:34 Hón gár apésteilen ho Theós tá reémata toú Theoú laleí ou gár ek métrou dídoosin tó Pneúma (Whom for has sent God the words of God speaks for not of measure he gives the spirit). Looking at this, it is not so clear that it is God giving the Spirit without measure to the one He has sent; it is more likely that “the one whom God has sent” is the one giving the Spirit without measure, as “the one sent” is the subject of the verse. This is consistent with Jesus’ words in John 15:26 “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth”. Certainly the next verse indicates that God loves the Son, and has given all things to him, which would (Acts 10:38) include the Spirit. But that still leaves verse 34 as saying the Spirit is given without measure, whether it is God or the one sent who is doing the giving. Please don’t misunderstand; I believe Jesus had the Spirit without measure. But I don’t see anywhere that the Holy Spirit was given by measure. There is a lot about the gift of the Holy Spirit and the filling of the Spirit and the fullness of the Spirit. I tried to find other verses that spoke of “measures of the Spirit”, but I came up empty; nowhere else in the New Testament does it speak of a “measure of the Spirit” or any limits on the Spirit at all, but always the sense of completeness and fullness. How strange that we would create or build an entire doctrine about the gift of the Holy Spirit based on a verse that says the exact opposite of our conclusions. I thought of how I was taught that only Jesus had the “full measure” of the Holy Spirit, so I thought I should look at the “fullness or filling of the Holy Spirit”. Here is what I found (New American Standard Version search):
“Filled with (Holy) Spirit”
Luke 1:15 “For he (John the Baptizer) will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother’s womb.
Luke 1:41 And it came about that when Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
Luke 1:67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying:
Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.
Acts 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers and elders of the people,
Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak the word of God with boldness.
Acts 9:17 And Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 13:9 But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze upon him,
Acts 13:52 And the disciples were continually filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.
Ephesians 5:18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit,
So if those verses say something to us, what about verses that talk about being full of the Spirit? Please look at these verses:
“Full of the Spirit”
Luke 4:1 And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led about by the Spirit in the wilderness
Acts 6:3 “But select from among you, brethren, seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task.
Acts 6:5 And the statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch.
Acts 7:55 But being full of the Holy Spirit, he (Stephen) gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God;
Acts 11:24 for he (Barnabas) was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And considerable numbers were brought to the Lord.
Perhaps I had been confused about the difference between the “gift of the Spirit” we received at baptism (Acts 2:38) and the “gifts of the Spirit” in 1Cor.12-14 that were given as the Spirit willed (1Cor.12:11) through Apostolic authority (Acts 8:18). Yes, the apostles authorized by Jesus were enabled by the will of God to impart “some spiritual gift” (Romans 1:11), and yes indeed those “spiritual gifts” ended when those receiving them died, but there were numbers of believers who were “filled” or “full” of the Holy Spirit who did not receive (from the New Testament record) what we would normally call “the miraculous measure of the Spirit”, among them John the Baptizer, Elizabeth, Mary (mother of Jesus), those present at Acts 4:31, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas. Also, we do not see any record of “gifts of the Spirit” among the household of Cornelius beyond the initial tongues speaking in Acts 10 nor do we see the Apostles of Acts 2 continuing in the gift of tongues. Neither is it certain that every believer had the hands of the Apostles laid upon him or her. What seems to be apparent is the Spirit at work as the Spirit wills. Acts 2:38 does not promise us a partial, limited, measured gift of the Holy Spirit. It is not “and you shall receive the x% gift of the Holy Spirit; no limit or measure is mentioned. It is not that Jesus was given 100%, the Apostles 70%, those who received an Apostolically imparted gift 40%, and us “ordinary” Christians 10% or some other measure. What seems clear is that Jesus had the Holy Spirit in all fullness to accomplish the work that God had for Him to do; the Apostles had the Holy Spirit in all fullness to accomplish the work that God had for them to do; those Apostolically gifted had the Holy Spirit in all fullness to accomplish the work that God had for them to do; we receive through baptism the Holy Spirit in all fullness to accomplish the work God has for us to do. The only difference is the will of God through the Spirit in every situation, whether it is Jesus, the Apostles, Cornelius, those apostolically gifted, or we today. We were all baptized by the Spirit into one body and made to drink of one Spirit (1Cor.12:13) and different gifts were given to different people and at different times and through different means, but the same Spirit, just as God desired (1Cor.12:18).
Please do not misunderstand, I’m not looking for a “new” faith or a “new” tongue or a “new” baptism or a “new” revelation. Jesus is indeed the final revealing authority (Heb.1:1) and the faith has been perfectly delivered once for all (Jude 3). I am looking for a clearer understanding of New Testament truth with the Holy Spirit guiding me into a clearer conviction of Jesus’ claim to my discipleship and servant hood.
Yes, Dad, THE MEASURING CUP is broken, but perhaps it has only served to hold us back from the fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, etc.) as we have grieved (Eph.4:30) or quenched the Spirit (1Thess.5:19) within, instead of being filled with the Spirit (Eph.5:18). Realizing that every generation must continue to search for Biblical truth; I don’t think that I’ll try to glue THE MEASURING CUP back together; it’s probably past time to just throw it away. From you I inherited generations of wisdom about worshiping in truth; perhaps it is past time to apply that wisdom to worshiping in spirit as well (John 4:24).
I do love you for bringing me to the knowledge of salvation, and I do not seek to hurt you; I would hope together we would allow and enjoy the filling and fullness of the Spirit and allow him to bear fruit in our lives that gives honor and glory to our Savior.
Your grateful son…
I was researching the muscle/shovel book when I stumbled across your comments. I have yet to read that book, yet I was extremely impressed by your response to its teachings. The love and wisdom of Christ was apparent in your review. Not only did your views ring true, but the spirit in which it was rendered was a very familiar voice to this particular sheep. I assume from your comments that you are Church of Christ. I am not. However, from my experience, you have demonstrated an attitude and spirit in your writings that seems to have been missing in the Church of Christ “ambiance” as a whole. This denominations reputation has long been one of exclusivity. No matter what ones beliefs (though I agree with yours) your offering was humbling. I assume your beliefs still endorse that musical instruments do not belong in worship services, however, after exposure to you, my beliefs that they DO belong there will not stop me from appreciating who you are, and that I KNOW i will spend time with you in Heaven. You will recognize me as the guy sitting by David jamming on my guitar, singing about Christ Jesus. God bless you for the time and care you spent posting your guidance. I am not a fool; you are a person of restrained wisdom. Hank Bailey- Tulsa
Hank,
Thanks for your encouraging post. I’m good with or without instruments personally. I enjoy either — if done well. I think God can be worshipped either way. However, I think a cappella is a cultural anachronism that interferes with evangelism in most settings. It may not entirely prevent effective evangelism, but it gets in the way.
Let’s put it this way: if you were to plant a new church, would you select a cappella as a strategic aid toward growth? I doubt it. In fact, in my conversations with church planters, the churches that begin instrumental, on the whole, do better than the a cappella plants.
Jay, that makes sense from several aspects, including how influenced the last two generations have been by music. I believe music is an actual language of the soul, not a product of “the arts”.
I actually taught a lesson on this not long ago, and have it captured on DVD. In your response to Michael Shank (i believe that’s his name) you spoke about salvation, and how it relates to his beliefs.
I recall a time when Jesus was asked by a young man, what he must do to be saved. Ironically. instead of telling him to join the Church of Christ, (or the church I go to), Jesus admonished the young man that Jesus only did what he saw the Father do first. Jesus would only say what he heard the Father say first. So it would make sense that when we do church, or we do music, that we do it like the Father actually did it. So in reality, lets talk a minute about what God does in his own presence, on his own time.
1) We know God gave David the gift of music, and the anointing with it to break the demonic yoke Saul had on his life. This is a spiritual gift from Heaven, not a musical gift David learned from the Rolling Stones. It’s not just musical notes. It’s a God thing.
2) The next big meeting where we are guaranteed that Jesus will attend, and where God will show up, and the Holy Spirit will orchestrate, will be the return of Christ . When God choses the moment, which will be in his presence because he will be present, he will open this rally with the blast of a trumpet. This is his choice, not one enforced on him by some “new agers”. He writes about his plan well in advance so we need not speculate. So if I want to be like God, and emulate God, I must be willing to open a large spiritual event with the blast of a trumpet, just like God is.
3) When God himself created the most beautiful and powerful creation, (Lucifer) God made him with wind instruments under one wing, and stringed instruments under the other. They were built for playing. Now Lucifer stood right next to God, made exactly how God made him, with the responsibility to use these weapons in God’s presence. I believe this makes him the Praise and Worship Leader in Heaven. If it didn’t, then God must be all confused about what he made , and where he placed it. He even must have “mis-spoke” when he described Lucifer as the most perfect creation ever. I believe Ezekiel may hold the documentation for this. We see that Lucifer was cast down from Heaven for his “merchandizing”. This means taking something that was intended for another. What was he merchandizing for himself? The praise intended for God. So what did that make the one created with the instruments under his wings? Built right in? The worship leader.
So if like Jesus, I want to do what the Father does, and endorse what he endorses, musical instruments in his Holy of Holys, and on special occasions, might be par for the course. You know, like right next to his throne all day?
Sounds like common sense to me.
Now, I responded to your blog because you proved to me that you have Christ in you, even though you attend a church I think has some tightly focused views. That is why I believe that you have also been in the presence of others using musical instruments in worship, and felt the same spirit in that music, that I recognized when I read your blog. My sheep hear my voice and know it.
God bless you, Hank
My heart is burdened by all this division and certainly my Savior must be sad at some of these comments especially from the Muscle and Shovel book. I am no stranger to these types of comments because my wife and her family are much the same way. If I shared some of the things they have said to their family members or done to them concerning COC views you would be cut to the bone. I don’t want to judge them but I will give real facts about what they have said or done to show examples. My mother in law would not come to our church to see her grandson when he was in a Christmas service because it was a Baptist Church. My wife will not participate in any fellowship within my Sunday school class or dare step foot in the church even for vacation Bible school events. My mother in law thought that her brother needed to be back in the church of Christ before he died because of her fear of him losing his salvation. The brother and his wife are great Christian people who happened to worship at a Baptist church as well. When I see and hear this type of ridicule towards Baptist and other churches in our town and I see how they act it doesn’t help their witness. I pray for revival and renewal for our country. I also pray for unity in His Church. I pray you do not take this as a bashing session of COC but as a real life story of Muscle and Shovel thinking. My heart breaks from the comments I have read in these blogs and comments from Muscle and Shovel. Lets remember that He called believers to go into the world and spread the gospel of Christ with those that are lost not for so called Christians to condemn them.
Muscle and Shovel, while it is a personal experience of one turning more conservative, is also a cheerleading book for those in the conservative camp who want to affirm that they are where they are supposed to be because it is the only place to be. And here is proof of why.
I doubt too many people outside of the coC will read it or it will even show up on thier radar.
consrvative coC people reguraly read other coC writings, so they get what they wish for.
David, I hear you and I used to be like them. One question you could ask is would you worship with a Baptist who came to our assembly and if so, what is the difference between thier building and ours as long as what is said is correct? Chances are they have worshipped with unblelievers and baptist without knowing it.
What hinders our worship, someone else or us? It is usually us. And God wants worship that is not dependent upon where or those around us, but upon why, by us, regardless of our neighbor.
May ask a question that may have already been addressed in the two years with of comments above?
I saw that Ed Fudge and Jay (and others) charge Shank with teaching another (false) gospel. Does that mean that, in their view, Shank (and the untold thousands who agree with him) are accused and condemned?
Again, sorry if this has already been addressed.
Hank,
My views are laid out in detail in my ebook Do We Teach Another Gospel? Download for free at /books-by-jay-guin/do-we-teach-another-gospel/
Sin is the transgression of the law. – 1 John 3:4
The scriptures are the inspired word of God. -2 Timothy 3:16
There’s is one Body. -1 Corinthians 12: 12,20
Church of Christ. -Romans 16:16
Sadly there ARE people who will worship in vain teaching doctrines of men. -Matthew 15:9
People hear what they want to hear not listening to sound doctrine and many don’t study scriptures to see what God has to say. Our souls is at stake so don’t rely on a preacher or teacher rely on the The law-giver God himself. -2 Timothy 4:3 -2 Timothy 2:15. -Acts 17:11
Ignorance is no excuse. -Acts 17:30
God says it is a shame for women to speak in the services. -1 Corinthians 14:35
God says to take communion every Lords day. -Acts 20:7
God says sing and make melody in your hearts. -Ephedisns 5:19
God says give contribution out of the goodness of your heart. -1 Corinthians 16:1-2
God says to have mutual edification from the male members in a worship service. -1 Corinthians 14:26-37
My Church does these things. I am of the Church of Christ. These are the words of God. When it comes down to it I want to follow HIM with all my might the best I possibly can. I also would rather listen to God rather than the words of men. God’s word is everlasting and unchanging what a blessing it is that we can always trust that His word is the truth! God’s word will stand the test of time and I will strive my whole life to follow Him!! God bless everyone!
Laura, It appears you have demonstrated a loyalty to Jesus Christ, and that you have little interest in compromising that precious relationship. I am interested to know what effect that loyal and unswaying relationship has had on your view of other Christians as a whole, who attend other houses of worship rather than a denominational Church of Christ?
Laura,
It is very evident that you are truly committed to the Church of Christ. I have been there also. Then I learned that the church is not the Savior. Notice carefully, you have left Jesus totally out of your commitment. Jesus mentioned other things that you should be doing which the church is not doing. Jesus the Savior never portrayed that any Christian would be condemned if they did not perform the acts that you have identified. In fact many of the early Christians could not perform these acts in the time frame which you have placed them. Many of the early Christians were shepherds (remember like those to whom the angels announced Christ birth). After the Day of Pentecost many went home to continue in their occupations, while performing those duties for months at a time without being able to return to town to an assembly (on each first day of the week), Did any of God’s writers address that those individuals had fallen from God’s grace (or lost) because they were unfaithful to abide by the rules which you have just identified? Christ has many faithful disciples who cannot attend the type of assembly which you describe. You can even read about them in the NT scriptures, Christians were regularly imprisoned, separated from other believers, some were lepers, some were caregivers who could not abandon their obligations to attend each assembly. Do we still have individuals who serve Jesus and are under the same restrictions as I am attempting to show you? Of course, and some in churches would attempt to condemn them for not living up to the rules that men have designed in churches. You will attempt to stress that the rules are God’s rules but, I will challenge you to show us any place in NT scriptures which dictates an order of worship for an assembly that contains the fullness of the items that you have identified.
Church leaders have driven the concept that we have a worship time and place, but God’s Words tell us that our lives are to be a worship to Him. If we ever stop worshiping him we have abandoned our commitment to him.
Worship to God was never confined to a building or place. Men and churches created that concept.
Laura,
Where are the words of God from the Torah to love the Lord with all your heart, soul….?
Where are the words of Jesus to love God and love your neighbor as yourself?
Where are the words of God written by Isaiah to 16Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil: 17learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.?
Christianity was for centuries an illegal religion and is today very difficult to practice, if not illegal, in certain countries. Do you think that followers of Jesus would have scheduled or regularly schedule an assembly for 10 am on Sunday mornings? They likely met at night when they could if the local Roman authority were friendly and looked the other way, perhaps with the help of a bribe. Today possession of a Bible will get you executed in some countries. Yet there are still followers of Christ who do what they can.
While you may or may not consider people in other churches to be Christan, on Good Friday there is a prayer for those whose faith is known to God alone. For centuries there have been people who have kept their faith a secret in order to save their lives and the lives of their families. I think God will understand they could not attend an assembly.
Unfortuntately “churches of Christ” isn’t really in the scriptures, although in the translations, as it should be congregation of Christ and this refers to the people of Christ and not a particular sect, group or name. So when we argue for one body, it relates to the people of Christ in Christ and not “the church of Christ” as a group. To do this we have isolated out those who went by the “the Way”, which is actually in the scriptures as a movement.
We cannot create a pinnacle of a group, that was never there. And there are many teachings within the coC that actually fall into the “doctrines of man” territory. I should know as I go to and have been with the coC for many, many years. IT is not an others issue.
Acts 20:7 God never stated for us to partake of the Lord’s Supper every Sunday, as this is an example. Now it might be true, but an example is not a clear direct statement.
While I think the coC has many good things over other groups, the really one bad thing is self-righteousness and pride over other groups.
Heb.10:25 “the command to assemble” is used/abused.”Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. … And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.” We are to draw near to God by drawing near to God(not through assembly)!
We should consider one another! We should not forsake the assembly of ourselves together. This doesn’t argue for a corporate assembly, but just gathering. And we are not to forsake assembly, which means turn our back on it, but this doesn’t mean elevating it as the avenue and focus and proof of our Christianity. We can worship God without assembling and we should.
Christians should meet together….period. Find a group, no matter how small and meet together. Someone who is able to meet and has(knows of other Christians)others to meet with should do just that, meet together. If you are providentially hindered then God knows that. But to know to meet, have the opportunity to meet and the folks to meet with and just decide not to meet isn’t honoring the desire by God for his kids to get together and worship him and to encourage one another. Some think they are meeting when they are logged in on their computers to a service from the bed on Sunday morning.
I think we make the command stronger than the reason for the command. The concept of “forsaking” is deliberatly turning one’s back to. God turned His back to Jesus when He died because Jesus was carrying the sins of the world at the hands of the world, but raised Him again after the sins were buried with Him. The concept of assembly is not to just assemble, but to assemble for one another in order to edify each other in the presence and in relation to God. There is never a hint of ceremony or structure or corporal worship involved in this. But coming together in a situation that edifies no one and has people following a set pattern of doing things, just for the sake of coming together misses the mark in aiding others. And yet so does staying home and selflishly doing nothing.
I had a paradigm shift a few years ago. It takes time, unfortunately, and I had even experienced two “awakenings” years prior. I have been in conservative churches of Christ for 47 years. I well remember the first time that I was shaken as a young Christian. My mother and I had gone to a Christian bookstore for the first time, and I found two or three little booklets by a guy named Bob L. Ross, both of which are highly critical of the COC. I was a young teenager at the time, and I couldn’t conceive of anyone openly criticizing the church. I mean, we KNEW the Bible; surely everyone else knew we were right and sought to avoid any biblical discussion for fear of being exposed as uneducated. Not Bob L. Ross. Now I don’t endorse Ross’s work. He mischaracterizes left, right, and center, but he did teach me a lesson. People in denominations DO make scriptural arguments and application.
My second awakening occurred a few years later. Same bookstore. I came across a book by Rubel Shelly called, “I Just Want to Be a Christian.” I had never heard of Rubel at this point. But I would hear plenty in the coming months and years. All this AFTER I read the book, largely agreeing with the author. I learned that there were disagreements even within the COC over the meaning and application of scriptures.
It’s hard to believe in hindsight, but I couldn’t conceive of legitimate, bible-based arguments against the church. I thought we were the ones who had it all figured out. Could we actually be mistaken about a few things?
It took many more years after these two experiences before I began honestly and earnestly studying the scriptures and examining our beliefs & practices in light of critical thinking. And it’s not all bad. I think we do a lot of great, great things. But we also have missed the target on some things, and missed badly.
My experiences have largely been very, very good within the COC. No real drama or issues to speak of. However, my perception, shaped by the decades among the conservatives, is that we care more about being distinctive than we care about the weightier matters. We care more about identity markers than we care about being Christ-like. We care more about “winning” the argument than we care about the actual argument. We care more about “perceptions” and the reasons to NOT help those stricken with disaster (CCDR) than we care about the actual people stricken with disaster! Obviously, there are plenty of exceptions to these generalizations, but that is my overall perception.
Kevin, that I believe is a good assessment, at least of the conservative denomination of the coC. There are some very good things within the coC, but also some very bad things that we don’t want to talk about. There are warm people within the coC, but many of them are ruled by a cold exterior and and air of supriority at least in knowing and applying scripture. I’m sure the Pharisees also were warm, at least to those that agreed with them in all things.
I just know that Jesus played second fiddle to Paul and the sermons on Paul far outnumbered the sermons from the gospel by 20:1.
Kevin,
Thanks for your testimony. Rubel’s book was a big, big, big deal around here. Not as much west of the Mississippi, as the Firm Foundation had a less legalistic stance than the Gospel Advocate, back in those days. He helped a lot of people shift their paradigms.
Dwight;
Good point. We make the command stronger than the reason to assemble. I have heard so many prayers prayed for members who “weren’t there of their own accord” as if they were apostatized. Miss two Sundays in a row and you are a goner. Never mind that those folks probably wouldn’t be fellowshipped if they had showed up or that anyone(other than) the preacher cared enough to call them to see why.
I would suggest that many people commenting on here take some classes on hermeneutics and proper biblical study techniques. Also anyone qouting ESV, NIV, or American Contemporary translations are not getting the proper meanings out of studies, as most of these are interpretations not translations. Also those qouting Rubel, Shelley, or Lucado, these men have been destroyed on biblical interpretation and false teaching in proper written propositions. Just as the world tries to push “it’s understanding” of the church as the church’s stance, many have done that.
Stephen, Can you be specific as to why you are making your suggestion on hermeneutics and proper biblical study techniques from what you have read? This would be helpful and would not seem as though it is a random attack.
I personally was raised, like a few others here, and taught in the conservative coC hermeneutics and proper bible study techniques and know them very well. I dislike quoting from anybody that is quoting on the scriptures, even those from the conservative side or from ECF. Also I find many in the conservative coC don’t have a good understanding on what the church is or rather who the church is as well and have absorbed many concepts through the years without knowing it.
My suggestion is if you are going to weigh in, weigh in on a specific point and attack it and not make a general attack on peoples knowledge or lack of.
Stephen,
What exactly are you suggesting when it comes to Bible translations? Are you suggesting that the only reliable translations are old-English KJV or ASV? You said:
On what scholarship have you based your determination? Stephen, there is no perfect translation. Both the KJV and the ASV have their problems just like any other translation. Problems arise when translating ANYTHING from one language into another. Scholars argue over the best translation of ‘War and Peace,’ Dante, and Les Misérables. Did you think the Bible is exempt from translation difficulties? People have been involved in every translation from Hebrew / Greek to English, so the Bible is not exempt from translation problems. That’s true for ANY translation. The best Bible study methods will encourage using multiple translations along with a good Hebrew / Greek lexicon like HALOT & BDAG, a good Bible dictionary, and a good Introduction / Survey.
Such as? It’s not very polite to hurl accusations against others without at least providing an example or two. Your saying something doesn’t make it true…or even accurate. That’s not the way one engages in Christian discourse. Why would we want to listen to what you have to say when your posting style is jackboot like this? You have provided a good example of what not to do.
I would love for you to hang around and discuss things because I am sure that you have something positive to contribute, but you will definitely be confronted with a posting style that accuses someone of false teaching but doesn’t even attempt to prove or justify the accusation.
WOW!
Jay Guin…did you say you are an attorney? Chuckles…My favorite bible verse is 1 Cor. 2:2
Where Paul said,”I am determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him
crucified.” Man cannot tolerate anyone thinking they are TRUE followers of Christ and want to
go back to the scriptures for TRUTH. The world loves anything and anyone that questions the
TRUTH. The world cannot tolerate such remarks.The world cannot tolerate anyone wanting to be just seed planters that first century Christians planted. The world hates it when people say we
want the Bible as our only guide and want to find what the original church was and restore it EXACTLY. Mankind and the world loves anything that resembles man’s input into all things where
God’s authority should be.The world hates it when a group of people pleads for any kind of unity based on God’s word. The world loves it when the TRUE church (there is one) starts to fall away.
Because, actually since the beginning Acts 20 Paul warned and wept for three years, salvage wolves would enter in not sparing the flock. So here is the TRUTH…the church always, always
conforms to the world, and only a few will hold on to the TRUTH. The arrogance and egos of men
astonish me. The church if falling away as I write this, but His true church will stand forever. ONLY A FEW. This is what the Bible teaches. And of course the world doesn’t like that.
B.A.L
Sir I mean no disrespect but what bible have you read in context? I see those that are reading the Bible in context and praying are in a relationship in with our Lord. I pray that there would be unity in His Church not just the coc but with all true believers.
BAL,
Why did you begin your comment with an insult?
What purpose does it serve to insult Jay with regard to his profession?
Do you think this form of banter honors Christ? Is it reflective of Christian dialogue and decorum?
How very ironic that you state, “The arrogance and egos of men astonish me.” Did you consider that your initial comments are saturated with ego and arrogance?
I am certainly happy that you came to the comment section and that you are willing to engage. I am sure you can contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way, but I urge you to refrain from the insults. They have no place on a Christian website.
B.A.L. is either writing in derision or tongue in cheek, as he Bolds “Truth, Exactly and Only a Few”.
His statement of “The church if falling away as I write this, but His true church will stand forever.” is basically true, but in the coC and in many others we often speak as though we are the gate keepers of the Truth, because we know Exactly the Truth and we are the Few who know and will get in because we practice Exactly the Truth.
Even those who claim to be the NT church, don’t realize that the church is much bigger than they are and although they claim exactness on CENI, if cornered they will argue that some examples and patterns are not really relevant, while others are extremely salvational. How one feels about faith and/or baptism’s ability is one of these, whether you are baptized into Christ or not.
BAL writes:
I don’t think you will find any disagreement from the commenters on this blog with regard to using the Bible as our only authoritative guide. I suspect, however, that you are not really attempting to follow the latter part of your statement. Are you REALLY attempting to restore the original church exactly?? I mean, really. Are you meeting solely in people’s homes, or are you using a building? Are you following the Galatian model or the Corinthian?
Perhaps. And many Christians disapprove of unity based on legalism, adding to the Gospel, and the practice of binding where God has not bound.
Of course there is a true church. Christ adds us to the church; it doesn’t get any truer than that. Who is arguing that the church doesn’t exist? I don’t think anyone here has done that.
You have misunderstood and misapplied this scripture (Matt 7:13-14) because you’ve ignored the context. Jesus was drawing a distinction between those who follow the world and those who follow Christ. That’s the context. You have misapplied the passage to draw a distinction between those who follow Christ and those who are in your little group that follow Christ.
BAL wrote “The world loves anything and anyone that questions the TRUTH.” The truth according to whom?
May I remind you that, unlike some, Jesus took questions from people and answered them. That was how he taught the faith. Now some people might not have liked his answer, but he gave them one. I have a feeling you are coming from legalism where extra commandments include “thou shalt not question anything ” and “thou shalt not rethink thy position”. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Hey Kevin,
I appreciate your reply. You are right. I apologize for my remark. Forgive me.I only meant to do
some waking up and look at Eph. 5:14-21 and making the most of every opportunity. We all need to examine ourselves and wake up from time to time.
And I would like to say…I like Jay…he is probably my favorite, besides Michael on this blog. You have accused me of misunderstanding and misapplying scripture. Be very careful with that.You seem to have a big chip on your shoulder. I am an old woman, grew up with awesome Bible
scholars and was raised by a grandmother who was the strongest Christian I ever knew. I have seen much in the church, have seen every issue and argument and have learned that ” What one
believes does not determine truth, but truth determines what we are to believe.” It is all in the pages of the word of God.THANKS, Kevin.
I am waiting for my reply to Kevin. Why won’t you post it?
Hey Dwight,
I’m glad you responded to my comment. Romans 3:4 says “Let God be true and every man a liar.”
What does that mean to you? What it means to me is ….Don’t play games with THE WORD OF GOD.The devil is real and he is going to knock on everyone’s door. Some will say, “Come on in
Satan….you can take over my entry, or my LR and then my Bedroom. Pretty soon he has taken over the whole house. This is what one might say is happening in the church right now..Whose fault is that?,,,,it is our fault. We have quit defending the word, we have quit spreading and teaching the TRUE GOSPEL.When Christians turn inward, we fall apart.
The old saying ….If we don’t learn from history, we will repeat it. We need to go back when the Church of Christ was the fastest growing religion in the country.The forty I believe..We need to study that period. But our culture sick…sin sick. I know of many good things that are working to
turn lives around. We need to unite sooner rather than later.Wii leave you with 1 Peter 5:8 “Be
sober and vigilant because your adversary the devil is a roaring lion walking about seeking whom
he may devour.”
Thanks, Dwight
PS
And yes, one would have to be a complete nut not to realize the church is much bigger than local.
.
B.A.L., One of the inferences from Rom.3;4 is that while what we read is indeed truth, what we interpret is not necessarily truth. The Gospel Truth magazine may or may not be teaching actual truth as they state about themselves.
A person with a PHD can misunderstand on the same level as a person with no education whatsoever. The person we call a preacher is a person we pay to preach and tell us stuff (they are not HS inspired), which we can now read. We go to assembly to be taught and we go back to be retaught that which we know, but haven’t applied, because we still must be taught more.
Going back to the 40s is not far back enough and had its own issues, and actually a lot of false positions were cemented into the coC, but yes there was growth, but again not like during the time of the apostles.
I agree we need to unite, but unite with whom. I have been raised in the conservative coC and the mantra is “we need to unite, but we cannot unite with them, so they must unite with us.” It is a strange thing when we say, we cannot go worship with them, but they can come and worship with us, even though we are teaching mostly the same things. And the church you go to may not have any clue to the church next door in the strip center that has no name and really doesn’t care to know them.
“What one believes does not determine truth, but truth determines what we are to believe.”
Good statement.
My other favorite one is “Apply yourself wholly to the text, apply the text wholly to yourself.”
We should convict ourselves with god’s words first and foremost.
BAL,
I agree. We all need a wake up from time to time. 🙂
I confess that I have a chip on my shoulder…I am a Marine. We think we can conquer the world.
Based on my reading of your post, it does seem to me that you have misapplied scripture, but I might be mistaken. Would you mind giving us your thoughts on Matt 7:13-14 and how you apply it?
You wrote:
To me, you seem to be suggesting that the “few” really means a small segment among all those who follow Jesus and claim Him as their Lord.
BAL
Jay may not acknowledge or even realize what his training as an attorney is helping him do with the Scriptures. He is clearing out the “onlys” the 1940’s Church of Christ preachers added to the Scriptures. You know like,”Only he that believes and is baptized shall be saved”. “The Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian only through the Word.” Singing, only without instruments, and making melody in your hearts to the Lord”. “There were only two instances where people were baptized with the Holy Spirit”. “Only the apostles could impart the spiritual gifts”. “Only on the first day of the week let each one of you lay by in store”. “When the disciples came together only upon the first day of the week to break bread”.
There may be some justification for inferring some of the “onlys”, but there is no justification for claiming a superiority over others who do not infer a whole hosts of “onlys” throughout the Scriptures.
Hey Kevin,
Chuckles…..i so enjoyed you response. I love your sense-of humor. Tough marine huh?
Thanks so much for your service. I just lost my older brother who was a marine and was in
the Korean Conflict.
I so appreciate you wanting to discuss scripture, Kevin. My favorite pass-time. Matt. 7:13
Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to
destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate, and narrow the road that leads
to life and only a few find it.
Have you ever wondered what goes through one’s mind when they read this? Does it cause
us some fear? So do we think perhaps God is really trying to tell us something. Two other
scriptures come to mind as I comment on this. Prov. 2:6 For the Lord gives wisdom, and from
His mouth come knowledge and understanding. Prov. 3:5-6 Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him and he will direct your paths..So I trust that my speech is seasoned with salt and always full of grace.He means what he
says. This is one of those verses, Kevin that makes me want to praise Him to the highest.
God knew how to write the Bible. He doesn’t need any help from us on His thoughts as His
thoughts are not our thoughts.He just tells us to plant and water and He will give the increase.
Talk about great…how great is that? Just think about how much stress is taken off of us. And we
don’t have to think about watering last years crop either.
I Peter 4:11 If anyone speak, let him speak of the oracles of God. I love the way God is. What He means is …It Is ” My Way or the Highway”. Being a tough marine…don’t you just really appreciate
that?
Chuckles
Thanks for engaging me in a most delightful discussion.
PS
Keep up your great wit, Kevin… .
Hardly come to this site or post anymore but had to on this one sore subject with me.
Plant and water and God will give the increase sure sounds different from our conservative COCs interpretation of how few will find the narrow path. What’s not said out loud by most COC is those that do not find that narrow path will burn in hell. Sounds too harsh and judgmental
Now, that, as we teach, is a loving God that made us all in His image? Even sent His Son to save us, the whole world? What a failure we see and teach as our God?
As we teach this, all the Devil has to do is stand there and catch all of us humans as God throws us to him off the wide path. His devils spending full time building furnaces, ovens or what ever they are called just to keep up. Don’t need temptations to get us,, why waste the energy, Devil has it easy, just catch those that do not follow exactly as we teach God wants, or hell will be our home.
I always thought making us in Gods image included his Spirits mind, thinking, instead of just the body. Stll do by the way.
Interesting that all throughout time of this world and all over the world, (as we see civilized or not) humans have worshiped as they pictured and understood God and interestingly all looked upward to God as they understood based on their inborn, inward instinct of long, long, forgotten knowledge..
We in the COC sure present God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as terrible failures with us humans made in Gods image don’t we!
And we don’t understand why so many are leaving us to worship God as seen in a more successful, positive way?
The more I live in the conservative coC world the more I see us as the Pharisees of the bible. When you are standing outside the gate checking people for acceptance, you yourself aren’t inside the gate.
Within a month we have had some great bible classes on grace, but once we get up in the pulpit grace becomes a distant memory.
We as people aren’t supposed to think more highly of ourselves and judge others, but as a collective coC we can. We on one level teach we are just like the people around us, except saved, then on another level teach we aren’t like them in that congregation. We are right and they are wrong, based on certain things that we do and they don’t do.
If I can see the hypocrisy, others can as well, even if those that do the teaching and who are in charge can’t.
B.A.L
Revelation 7:9 ” After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne, and in front of the lamb. They were wearing white robes….”
So much for your spin on “few there be that find it.” That’s an old CofC preacher’s favorite verse to show how it’s OK to be harsh and judgmental because after all Jesus said it, not us. We have used that to show that the Baptist and any other denomination aren’t going to make it and it’s OK to believe that because Jesus said it. “Few there be!” Heck we even use it among ourselves, there aren’t even going to be but few in the CofC that make it according to folks like yourself. and so we(you) keep cutting off parts of the Lords body as if you are purging gangrenous members. I feel bad for you.
How does your interpretation of “few there be” jive with a number so large it can’t be counted? Few in relationship to what is the question. I’m pretty sure you don’t believe the scripture contradicts itself. So again, the question is few in relationship to what? In relationship to those that choose the broad way. A percentage. I don’t know what that relationship is whether it’s 5,10, 15 20,percent or what and neither do you. But whatever it is it’s enough to wind up being an uncountable amount. Jesus will have his bride and it will consist of people from every tribe, nation, and language, innumerable. Your version of the Lord’s church sure has a lot of work to do to fulfill what John saw. Your version of the Lord’s church has only been around since the mid to late 1800’s and 90 percent exist in the USA and 80 percent of those in that group exist in the Southern USA, and 70 percent of those in the South are in Texas, Alabama and Tennessee. Just curious how does that jive in your opinion with the redeemed John saw?
If every member of the CofC worldwide at present made it to heaven by grace, it would be a fraction of 1 percent of the current world’s population. It would surely be countable, and it would not consist of people from every nation, tribe and tongue. Somebody’s wrong, aren’t they?
Dwight wrote, “we have had some great bible classes on grace, but once we get up in the pulpit grace becomes a distant memory.” I saw this way too many times. Sunday school could be moderate and reasonable but the sermon sure wasn’t. There was a disconnect between the two though I am not sure if anyone else saw it. I kept asking silently if anyone cared.
It has been a very long time since I have commented here, but this recent flurry of activity has caught my interest. I am not part of CoC nor have I ever been. However it occurred to me that most of you commenting recently are involved with CoC. Though not all of your recent comments have had the same tone, they have all collectively had the same effect on me.
I am humbled and blessed by your introspection and self examination. I feel that in spite of the mental and spiritual gymnastics, and in spite of the intensity of the comments, God is pleased with your passion. All of you. He would rather you be hot or cold, but not puke warm. This argument and heated debate demands a definite position from our spirits. I would have stereotyped CoC people to be way to smug to self examine oneself. I am humbled.
I am getting older now, and just had a birthday a couple days ago. One thing I feel I have learned is that none of us has to be theologically correct to receive salvation. But Jesus has the be the axle our wheel moves on. We see an example of the one thief on the cross who simply called Jesus “Master”, which was his way of saying you are over me, or let me die under you. He simply asked, please remember me. Jesus, who had all power to save, did not parable him or preach to him, instead, scheduling this mans appointment in Heaven for that same afternoon. He was theologically correct. He may have missed most of what we know about Christ.
In another instance, a Roman Centurion, who was trained in cruelty and in killing approached Jesus. But there was one other subject the Centurion knew about. That was authority. Not Godly authority mind you, just authority. He applied this one simple concept to his interaction with Christ, and Christ announced that he had never seen this great “faith” in all the land.
I seriously doubt this Roman soldier had his Jewish theology worked out, but Jesus said he was at the head of the table when it comes to Christ-like faith. These arguments of theology do not rank exactly where we as humans think it does. The passion of our hearts does though.
Thank you gentlemen for your display of passion. I am humbled because I misjudged you. Hank-Tulsa
Hank, there a few and far in between of us who question the establishment of coC teachings and are willing to speak out. It is to my dismay that publications like Muscle and Shovel have cemented a whole new generation in believing the coC is the one true church.
Hank ,
Dwight is right as there are so many COC, (most) today seeing as those of us posting. I would ask you, please, to seek out Al Maxeys site and get on his e-mail list for his blog, read his thoughts on a lot of past teachings and beliefs. That is the way the COC is headed, and if not, closing down and selling their buildings, usually as the older generation dies off, to others of various persuasions that do not believe as they do.
Hey Monty,
I.m glad for your response. I almost didn’t rejoin, but with some prayer and the enjoyment of it all, I
decided to take you on. Chuckles.
We have an old saying down here in Texas when a challenge or dare is out there that says,
“Well, this is the horse that threw old Tony” You are the one..
What spin are you talking about here? Is the Son of God spinning something?
I have been in the Church all my life and I have never heard an old CofC preacher as you call
him be harsh and judgemental. Whose being harsh and judgemental here, Monty?
You say folks like myself. How are folks like myself? So I am purging gangrenous members?
Wow, Really? And you know this? Are you sure of what you speak?
I am in all probably, old enough to be your grandmother. I don’t know how old you are, but you sound very young.
You ask about my interpretation of both scriptures jiving. Both scriptures are perfect. They do
not contradict each other .You asked few in relationship to what? Few in relationship to the
WILL OF GOD. It is not any of your business, mine or anyone else, who He chooses to save. The
secret things belong to Him..
I see some scoffing, mocking, and some passive/aggressive behavior here, Monty.
So let’s talk about the little fraction of 1% as you say. You might be shocked what that little fraction of 1% has done to push the ROCK up the hill, and carry the banner.forward. We are standing on the shoulders of some great Spiritual Giants. They have planted, watered and spread the gospel
with much love and their work has accomplished more than we can ever imagine.
Since when has something small not been effective when God decides that’s His will? Hasn’t
he always used the small and insignificant things of this world? I remember Him using a jawbone of an ass with Sampson.How about that one?
11 cor. 10:3-5…”For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The
weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world….on the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.We demolish arguments and every pretension.that sets itself up against
the knowledge of God and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”
There is no telling how the little fraction of 1% .has helped to bring GLORY to His name. I want to tell you a short story, if I may, I was in Houston,Tex.a short time ago working on a job. I turned off
Hwy. 1960 on a street and came upon a big beautiful church with the name CHRIST’S CHURCH
in big letters….underneath it in small letters in parentheses was the words ( A Baptist fellowship)
I pulled over and sorta’ wept and thanked God. I also took a picture of it. And Monty, what do you
think I have done with that picture?
And as I thought about all of this….I remember what the greatest Baptist preacher said, “I look
forward to the day when there is not a Baptist living on earth.” Charles Spergeon
So yes, the little fraction of 1% has accomplished much ….ONLY GOD AND HIS SON knows.
Now I think you better straighten up, Monty or I’ll sic a Marine on you.
There is one on this blog, you know…he sorta’ straightened me out one time.
In His Love and Service,
Barb
PS
I’m not computer savvy,
so excuse my fumbling….
Been a member of the coC over 50 years. I can’t tell how many times people i meet recoil when they hear I’m a member of the coC because they or someone close to them being told by someone in the cofC they going to hell since they do not go to a cofC. My mother was told her believing parents were going to hell because they were not coC. i no longer go to a legalistic coC but to one that teaches salvation by Grace not works; the congregation has baptized close to 600 people into Christ in the last 12 months, that number doesn’t include the baptisms by the missionaries. Numbers do matter because souls matter. Legalism, an un-Christ-like religion of its own, promoted by the book in question drives people away from Christ rather to Him. All followers of Christ are our brothers and sisters. Praise God!
Amen!
Deuteronomy 23:1
“No one who is emasculated, or has his male organ cut off, shall enter the assembly of the LORD. “
Leviticus 21:18-21
For no one who has a defect shall approach: a blind man, or a lame man, or he who has a disfigured face, or any deformed limb, or a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf, or one who has a defect in his eye or eczema or scabs or crushed testicles.”
Are we as a fellowship of believers keeping God seekers from coming into our fellowship? Do we cut off those would come to worship? Is our building open and inviting? Or do seekers look once and turn away from buildings and grounds that say this place of worship is not worthy of our care? “Surely not”, we would insist. Or perhaps even worse, when God seekers come, do we turn them away with our unwritten expectations of their behavior, because they are not the same as us? They make too much or too little money, their skin is too light or too dark, their hair is too short or too long. Or when they express an opinion that is not “quite in line” with what we perceive to be “doctrinal purity”, do we put a “box of doubt” around them? I am not suggesting that we have “inspection stations” to check for bodily imperfections or mutilations (indeed, I don’t know what kind of inspection stations there were on the temple grounds, but they were certainly there); but do we have other “inspections” that may be just as exclusionary? Perhaps the language isn’t right (God does speak English, you know), it may be English, but you better use the right terms if you want to fit in: you see—
We have elders, not “pastors”. We have auditoriums, not “sanctuaries”. We have the Lord’s Supper, not “sacrament”. We have invitations, not “altar calls”. We have classes, not “confirmations”. We have Christian colleges, not “divinity schools.”
Just as the Lord sent Phillip, He will send to the seeker beyond our narrowness.
I am not saying that all of these things are equivalent, but come into our fellowship from some other background and use some of these terms and it won’t be very long before some “loving brother” will “straighten you out” and “show you the way of the Lord more perfectly”, and too often publicly. And yet, the kingdom of God is not tied up or bound by our limitations.
The story is told of a man raising his arms during song and prayer, and a deacon’s question:
“Is there a problem; what are you doing?”
“Praising God.”
The deacon replies, “Well, we don’t do that here.”
Why should we be uncomfortable when someone follows Paul’s injunction to “lift holy hands in prayer?” Is it that we realize that our hands are NOT holy? Of course they aren’t, if we think holy means sinless. Holy does not mean sinless; holy means set apart, sanctified. God has declared us a holy people, set apart for him. We have a very difficult time accepting the grace of God, but that is a subject for another time. I am not suggesting that we should be raising and shaking and working ourselves into emotional excesses. Paul asks men in every place to life holy hands in prayer, but largely as a fellowship we do not follow this Biblical injunction because of perceived abuses. As the apostle Paul encourages “lift holy hands in prayer” we should not disparage those who are comfortable following this Biblical injunction.
If you don’t use the “right language”, some may look at you a bit strangely. You may feel like you don’t quite belong, but not know why. God has called us to relationship with him, not culture or human traditions or language. Let us break down the walls that do not belong. For crossing the wall in the temple, the penalty was death. For using the “wrong” language or wrong expression of church culture, you may find yourself paying the penalty of “spiritual dis-fellowship” and left outside the community of believers. THIS IS NOT YOUR PROBLEM – THIS IS NOT YOUR FAULT.
It is the problem of those who fail to see the love and grace of God, and would wrongly bind personal traditions and experiences and expectations on you. Please understand I am not talking about compromising Biblical truth.
Here is what I think is the concluding portion of the Phillip’s study when the Ethiopian said, “Look! Water. What hinders me….
Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say,
“The Lord will surely separate me from His people.”
Nor let the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.”
4 For thus says the Lord,
“To the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths,
And choose what pleases Me,
And hold fast My covenant,
5 To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial,
And a name better than that of sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name which will not be cut off.
(I cried when I came to this passage. . has become my “If I could only preach one” sermon.
John, your examination of the general culture of CoC was helpful. However it was even further impactful when you shifted the focus to God’s promises, his heart, and his mercy toward the compromised. That was pretty cool. In other words, you demonstrated that God is pretty cool. He still has a heart for that one lost sheep doesn’t he? And that is an entirely separate focus than our own debates regarding theology. I guess it goes to show, that if we fail to focus on the purity of God, all we have left to focus on is our own goodness. Thanks for ending with the focus on God’s purity. No wonder you were moved by it. Your heart shows in your comments. Hank
B.A.L.
I see you didn’t really want to get into the “lots of different kinds of folks” in heaven versus the “few”(mainly southern USA and white since 1850-ish.) That’s OK I wouldn’t want to either because the two ideas are opposed to each other. I use to think “little church”(our little group-compared to all the believers in Jesus in the world) like you(if you do) you seem to espouse that idea, but now I think Big church as in the tree Jesus talked about that started with such a tiny seed but grew so big that so many birds came and made their nest in it.
Since you mentioned Charles Spurgeon would you consider him a “brother in Christ.” Or is that anathema and reserved for only those baptized “for the remission of sins and sing a Capella”? Spurgeon perhaps appreciated the idea of all believers being one as did Alexander Campbell and Barton w. Smith(I’m not an expert on Spurgeon). I do know that Campbell and Stone thought all believers(Christians in the different sects)
should be one; that’s a great plea. One I believe in. The difference in what they believed and perhaps what you believe is in the how. They thought all “Christians” in the sects should lay down their creeds and just allow the Bible to speak. If I’m not mistaken(feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) that’s not your plea of unity. Yours perhaps(as I stated I could be wrong) goes more like let all the supposed Christians in the sects(denominations you might say)) become true believers(they aren’t right now) by being baptized properly(rebaptized for the forgiveness of sins). Then and only then are they acceptable to the Lord as believers. Am I wrong?
We’ve both assumed a lot about each other based on what we’ve previously written. The idea I expressed about purging gangrenous members was harsh, I admit. But when you think about how Jesus prayed for unity among believers and Paul’s writings about there being no more divisions or walls of separation in Christ and then for some(perhaps not you) in the CofC who have come up with so many man made rules about who is a true Christian and who isn’t among believers who would give their lives for their faith in CHrist is just silly IMHO. Doctrine is important for sure but not damning teachings that are the mere contrivance of men. Let me show you what I mean. Take two congregations(hypothetically speaking of course) side by side. One congregation believes everything you believe and the one next door believes everything you believe with one exception but sings with musical accompaniment. Are they both acceptable to you and IYO to God? Would you consider both congregations pleasing to God? If you answer is no then that is the mere contrivance I’m talking about. That is at least one such example.
Please(if you would) answer plainly. Don’t tippy toe around it. That’s what many of the commenters are saying on here; that we say one thing in Bible class and we preach another from the pulpit. and by the way, I have been taken to task many times on here over the years. My comments have been challenged firmly at times (and gently at others) and at the time it stung a bit but I have grown much from Jay’s blog. I hope you will stick around awhile and bounce your views off the wall so to speak. We are (perhaps) people just like you who are seeking the truth and are trying to honestly examine where we have been and how we got to where we are. A good question to start with might be how did a unity movement(a grand idea and Biblical at that) to start with become a disunity movement? So much so that one CofC would condemn another that didn’t adhere strictly to their interpretation of scriptures(Sunday morning Bible class, paid located preachers, one cup, a Cappella – instrumental, assist orphan homes, etc, etc..our extensive list for “soundness” that one doesn’t even read about in scripture.
Monty, the problem is when we limit the congregation to the assembly. Meaning that while they may or may not be doing the right thing inside the walls, what do they do as a member of Christ outside the walls? In side the walls the ones who talk about and condemn IM often aren’t the ones helping the needy, talking to others (other to debate them on baptism vs faith), etc., being Christ like. This is true across all denominations, the more rigid they become inside, the less active they are outside, because they don’t operate on grace with mercy. It is about what you can’t do as opposed to what you can do.
In fact we have been hearing a slew of sermons on IM and how wrong it is, but we don’t do IM at our congregation, (at least not during assembly, although many, many people do it outside the assembly), so it just sounds like we are trying to justify ourselves based on this one thing we aren’t doing inside. The tense is as long as we don’t do IM we are good and all others that do are wrong, but we also teach that all others are wrong, even though they might not do IM either, for other reasons.
Dwight,
Once you come up with these man made rules and regulations you have to constantly harp on them or (rehearse) maybe better, as to why others are wrong. You certainly won’t get that they are wrong from scripture. No one is ever going to read the Psalms and then come over to the NT and say, “Oh I see God doesn’t want anyone to play a harp any longer, it will get you damned.” And so it depends on the preacher getting up every so often and explaining the Regulative principle to the layman. “Now why is it that we don’t sing with the piano?” “Oh yeh, that Regulative principle. ” Got it.” Thanks preacher, I almost apostatized, but you brought me back to the straight and narrow!”
It’s a constant steady drill in these churches. “Why are we not like everyone else? Oh yeh, the Regulative Principle.” Funny we usually say that if a man was stranded alone on a deserted island and he found a Bible and began to seriously and sincerely read it he would come up with the same conclusions that our particular congregation believes. Not! He would 1st have to know the Regulative Principle. Then he would have to dissect that principle in a way that only a select few have. Good luck with that.
Monty, I feel like I should quit eavesdropping on these conversations because I am not CoC. But it is so interesting, that I am learning from your conversations. None the less, your last comment about the desert Island, and how likely the guy would be to fall into step made me laugh. When you are right, you are right. That guy would definitely pull out his guitar and enjoy the sunset. He would never come up with the “trick” set of rules never mentioned in the Bible.
You could put 10,000 men on 10,000 different islands with a Bible. You could tell them that the only way they could be rescued was to decipher what God was saying in his word. You could come back one year later and interview all 10,000 men, and not one stinkin’ one of them would come up with. “You know, I really got that you shouldn’t play live instruments during the worship of God.”
Not one.
A thought like that must be truly inspired. I mean really. I am an ex-cop, and I tell you, I am laughing thinking about the odds of someone coming up with that. It is truly funny, but I would have never thought about that obvious truth until you brought it up. Adolph Hitler said, “The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.” He was truly inspired as well. He would be the only one on the island who would come up with the theory that depriving worshipers of music during worship is a primary move of God upon the Earth. I’m thinking one out of a million wouldn’t get the job done, Unless you had an Adolph Hitler or a Joseph Smith on the island. And yet, I would bet my own life that most CoC folks are born again and heading to Heaven, because they are relying on the same Savior I am counting on. I’ll quit there. Hank
IT made me think about how we twist things to get what we want.
If my daughter came up to me and said, “Daddy, I want to sing you a song” and she pulled out a guitar and started singing, technically I should stop her and say, “I’m sorry, but you lied to me. You are not singing me a song, but you are singing and playing an instrument. So that is not what you said. You lied!”
She would not understand that, because we don’t do that in real life.
Or if we told our daughter to sing would we scold her if she started singing to a musical instrument, because she was not singing, but singing and playing an instrument?
Even though she really is singing.
Really! Would we do that?
Do we NOT turn on the radio because we wish to listen to singing and all we get is singing and instruments instead?
It is all how we define addition to a command to defend a bad argument.
And then when we partake of the Lord’s Supper with the contribution tagged on, we vehemently argue, “Well that is not an addition”, it is convenient. Actually it interrupts worship process with the gathering of money, when we could just place it in a pot as we leave the building.
But that is how they did it in the NT…Lord’s Supper, contribution, song. NOT!
But we understand that anything that you add to your car whether more seats or a radio or an antenna is an addition to it. We change definitions as we want to.
But it really doesn’t add up.
Hank, keep on eavesdropping, you will learn much about what not to do.
Hank
/2009/03/its-friday-the-franchise-agreement/
You need to read the franchise agreement. It explains a lot more.
Dwight, I actually have learned something already. I have learned that I must be very cautious whenever I feel I have gotten some new revelation of the scripture that I am all excited about. I need to run it by a mentor who I trust, so we can compare it to the Word and make sure I am not getting too smart, or too “enlightened. I have an older Sister who is quick to remind me when I have revelation of a truth, and not the total truth that trumps everything else. Hank
Thanks Mark. That was some good writing. Jay has obviously had plenty of time to observe. I really liked the one about ending up back at home worshipping in a house with a kitchen. What a tangled web we weave. It always comes back to bite us. (That was my first time to see that) I realize that was meant in fun, but exactly how far is COC from being a cult?
Hank, Many people think I am crazy, but when I write an article I try to run it by people and have it critiqued, even brutally so. This is to keep me honest and make it better. An article should never be finished, but progressing as the writer progresses and hopefully the writer is open to progressing. Any and all writings are not truth, but an attempt to explain the Truth, which is the scripture and sometimes they might capture the Truth, but they cannot hold it. Unfortunately many people think that when you are handing them a work, that you are arguing that they must believe that work as Truth and many times this is the case. “We must not think too highly of ourselves”…nor our writings.
Thanks Dwight. That actually helps me put an order to things in my own mind. When I get a revelation, I will consider it a new view of the same truth that has been God’s all along. As you said, it will simply be a different way of explaining of explaining God’s truth. If it becomes more than that, I could rightfully become suspicious. I too have those brutally honest associates to check my mail. How handy! Hank
Hey Monty,
Thanks so much for responding. I’m sorry to be so late getting back with you, but I’m running behind with my work load.
Since you asked me some questions about Spurgeon ,I will first start here. He was known as the “Prince of Preachers.” I like to collect quotes and I have many of his, He was really way ahead of his time.
He said things like:
Let a musical instrument be in church, but never let a sound come from it.
A Bible that is falling apart usually belongs to someone who isn’t.
Do God the honor to TRUST HIM.
That very church which the world likes best is sure to be that which God abhors.
Have you no wish for others to be saved? Then you are not saved yourself….be sure of that!
He who does not hate the false, does not love the TRUTH. And he to whom it is all the same,
whether it be God’s word or man’s is himself not renewed at heart.
If I had never joined a church till i found one that was perfect, I should never have joined one at all
And at the moment I did join it, if I had found one, I would have spoiled it. For it would not be a
perfect church after I had become a member of it. Still imperfect as it, it is the dearest place on
earth to us.
There are so many, but later, i may give you some others if you like.
Charles Spurgeon lived from 1834–1892 58 years. He died poor because he gave most of it away. He did leave the Baptist church later in his life because he believed we should be just
Christians only. You asked if I consider him a brother….yes I do, but the Baptist own him, so they
think. It is really not that important an issue. i don’t blame them for wanting to own him. Chuckles
Our calling is to shine as lights and be salt in the world. We are to be harmless children of God
in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation.
So as Job of old said, “Though HE slay me, yet will I trust him.
Now we will get to the meat….The TRUTH.
Monty, people who are lost can only be saved if they realize they are lost. It is a misrepresentation
when people claim we teach that people go to hell Because they are not members of the Church of Christ. People go to hell Because they are sinners and have not been saved by Christ. The Lord adds ALL THE SAVED to His Church. (Acts 2:47) So of course, only members of the Lord’s Church will be saved.
The problem is that most Protestants believe that they can be saved by faith only. God says they CAN’T be saved by faith only.(James 2;24) These people teach that one can be saved without obeying the gospel. But God says Jesus will return with His angels “in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not obey the GOSPEL of our Lord Jesus Christ (11 Thessalonians 1:8)
When we teach people FROM THE BIBLE that they must obey the gospel to be saved, they do not
like it and try to make us look bad by saying that we think people will go to hell just because they are not members of the church of Christ.The question is why are they members of something OTHER than the Lord’s Church??
To contend for something means to proclaim it forcefully, prove it logically and defend it from all
opposition.WE ARE TO CONTEND FOR THE FAITH. Some will call that small-minded. God calls
it righteous.
Monty, I will leave you with one last quote of Spurgeon’s:
Confidence in man will betray your hopes, but faith in God will enrich you beyond all your
expectations.”
So Monty, I can see you have much passion….Stay with me here…let’s get out of the judging business,
and just let GOD BE GOD.
All the best to you,
BAL, I’m not going to answer for Monty, but since this is an open forum, I will just make some observations that come to mind.
CS “Let a musical instrument be in church, but never let a sound come from it.” This should technically exclude the human voice or at least what we do with it. We manipulate sound with our vocal chords, kind of like reeds. There are many times when we sing that we do not say words, but make noise.
And while the quote is nice, it has no scripture with it, just Spurgeon’s belief.
You say, “People who are lost can only be saved if they realize they are lost. It is a misrepresentation when people claim we teach that people go to hell because they are not members of the Church of Christ. People go to hell Because they are sinners and have not been saved by Christ. The Lord adds ALL THE SAVED to His Church. (Acts 2:47) So of course, only members of the Lord’s Church will be saved.”
What you do here is say that we don’t believe that people will go to hell because they are not members of the coC, but that sinners will go to hell, and the save are added to His church, so only members of the Lord’s church will be saved.
It is problematic for a few reasons. 1) we teach in the coC, that all other churches are not with the one church, the coC, and thus not saved (they are denominations, not us), thus they are not saved. 2) We cannot switch around and say, “only members of the Lord’s church will be saved”, because this isn’t a qualification for salvation. The saved are added to the church by God, so they are not saved by being added or being a part of the church. The only reason to do this is so that we can go back to point 1 and argue that if they are not part of our church, then they are not saved (even though they have been added to the church by God).
In fact your later statement “The question is why are they members of something OTHER than the Lord’s Church??”
argues that if one is not a member of the coC, then they are not a member of the Lord’s church, which means that the coC holds the keys to who is a member of the church, not God.
Up until a certain time in history late 1800s-1900s, after A. Campbell, there was no “church of Christ” designation.
One of the interesting things about I Cor.1-3 is when Paul is speaking to those who are dividing over names, of which one was Christ, he tells them to stop dividing, but as he writes to them, he writes to the church in Corinth, meaning that Paul did not separate them out from Christ, despite them having different names. They were not part of a different church no matter their names or no names as they weren’t told to have any.
We teach this “These people teach that one can be saved without obeying the gospel.”, but this is mostly wrong. These people believe that works don’t save, as it is written, and in our past we have come back and said, “well works do save, because baptism is a work”. This goes against scripture where we are told that “works don’t save”.
Baptism is not a work of man, but an answer of man to God in faith.
We are buried and raised by another.
But even the Baptist, who argue that one is saved before baptism will argue that one cannot be saved without obeying God, which is why they seek to baptize. They are called Baptist after all. And many who teach that “faith only saves” teach that baptism is their first act of faith. And these same people predominately believe that they must obey God by doing His will as well. To these groups homosexuality is a sin, etc. If you remove the argument of salvation at the point of faith vs baptism, they mostly do the same things we do in relation to God in terms of faith and obedience.
These are just my thoughts and I have grown up in the coC and am still in the coC.
Ok, I just finally have to ask. Many of you CoC people on this site are rational and introspective. This is not a rude question, or meant as an insult at all, since I totally respect the views I have seen posted here. What is the “draw” or the primary benefit CoC is offering its members that makes all of this exclusivism and fixation worth the effort? What are the strengths that are not found elsewhere? The unspoken “assumption” would be that these issues are small chinks in an otherwise awesome machine. What’s the carrot? (Spellcheck had to fix my carrot spelling because I don’t eat many vegetables.) Hank- Tulsa
HB, it is generally called pride and self-righteousness. See Pharisees.
As you can read, not all people in the coC fall into that category, but there are many who do and it is widely taught that the coC is THE church of God, so to not be with the coC means damnation. The unsaid argument is this, “We may not always be right, but we are never wrong.”
This is why in the coC IM is constantly taught against despite the fact that those in the coC don’t do IM and this goes for other things as well. It is another way of saying they are wrong and we are right in following God’s commands. There is much pride in the concept that we follow the CENI, even though we don’t follow all things CENI in reality. There is the argument against let’s say using bread, instead of unleavened bread in the Lord’s Supper, because that is what was used (by example), but no one follows that argument when it comes to the wine that was used in the Lord’s Supper, because that is what they had (example). This is evident from I Cor. 11:21 where some had eaten and not left food for others and some had gotten “drunk”, “For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk.”.
Also according to I Cor.11 “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
We conveniently leave out the “same night” that indicates when the Lord’s Supper was taken of or consider it immaterial, even though we call it the ” Lord’s SUPPER”.
And yet we hold others to doing things exactly as we perceive it to be done in the scriptures and let ourselves off the hook.
Hank,
It based and most motivating theme is FEAR as we have been taught. Preach love of God, but in the underlying lesson is fear of the afterlife and of God.
Fear of the devil is way below the fear of God as the devil cannot come get you to punish you forever, but God can send you to him as a gift if you are not just right as we have been taught to see right.
Hey Dwight,
Thanks for responding I want to get back with you later on all of this as I am unable to visit
with you right now. Work going on.
You, Monty, and the Marine, are some of my favorites on here. However, I am really starting to like Hank from Tulsa. I want to catch up with him also.
I will leave you with an old Texas saying….”You may be plowing a little too close to the cotton.”
In His Love and Service,
One group just don’t want to go to hell.
The other group doesn’t want to be tossed from their families or face interrogations at the dinner table.
There is also an old time, no BS jar head on here for a little while!
Semper Fi
B.A.L., I’m native Texan and have never heard some of those sayings and my uncle used to farm cotton down in the valley, but I think I may of heard it on the Beverly Hillbillies.
B.A.L.
The quickest way for me to express my sentiments is to just refer you to one of Jay’s extensive writings on much of what we’re dealing with here. Jay’s done all the heavy lifting. /2014/03/muscle-shovel-chapter-5-part-3c-baptism/
Please read this(fairly short but there are many links which could take awhile) and then we can discuss. Thanks.
P.S.
Your quoting of James 2:24 is not as problematic as you may think. Just for starters James isn’t discussing how a person becomes saved initially but what that man’s faith should look like after he is saved. Does the faith they claim to have(already) work? If not, it’s useless. I don’t think you’ll find too many believers who would disagree with James.
The problem you and many have is by making the argument that a man can work and do good as to be saved. Correct? That our works (keeping God’s laws) make us saved and take us from death outside of Christ and into new life in Christ. If that’s not true then please don’t read any further and just go ahead and respond “Monty I don’t believe we are saved by works.” If you do believe we can do works in order to earn salvation then please read on. That a man can believe on Jesus, but that belief is of no effect until he’s baptized for remission of sins. Correct? We get really desperate to pinpoint the moment of salvation. And with this view we could express it as (believing in Jesus+ works( baptism, taking the Lord’s Supper every Sunday , singing with no IM, etc) = salvation. Correct?
The Baptist believe and are(generally baptized in due season), but I don’t believe that you believe they are saved either before baptism(for sure) or even when they are baptized(if they believe they were saved pre-baptism). Correct? And if that’s the case then your argument isn’t so much that you desire your Baptist Christian brothers to correctly teach the correct timing of the moment of salvation as it is to teach that the Baptist have a flawed theology and are not just genuinely misguided about the timing of salvation but as to be doing the works of Lucifer himself. And why? Not because they are wrong on the timing but because…….., why? They don’t teach the right formula, isn’t that right? They not only don’t do baptism right but they don’t do a list of stuff right. Correct? The truth of the matter is they don’t do a lot of things right, that (you and others) feel we do get right. Correct? So, in the end salvation to you is more of a system than a faith in Jesus. The whole system has to be right? Music, plurality of elders, and whatever else is on the list. It’s all or nothing, right? There is grace for moral failure in your(and many other’s ) system but not for perceived doctrinal failures of those we disagree with. Correct? Perhaps you didn’t read- /2009/03/its-friday-the-franchise-agreement/
Getting back to James, surely God will consider a man’s life (how he lived) to determine if that man’s faith was genuine. But nothing in that man’s life(the good he does) earns his salvation. “Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to the cross I cling.” Salvation is credited to us and how we live(in faith) proves or disproves the genuineness of our professed faith, CofC and Baptist alike. Jesus procured our salvation on the cross, the works already been done. It’s a gift. We work not to be saved but because we are saved. That’s what James is saying.
Hey Dwight,
” A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in settings of silver.”
I like Hillbillies and Red Necks too. No, I take that back….I love Hillbillies and Red necks too.
LATER,
Jay,
In your reply to Michael Shank you stated: “This is not to say that obedience and works don’t matter, but that they aren’t the path to salvation. They are, rather, evidence of salvation because they are fruit of the Spirit — which only the saved have.” Where does God say that obedience is not a part of the path to salvation? Did Paul not say that “the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16) and those who do not obey the gospel will suffer punishment (2 Thessalonians 1:8, 9)? Seems to me that one must obey the gospel in order to be saved. If disobedience results in death then it stands to reason that obedience results in life. Did the author of Hebrews state that Jesus “became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him” (Hebrews 5:9)? If a person does not obey Jesus He is not the author of that person’s salvation. By your statement you are saying a person is saved before he obeys Jesus? Are faith, repentance, confession and baptism not obeying God’s conditions for salvation?
One last note, you quote Galatians 5:6 “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.” When does it say that a person’s faith “counts” or avails itself? When it is “working through love.” It must work! Obedience and works are the path to salvation. Salvation is in Christ, but we must obey the conditions He has laid out for us before we are saved.
Trey,
Jay is no longer with us as he has passed away.
But in reply to your post in regards to Jay:
You posted ““This is not to say that obedience and works don’t matter, but that they aren’t the path to salvation. They are, rather, evidence of salvation because they are fruit of the Spirit — which only the saved have.”
One thing is that you didn’t follow Jay’s next statement
“You and I should certainly teach what we believe regarding worship or church organization and advocate for that position. But we are not empowered to make those views conditions of salvation. They aren’t faith in Jesus working through love. They just aren’t.”
These above things do not save and I believe are the “works and obedience” that Jay was alluding to.
If Jay said that “works and obedience” does matter, he just states that they aren’t the path to salvation.
My thought: Works don’t save us. But no works and sinful works can damn us.
This is the message of Galatians 5.
“Works of the flesh” …”that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
But
“But the fruit of the Spirit is…” …”walking in the Spirit”.
I John makes the point that if we hate our brother we do not walk in the light which is Jesus and loving our brother allows us to walk in the light.
as you note “love is working” and we read elsewhere that “faith works”, so we must produce love and faith.
And yet it is still hollow without Jesus to come to us and give himself up for us.
Jesus saved us.
And nothing we could do could do what Jesus did for us.
An acceptance of Jesus and baptism, which is obedience, puts us before the Savior.
But I do not count obedience and works to be exactly the same.
Obedience to the cross in faith and baptism is not work as in physical labor and effort, although it is spiritual labor and effort, as is love.
I do believe that “understanding the Bible” doesn’t take “muscle and shovel”, it takes faith and humbleness and an open heart and just reading. There are many scholars who have torn their way through the scriptures and come out the other side wrong.
Trey
In reference to Heb 5:9, Yes we must learn to obey Jesus, as Jesus leaned to obey God. Jesus did not become the Son of God because of his obedience, and neither do we become children of God because of our obedience. We are saved so that we will learn to obey.
In reference to 2 Thess 1:8-9, the “knowing God” and “obeying the gospel” refer to what people are not doing at the time Christ comes. Paul is not referring to things the condemned didn’t do in their past. What matters is the state people find themselves in when Christ comes. In the passage, “know not God and obey not the gospel” are in the wrong tense for “obey the gospel” to be a synonym for baptism, as Micheal Shanks would have us believe. However; I think that someone who has been baptized is much more likely to be obeying the gospel than someone who hasn’t.
Dwight,
Thank you for the reply. I did not know that Jay had passed.
My point was that obedience is in God’s plan of salvation and it appears from reading your comments that you agree that obedience is a part of one’s path to salvation (ie. “An acceptance of Jesus and baptism, which is obedience…”).
David,
Thank you for the reply. Before I can respond I need some clarification on your comments.
You said, “neither do we become children of God because of our obedience.” How does one become a child of God?
You also said, “We are saved so that we will learn to obey.” Are you saying that we are saved without obedience or prior to obeying?
On your comment on 2 Thess. 1:8-9 can you send me the reference source you found that interpretation? I have never heard of it being interpreted in that way before.
I agree our Christian life is an on going lifelong obedience to God, but I would like to see where the Greek is interpreted in that way.
Thanks.
Trey
No, we are not saved without, or prior to obedience. What I intended to get across was that we are not saved because of any obedient acts. For instance, hearing the word is an obedient act, but the only way it saves us is that through hearing, we attain faith. We are saved because we attained faith by hearing the word, not because we gained points toward salvation for listening to a preacher.
I do not have a reference source for my interpretation of 2 Thess 1:8-9, just the English language. “know not God” and “obey not the gospel” are definitely in the present/continuing tense. If those phrases referred to something that had happened some time before Jesus came, they would say “knew not God” and “obeyed not the gospel”.
Trey,
David, Dwight, and I were longtime readers of Jay’s Blog. I think if you dig deep into his writings, you’ll find that the quote you initially mentioned requires nuance…
Jay absolutely believed that one must obey the Gospel in order to be saved. The quote above is definitely not in reference to Romans 1:16 and 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9. On the contrary, Jay likely had two thoughts in view:
1) Jesus. Jesus is the path to salvation; there is not other. I am certain you know all the passages, e.g. “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Jesus is the WAY, not obedience. His D,B, & R comprise THE Gospel, not obedience. Obedience is a response; it is not the WAY. Obedience is a response to the Gospel; it is not the Gospel itself.
2) Perfection. No matter how much we may try, we will never achieve perfect obedience. We will never love perfectly. We will never repent perfectly. We will never have faith perfectly. We will never obey perfectly. We will achieve neither moral perfection nor doctrinal perfection. If we include obedience into the actual PATH to salvation (as opposed to a response), we are all very much doomed.
There is a difference between the means of our salvation (Jesus, Grace, Gospel) and the ways of our salvation (Faith, Love, Repentance, Baptism, Obedience). The former was perfect in every way; the latter will never achieve perfection.
Kevin,
Thank you for the clarification.
What Kevin said.
It has taken me a long time to reach the conclusion that Jesus saves after growing up in the coC where works save, which was taught and is still basically taught.
Well, baptism isn’t a work, but a response of faith. We don’t baptize ourselves, we don’t raise ourselves. It is pure “letting go of self” and placing ourselves in the hands of someone else (temporarily another person and ultimately God).
We often read “baptism for the remission of sins” and think that baptism remits our sin.
This is way off.
The “remission” is actually “forgiveness” and things can’t forgive us. Only a God can forgive sins that earn death. This is why the Jews had a big problem with Jesus who went around forgiving others of their sins.
Baptism places us before God and in the family of God who forgives His children.
Dwight,
This combination of words, “baptism for the remission” is not in any of these English translations. Therefore, if we read that somewhere it is written by a man who has distorted God’s Word. Trying to promote his own views.
1 (ASV) American Standard Version
2 (BBE) 1965 Bible in Basic English
3 (CEV) Contemporary English Version
4 (Darby) Darby Bible
5 (DRB) 1899 Douay-Rheims Bible
6 (ERV) Easy-to-Read Version
7 (ESV) English Standard Version
8 (GNB) Good News Bible
9 (GW) GOD’S WORD
10 (ISV) International Standard Version
11 (JUB) Jubilee Bible
12 (KJV) King James Version
13 (LEB) Lexham English Bible
14 (LITV) Literal Translation of the Holy Bible
15 (MKJV) Modern King James Version
16 (NIrV) New International Reader’s Version
17 (NIV) New International Version
18 (NKJV) New King James Version
19 (RV) Revised Version
20 (TLV) Tree of Life Version
21 (WEB) World English Bible
22 (WEBA) World English Bible w/ Apocrypha
23 (Webster) 1833 Webster Bible
24 (YLT) 1898 Young’s Literal Translation
Larry, exactly. It is unfortunate that the term “remission of sins” is oft repeated in lessons and articles, etc.
We don’t read the prodigal son in this light, but it is not the son coming back that get the son into the house and he doesn’t break in, but the welcoming father who goes out to greet his son and lets him in out of love.
Good to hear from you Larry.
Hello TREY,
You appear to have a tremendous amount of common sense. It is very refreshing. Have you posted on here in the past?
THANKS
Christianity 101: It is impossible to be saved because of your obedient acts. Why? Because you also do disobedient acts.
Say you obey the command to be baptized, but on the way to or from the baptistry, you endanger someone’s life by breaking the speed limit. Your obedience has just gone up in smoke. If you are trying to gain salvation by doing obedient acts, then your baptism is invalid, because you were just as disobedient as you were obedient.
As Paul said in Romans, if being in the covenant God made with Abraham depended on obedience to the works of the Law, then the covenant is null, because no Jew kept the Law. Therefore, it had to be by faith. Obeying one ordinance, circumcision, did not mean any Jew was obedient. If they were going to be counted as in the covenant because they were obedient, then they were obligated to obey all the Law. Does anyone really think the Jews that were saved, were saved by faith, but since Christ came we are now saved by works?
Point of this rant: Baptism is obeying a command of God, and it does wash the dirt from your body, but if you think either of those is the reason baptism is for remission of sins, then you need to take your shovel and dig a little deeper.
Dwight,
Good to hear from you also, but even better to have some others to communicate with, this is great.
But now you have changed the combination of words and, “remission of sins” is in all of these English translations. Notice how it is used in the following verses. Notice how just a little modification changes the subject.
1 (ASV) American Standard Version
2 (Darby) Darby Bible
3 (DRB) 1899 Douay-Rheims Bible
4 (JUB) Jubilee Bible
5 (KJV) King James Version
6 (LEB) Lexham English Bible
7 (LITV) Literal Translation of the Holy Bible
8 (MKJV) Modern King James Version
9 (NKJV) New King James Version
10 (RV) Revised Version
11 (WEB) World English Bible
12 (WEBA) World English Bible w/ Apocrypha
13 (Webster) 1833 Webster Bible
14 (YLT) 1898 Young’s Literal Translation
(Mat 26:28 MKJV) For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
(Mar 1:4 MKJV) John came baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
(LC) Which was first in this context baptism or remission of sins?
(Luk 3:3 MKJV) And he came into all the country around Jordan, proclaiming the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,
(LC) Same here.
(Luk 24:47 MKJV) and that repentance and remission of sins should be proclaimed in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
(Act 2:38 MKJV) Then Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
(LC) Was (remission of sins) before or after baptism here?
(Act 5:31 MKJV) This One God has exalted to be a Ruler and Savior to His right hand in order to give repentance and remission of sins to Israel.
(Act 10:43 MKJV) All the Prophets give witness to Him, that through His name whoever believes in Him shall receive remission of sins.
(Act 26:18 MKJV) in order to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light, and from the authority of Satan to God, so that they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.
(Col 1:14 MKJV) in whom we have redemption through His blood, the remission of sins.
(LC) The rest of these verses do not address a period of succession.
David,
In your comment, “Baptism is obeying a command of God, and it does wash the dirt from your body, but if you think either of those is the reason baptism is for remission of sins, then you need to take your shovel and dig a little deeper.”
You state that baptism. “does wash the dirt from your body”. But, it appears to me that Paul says exactly the opposite. Can you explain?
(1Pe 3:21 ESV) Baptism, 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,
(Act 22:16 ESV) And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’
Paul also recorded that message about washing, which was delivered to him by Jesus through Ananias. Is there an explanation which renders this concept void?
(Rev 22:14 ESV) Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.
In this rendering was it really just the robes that were washed? Another important point brought to light here would be (who is the actor)? The individual who’s robes were washed or Christ? Did Christ wash them because they believed or had faith, before an action that was performed by the individual?
Larry
In 1 Peter 3 he says that baptism saves you…”not the washing of dirt from the body, but the answer of a good conscience…” Peter is not denying the obvious, that if one is immersed in water, dirt is going to be washed from the body. He is saying that is not how baptism saves you, or that is not what baptism is all about.
I am saying somewhat the same thing about obedience. Just because baptism is obviously obedience to a command does not mean that that is how baptism saves you, or that is what baptism is all about. If baptism did save you because you had obeyed a command that would contradict Paul’s writings in Rom, Gal, and some of his statements in Eph, 2 Tim, and Titus.
David,
So if I get you correctly, you are trying say that baptism does not contain the power to save. That comment I believe is driven by the desire to affirm that Jesus is the Savior and that baptism is not necessary. I also believe that men have sought with every ounce of their intelligence to find sources of scriptures to support that a believer can be saved without baptism.
So let’s delve into this to see truth. The first misconception I see is stating that being baptized is a command given to a believer. It is not recorded in that context in scripture. The command was given to the Apostles by Jesus in the instructions pertaining to how to make disciples. Jesus also extended that same instruction to all mankind by stating, (Mat 28:20 GW) Teach them to do everything I have commanded you. “And remember that I am always with you until the end of time.”
To see that in action today the teacher, preacher, Christian or whomever taught Jesus to a non-believer and convinced them of their need to become a Disciple, is responsible to Jesus for baptizing the individual into Christ. If they fail to do that the believer does not become a Disciple. The teacher, preacher, Christian or whoever at this point becomes a false teacher, a disobedient follower of Christ. In fact if an individual being taught about Jesus does not see the need to be baptized, Jesus has not been taught. Philip teaching the Eunuch supports this message. Philip started in Isaiah and taught Jesus.
Therefore, your second paragraph is totally out of touch with the scriptural message.
Now let’s look again at Peter’s message.
1 Peter 3:21
(ASV) which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;
(BBE) And baptism, of which this is an image, now gives you salvation, not by washing clean the flesh, but by making you free from the sense of sin before God, through the coming again of Jesus Christ from the dead;
(CEV) Those flood waters were like baptism that now saves you. But baptism is more than just washing your body. It means turning to God with a clear conscience, because Jesus Christ was raised from death.
(Darby) which figure also now saves you, even baptism, not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the demand as before God of a good conscience, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
(DRB) Whereunto baptism, being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but, the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
(ERV) And that water is like baptism, which now saves you. Baptism is not the washing of dirt from the body. It is asking God for a clean conscience. It saves you because Jesus Christ was raised from death.
(ESV) Baptism, 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,
(GNB) which was a symbol pointing to baptism, which now saves you. It is not the washing off of bodily dirt, but the promise made to God from a good conscience. It saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
(GW) Baptism, which is like that water, now saves you. Baptism doesn’t save by removing dirt from the body. Rather, baptism is a request to God for a clear conscience. It saves you through Jesus Christ, who came back from death to life.
(ISV) Baptism, which is symbolized by that water, now saves you also, not by removing dirt from the body, but by asking God for a clear conscience based on the resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah,
(JUB) Unto the figure of which the baptism that does now correspond saves us (not taking away the uncleanness of the flesh, but giving testimony of a good conscience before God) by the resurrection of Jesus, the Christ,
(KJV) The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
(LEB) And also, corresponding to this, baptism now saves you, not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
(LITV) Which antitype now also saves us, baptism (not a putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;
(MKJV) which figure now also saves us, baptism; not a putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ;
(NIrV) The water of the flood is a picture of the baptism that now saves you also. The baptism I’m talking about has nothing to do with removing dirt from your body. Instead, it promises God that you will keep a clear sense of what is right and wrong. Jesus Christ has saved you by rising from the dead.
(NIV) and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
(NKJV) There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
(RV) which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;
(TLV) Corresponding to that, immersion now brings you to safety—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but a pledge to God of a good conscience—through the resurrection of Messiah Yeshua.
(WEB) This is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you—not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
(WEBA) This is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you—not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
(Webster) The like figure to which, even baptism, doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
(YLT) also to which an antitype doth now save us–baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ,
You stated, “Peter is not denying the obvious, that if one is immersed in water, dirt is going to be washed from the body. He is saying that is not how baptism saves you, or that is not what baptism is all about.”
But, I see Peter denying that the waters of baptism has any purpose of washing dirt or filth from the body. The baptism purpose is to save, by the Power Jesus instilled into it when administered by a teacher, preacher, Christian or whoever is available to conduct the process.
Larry
I think you completely misunderstood what I was saying.
Could it be that the reason he might have misunderstood what your were saying is the fact that you might be “Plowin’ a little too close to the cotton.” (Old Texas saying)
Well, some weeds have been planted in the rows with the cotton over the last hundred years in the Churches of Christ. They weeds are mistaken for cotton by many. They are hard to plow out without a lot of criticism.
Yeah, I’m a Texan. I know what you are saying. Never plowed any cotton, but have hoed and picked it. I did plow peanuts as a youngster. If you are not careful you will take out as many peanut plants as you do weeds.
Hi David,
THANKS for your response. I liked it. And glad you are a Texan. And well, for sure, the weeds are there. And what about the weeds before the 100 years? Were there any? Few want to talk about
all those weeds? Both Protestant and Catholic systems have allowed themselves to change the teaching of scripture.
Paul warned Timothy there would be a departure of the truth.(1 Tim. 4:1=3, 2 Tim. 3:1-5; 4:1-5)
“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions and will turn away from listening
to the TRUTH and wander off into myths.” (2 Tim. 4:3-4) This can be TRUE in any age when hearts turn inward rather than Godward. The spirit of humanity is easily tempted to become dissatisfied with what God provides doctrinally, to substitute the desires of the flesh, which will not profit eternally.
A warning from history….Be content with what God provides, and allow Him through His word to conform us to His image, the image of LOVE, and TRUTH. “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” (2Tim.2:15).
David, I will leave you with some beautiful Old Testament scriptures. Isiah 14:24 “For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is His loving kindness toward those who fear Him.”
And Isiah 14:24 The Lord of hosts has sworn saying “Surly, just as I have intended so it has happened, and just as I have planned, so it will stand.” AMEN
Good talking with you, David, and all the best to you.
B.A.L.
Correction on first verse Psalm 103:`11….
Sorry..for the mistake….I’m not computer savy.
B,A,L
You come across as an honest seeker of God and His Word. And a true old Texas boy.
His blessings on you
Hey David,
THANKS for your kind words, But I’m not an old Texas boy…but an old Texas gal. Chuckles
Glad to talk anytime about “The GREAT I AM and His word.”
And His blessings on you also…
B.A.L.
Another case of assumptions gone wrong. It ain’t the things I know that get me in trouble. It’s the things I know for sure that ain’t so, that cause all the trouble. After posting, I thought of that possibility. Blessings to you also old Texas gal.
David and B.A.L,
Is this the only site that you have found where you can communicate with others as we do here?
This site was very active in the past when Jay was with us. It is hard for me to believe that many of those who were very active in commenting here could just drop their activities communicating with this freedom. I have found a few sites to comment on but when activity is weeks or months apart, it really seems of very little value. It appears to me that most of the Christianity that we see visibly in this world is controlled by organizations as B.A.L has mentioned above. I do not find an authority in the NT for the creation of these organizations. There is one church which is within us, each and every Christian makes up the Bride of Christ. We are not to be separated into groups. Paul addressed that concept. But, organizations exist to value memberships who serve that organization and convey the concept that they are in charge of the members salvation, basically, the organization wants to replace God in the lives of it’s members. Many of those same organizations show in actions that all outside that organization are lost in respect to salvation. Then of course many of those organizations believe that unless a member performs their rituals perfectly they will also be condemned.
How do you see the Church, Bride of Christ?
Larry, the word “church” is in all of these translations as well, but church isn’t the meaning of ekklesia…congregation is. The word in Acts 2 does not mean “to remit” but is “forgiveness”.
The text doesn’t say that baptism remote sin, but that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins.
There are some consistent truths in the scriptures in regards to forgiveness. 1. Things don’t forgive sins and 2. Only God can forgive sins.
Even as Noah was swallowed by the fish, Noah did not argue the fish saved him…”salvation is of the Lord”
You stated to David “some say that baptism does not contain the power to save. That comment I now be is driven by the desire to affirm that Jesus is the Savior and that baptism is not neccessary.”
This is not how I understand his statements.
I noticed we are not talking about faith in this, but faith is in the same realm as baptism.
Faith and baptism are needed, but they lack the power to save, in that they bring one to the one who has the power to save.
If you have faith in Jesus as the Christ you will be baptized into the Christ.
But faith without baptism will not put one into Christ and as we know baptism without faith in Christ will not put one into Christ.
You also wrote “baptisms power is to save, by the power Jesus instilled into it by the administration of somenoe”
The problems I see with this are:
Salvation is based on God forgiving us and only God can and can know to forgive us.
Baptism cannot determine whether we have faith or not.
Even when power was placed into something like the Ark, the Ark did not save, God did.
Abraham personally andtook the glory from God when he hit the rock with the staff as he used the power in the staff, not his faith in God.
The power of salvation and of deliverance and of forgiveness is always in God and through Jesus.
That is what we must afirm, even as we have faith in and repent and are baptized into the “anointed savior.”
Dwight,
I thought for a little while after your comment that comments had been turned off because the normal option was not located below your comment. I noticed that other places were exactly the way they have always been. Then I remembered that on some other blogs you have to go to the beginning of the comments to make a reply, well for some reason it is working that way on this post.
I see that it might be understood that I was addressing David in this statement,” some say that baptism does not contain the power to save. That comment I now be is driven by the desire to affirm that Jesus is the Savior and that baptism is not necessary.” I did not intend to include David as a believer of this concept, I intended it to be a general observation of many teaching Christians.
You mentioned in regard to the (ark), “Even when power was placed into something like the Ark, the Ark did not save, God did.” That made me curious so I researched into that concept some. Notice in Heb how many times that the text testifies that the ark saved Noah and his family. God was not the ark. If Noah had not believed God and built the ark, would God have saved him another way? God did save Noah and his family because he followed His instructions to build the ark by His design. But, text plainly states that the ark did save.
Hebrews 11:7
(ASV) By faith Noah, being warned of God concerning things not seen as yet, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; through which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
(BBE) By faith Noah, being moved by the fear of God, made ready an ark for the salvation of his family, because God had given him news of things which were not seen at the time; and through it the world was judged by him, and he got for his heritage the righteousness which is by faith.
(CEV) Because Noah had faith, he was warned about something that had not yet happened. He obeyed and built a boat that saved him and his family. In this way the people of the world were judged, and Noah was given the blessings that come to everyone who pleases God.
(Darby) By faith, Noah, oracularly warned concerning things not yet seen, moved with fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his house; by which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
(DRB) By faith Noe, having received an answer concerning those things which as yet were not seen, moved with fear, framed the ark for the saving of his house: by the which he condemned the world and was instituted heir of the justice which is by faith.
(ERV) Noah was warned by God about things that he could not yet see. But he had faith and respect for God, so he built a large boat to save his family. With his faith, Noah showed that the world was wrong. And he became one of those who are made right with God through faith.
(ESV) By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
(GNB) It was faith that made Noah hear God’s warnings about things in the future that he could not see. He obeyed God and built a boat in which he and his family were saved. As a result, the world was condemned, and Noah received from God the righteousness that comes by faith.
(GW) Faith led Noah to listen when God warned him about the things in the future that he could not see. He obeyed God and built a ship to save his family. Through faith Noah condemned the world and received God’s approval that comes through faith.
(ISV) By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, reverently prepared an ark to save his family, and by faith he condemned the world and inherited the righteousness that comes by faith.
(JUB) By faith Noah, having received revelation of things not seen as yet, with great care prepared an ark to the saving of his house, by which he condemned the world and was made heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
(KJV) By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
(LEB) By faith Noah, having been warned about things not yet seen, out of reverence constructed an ark for the deliverance of his family, by which he pronounced sentence on the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
(LITV) Being divinely warned by God about the things not yet having been seen, moved with fear, by faith Noah prepared an ark for the salvation of his house; through which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness according to faith.
(MKJV) By faith Noah, having been warned by God of things not yet seen, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
(NIrV) Noah had faith. So he built an ark to save his family. He built it because of his great respect for God. God had warned him about things that could not yet be seen. Because of his faith he showed the world that it was guilty. Because of his faith he was considered right with God.
(NIV) By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith.
(NKJV) By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
(RV) By faith Noah, being warned of God concerning things not seen as yet, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; through which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
(TLV) By faith Noah, when warned about events not yet seen, in holy fear prepared an ark for the safety of his household. Through faith he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
(WEB) By faith, Noah, being warned about things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared a ship for the saving of his house, through which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
(WEBA) By faith, Noah, being warned about things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared a ship for the saving of his house, through which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
(Webster) By faith Noah, being warned by God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
(YLT) By faith Noah, having been divinely warned concerning the things not yet seen, having feared, did prepare an ark to the salvation of his house, through which he did condemn the world, and of the righteousness according to faith he became heir.
Now we come to 1 Peter and this text plainly states that (water) was the saving element. Therefore, to deny that the (ark saved) or that the (water saved) would be denying the text of God’s Word. So how do we rectify our thoughts about what saves us? Do we not apply the text following?
(1Pe 3:21 ESV) Baptism, 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,
I believe that I placed many translations of this verse in a previous comment, refer to them.
1 Peter 3:20
(ASV) that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water:
(BBE) Who, in the days of Noah, went against God’s orders; but God in his mercy kept back the punishment, while Noah got ready the ark, in which a small number, that is to say eight persons, got salvation through water:
(CEV) They had disobeyed God while Noah was building the boat, but God had been patient with them. Eight people went into that boat and were brought safely through the flood.
(Darby) heretofore disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah while the ark was preparing, into which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water:
(DRB) Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water.
(ERV) Those were the spirits who refused to obey God long ago in the time of Noah. God was waiting patiently for people while Noah was building the big boat. And only a few–eight in all–were saved in the boat through the floodwater.
(ESV) because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.
(GNB) These were the spirits of those who had not obeyed God when he waited patiently during the days that Noah was building his boat. The few people in the boat—eight in all—were saved by the water,
(GW) They are like those who disobeyed long ago in the days of Noah when God waited patiently while Noah built the ship. In this ship a few people-eight in all-were saved by water.
(ISV) who disobeyed long ago in the days of Noah, when God waited patiently while the ark was being built. In it a few, that is, eight persons, were saved by water.
(JUB) which in the time past were disobedient, when once the patience of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being made ready, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
(KJV) Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
(LEB) who were formerly disobedient, when the patience of God waited in the days of Noah, while an ark was being constructed, in which a few–that is, eight souls–were rescued through water.
(LITV) to disobeying ones, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, an ark having been prepared, into which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
(MKJV) to disobeying ones, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared (in which a few, that is, eight souls were saved through water);
(NIrV) Long ago they did not obey. God was patient while Noah was building the ark. He waited, but only a few people went into the ark. A total of eight were saved by means of water.
(NIV) to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,
(NKJV) who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
(RV) which aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water:
(TLV) Long ago they disobeyed while God kept waiting patiently, in the days of Noah as the ark was being built. In that ark a few (that is, eight souls) were brought safely through water.
(WEB) who before were disobedient, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, while the ship was being built. In it, few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
(WEBA) who before were disobedient, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, while the ship was being built. In it, few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
(Webster) Who formerly were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water.
(YLT) who sometime disbelieved, when once the long-suffering of God did wait, in days of Noah–an ark being preparing–in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water;
Therefore, I believe that we can be fully secure in stating that baptism saves because the ark saved and Peter says that those in the ark were saved through or by water and following the text God appointed both for that purpose in his instructions.
Other verses which places Water in the power source, as connected to the Blood. Might it be that the water is the source of the saving power when we are immersed into it? Possibly we should always use the word immersion that was transliterated into baptism. If we did, then wouldn’t it look like this, immersed into the water, instead of baptized into the water? Or even different yet immersed into Christ. What concepts would Satan use to attempt to destroy an individual who was told to be immersed into Christ? Could he say that won’t work?
(Heb 10:22 ESV) let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
(1Jn 5:6 ESV) This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
(1Jn 5:8 ESV) the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.
Hey David,
Chuckles….Such a perfect quote. I say this because I, being such a Political Junkie, used to love
hearing Ronald Reagan use this saying. Good response.
I will leave you with two of my favorites of his:
“We can’t help everyone, but everyone can help SOMEONE.”
“There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don’t care who gets the credit.”
(All Bible stuff)
Keep’em coming, David.
And all the best to You.
B.A.L.
Hey Larry,
Sorry I’m just now getting back to you. It’s so good that you brought up the originality of this site..And I agree…it is very special. Jay did a very good thing on getting it started.
I want to get back to you on your question, How do we see the Church, Bride of Christ? Awesome
question, Larry, and can’t wait to talk about it with you,. about The Lord’s most BEAUTIFUL concept.
I have to get back to work, but will catch up with you tonight.
Thanks so much, Larry,
B.A.L.
Larry,
You don’t have to list every version to make a point, one or two is good for most people.
I think you missed some of my points. The Ark I was referring to was the Ark of the Covenant. An interesting thing is that when they moved the Ark with them God was with them, if they brought the Ark while in battle they won, etc. And yet they still didn’t glorify the Ark, but God.
It was God who saved them. They were not to worship the Ark, but God.
God would have been upset if they viewed the Ark as what saved them.
Sure they built it, but God declared it.
Unlike what we see in Raiders of the Lost Ark, when God left the Ark of His glory, the Ark was just a decorative metal and wood carrying thing.
What we try to do is make the scriptures a technical book with technical things that give technical results. But God is not a technical being, he is a caring, loving being who condemns and delivers, hoping to do the latter, depending on how we approach Him.
God didn’t give the Jews the Law to follow the Law, but to follow Him and see Him in their lives.
Now switching to the ark of Noah.
Let’s take ASV “By faith Noah, being warned of God concerning things not seen as yet, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; through which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.”
The point of Heb.11:7 is faith as is the whole chapter.
It was because of faith in God that Noah did what he did in building the Ark, which was for the “saving of his house”.
I would never disagree that the Ark wasn’t needed, but then again who told Noah of the flood and who told Noah to build the Ark.
God!
Now when Noah got out of the Ark, who did Noah give thanks to?
The Ark or God?
Noah saw the Ark as a tool through which God saved him, even though the tool was needed in the salvation.
I would never argue differently.
Now in I Peter 3:20 we do read “saved through water”
But I thought it was the boat that saved Noah and his family…now it is the water. Hmmm.
This same water that killed millions of people.
The difference between the people and Noah…faith that God was going to flood and faith that God would deliver.
Water is water…the flood killed the lost and would have killed Noah as well, without the boat and possibly even with a boat, but not without God.
God brought Noah through the water.
Noah wasn’t submerged or dipped in and under the water, but was surrounded by it, still considered baptized. Washing over is still washing.
What we often don’t read, as we press I Peter 3:20 into service to make the point on water is the surrounding context of I Peter 3:20.
vs. 18 “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God” and vs.21 “There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”
Jesus is on both sides of this argument: as the one who is bringing us to God and baptism…through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
But I will play this game because I used to play it….so let’s go this route:
I drink water every day.
Without water I would die.
Water is saving me.
It is not miraculous, but technically true.
This saving goes on every day.
I know it is ridiculous, but this is where we end up.
We want to lay the power in baptism, in the water.
Water doesn’t touch our soul, Jesus does.
Rev.1:5 “To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, …”
This is Jesus acting personally on us in our baptism.
Even as the people rushed on Jesus to touch His hem through which many were healed, we still read that the power went out through Jesus. Did the hem save them or did Jesus?
Do we even have to ask that question?
And what happens after we drain the water from the baptistery, does the power drain away?
As you quote those verses on water, let’s go back to I Peter vs.21 “not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God”
The argument is that the baptism isn’t about us being washed by water, but about us approaching God in going through the water. It is a spiritual thing.
Baptism is needed, because it reflects our submission to and faith in and acceptance of God.
But it is God that forgives us.
What we have here is where we dissect the scriptures from the intent into talking points.
We haven’t even mentioned… repentance or confession.
Are they not “saving” as well?
Does baptism save all by itself?
The point of the scriptures in totality is “God deliverers when we seek God.”
No matter what God gave the Jews and told them to do, which they did, He was to still maintain the honor as the deliverer of them.
Larry, it has taken many years of coC indoctrination to realize that we don’t have to have faith in baptism to save us, but we must be baptized by faith in Jesus to save us.
Paul taught not baptism, but Christ crucified, that which Peter taught in Acts 2. The response of faith was repentance and baptism, still based on Christ crucified. We are to live in Christ.
Thus the point of salvation is Christ, by which we will have faith and will follow through His death, burial and resurrection (baptism).
“I am the way, the truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father, but through me”.
Salvation doesn’t point to baptism. Nor does baptism point to salvation.
Baptism, like faith, like repentance, etc. points to Christ the Savior.
Larry, I have come to this thinking, having a name or being in groups don’t separate us from each other or God, we do this in our thinking.
Put it this way, the Jews were separated into tribes and went by the names of the tribes father, yet they still moved as one nation, until they decided not to.
I used to think that they in I cor.1-3 were breaking into groups, which they might have, but Paul says, “Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,”….”
Paul didn’t look at them as groups, but individual people.
Each of you…each of them were taking on names and being contentious.
Groups don’t matter, not really, unless we make them matter.
As we know the congregation is the people of God. The point where we start making other things come between us and others in God is the point were we are in contention.
Dwight,
You have offered some very good comments, I am not sure that I disagree with any of the message. I am sorry that I did not comprehend that you were thinking of the Ark of the Covenant. I was thinking of NT terms because there was no example of baptism prior to God sending John the baptist, and there was no use of the Ark of the Covenant employed in the NT.
I do realize that there might not be a need for the multiple translations, but how many Christians do you know who attempt to use one translation exclusively even to the extent of refusing to consult another. I believe that there are many who do not compare these different translations, possibly don’t have access to them. Have you noticed how the multiple readings enhances our understanding of a subject?
I did bring up the concept of being saved by water for a specific purpose. First, baptism in or immersion in water is the only connection I can find which would allow water to agree with the Spirit and the Blood.
1Jn 5:6-8 ESV This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. (7) For there are three that testify: (8) the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.
I can believe that all three are in a testimony of a birth of a Christian just as they were in testimony of Christ. We are to be buried and raised like he was in the grave. If I remember correctly Jay posted a post trying explain how that we do not come in contact with the Blood as we are born again. I did not get an opportunity to discuss that much with him. But, think about it some, in baptism we become in contact with possibly (pure water), as we are washed with pure water, would it not have been the Blood of Christ which made that water pure by it’s presence in the water. We don’t necessary have to see the Blood just as we cannot see the Spirit. Would we attempt to deny that the Spirit could be in the water also?
Look around about us and see if you believe that you can identify that Christians are bound together in fellowship into one body serving the Lord as faithfully as the tribes of the Israelites did. Think about this also, remember who was responsible for setting up the different tribes in Israel. Wasn’t that God’s instructions? Now can you identify who is responsible for the divisions in Christianity? How can we see that anything which has gone against Jesus’s prayer for unity can be acceptable to him?
Joh 17:9-23 ESV I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. (10) All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. (11) And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. (12) While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. (13) But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. (14) I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. (15) I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. (16) They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. (17) Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. (18) As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. (19) And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. (20) “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, (21) that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. (22) The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, (23) I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.
What is more important is does the world believe that we are one as they observe us among them?
How could we go about correcting this situation?
The Ark (boat) and the water saved Noah in the instrumental sense. What we mean by instrumental is that they were used by God to do the saving. But the ark and the water, being only instrumental, do not say anything about why God saved Noah. I suppose God saved Noah’s life because He wanted to repopulate the earth with faithful people after He had destroyed the wicked. When Peter says Noah was saved by water, he probably means that Noah’s life was saved in the Ark and that he was borne by water to a new world.
Baptism saves us in the instrumental sense. It is when He saves us, but not why He saves us. Titus 3:5 “…he saved us not because of righteous things we had done. but because of his mercy.” 2 Tim 1:9 .”…God, who has saved us and called us to a holy life – not because of anything we have done, but because of his own purpose and grace.” People of all ages and parts of the world understand that ceremonies mark the time when ones status changes, but usually are not why ones status changes.
I believe the purpose of 1Jn 5:6-8 ESV This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.
is to argue for Jesus birth and life as a man and died on this earth, but the meaning is left vague. It is possible it means Jesus was born (through water), lived as he was blood and died giving His blood, all life has the spirit, but Jesus had the Holy Spirit.
Or it might mean something else in its meaning.
But all in all it is pointing to Jesus.
What we can’t do is relate what is said about Jesus to the rest of humanity in this regard and the scripture makes no attempt to connect these witnesses to man in general, saved or not saved.
In regards to contacting the blood in baptism, I believe Rev.1:5 “To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, …”
answers this proposition in that this is Jesus forgiveness in action. see Acts 2
You say, “Would we attempt to deny that the Spirit could be in the water also?”
the problem here is that there is no scripture that says that the water itself is able to forgive or do anything. And if so then we are looking at the Catholic concept of Holy Water.
Again we go back to the hem of Jesus, was the Spirit in the hem or cloth or in Jesus?
And again we are talking about forgiveness.
There is no scripture that gives the power of forgiveness to a thing…only God can personally forgive.
At what point does the water become Holified and does it remain so?
In James we are led to believe that the water is not even removing the filth of the flesh.
And we are also told it is “the answer of a good conscience towards God”.
So it is not the water, but man’s response to God..to Jesus.
Those in Ephesus were also baptized and had faith, but not in Jesus.
In regards to unity. It doesn’t matter what the world thinks of us, only what we think of us in relationship to God and others. We are the dividers from others.
The question is do we have a spirit of unity or division in ourselves.
Do we divide over things we place between us?
I call them “wedge issues
In Corinth they were dividing over who baptized them. Baptism was a good thing, but was not to be used as a wedge issue.
I Corinthians is a book that highlights people dividing using different things to do so.
The prayer you give is key, especially vs.20-21 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one,…”
There are many things that can divide us, but only one that that unites us…faith in Jesus.
David, I think you have the right of it.
If we think of this in terms of how we think of things in life.
Take surgery.
We know that we cannot be save without a scalpel and we know we must show up for the operation, but we usually don’t give glory and the power to the scalpel or our showing up, but to the surgeon.
Christ is the healer and the great physician.
David and Dwight,
Jesus also provided healing through obedience to instructions.
Joh 9:6-7 ESV Having said these things, he spit on the ground and made mud with the saliva. Then he anointed the man’s eyes with the mud (7) and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing.
If the blind man had not followed Jesus’s instructions he would not have been healed. If we do not follow his instructions about baptism we will not be born again, Paul explains in detail our relationship with salvation prior to and after baptism. But, many do not believe Paul or Jesus, and desire to have rebirth and salvation come prior to baptism. As we read through the scriptures we should notice that God always required obedience prior to a promised gift.
Notice this story, do we not believe it?
Naaman Healed of Leprosy 2Ki 5:1-14. Wound we really admit that God could perform this healing through the words of Elisha and the water and not be able to believe that Jesus can demand the same kind of obedience to be forgiven and born again while in the water of baptism? I do not believe that anyone here has ever attempted to give the act of baptism the total power of salvation. If we were to say that baptism would save totally by it’s own power, that would remove all power from Jesus and remove the need for Faith or Belief. But, we also must be aware that there is no example in NT where anyone was saved, born again except through baptism. Even today I was listening to AFR and a program called Exploring the Word where the moderators were attempting to place the born again process at faith and that baptism is only an action performed to portray that publicly. They did not provide evidence to back up that theory they just made a statement as if any other concept did not exist.
What scriptures would you call upon to verify that born again cannot precede baptism?
Hey Larry,
You nailed it, Kid….”ain’t nothing in that water, BUT OBEDIENCE”.
There is nothing new under the sun. Mankind hates the word obey, hates instructions
and hates the fact that there is a God that calls the shots. Why is that? Because they want
to be their own God. Remember the OT PROPHET that said, “Speak, Lord,and thy servant will OBEY.”?
I want to get back with you, Larry on some other things,especially, the Church,
but I have to hit the kitchen.
Excellent message.
Will leave you with a great verse:
“Let us not grow weary well doing, for in the proper time, we will reap a harvest if we will not
give up.” Galatians 6:9…..
THANKS,
B.A.L.
It’s the blood of Jesus that takes away our sin. We cannot obey our earn way to heaven. Salvation is a gift by grace and faith. I know all of the legalistic arguments and cherry-picked obedience scriptures as I heard them and taught them for years. Accepting the biblical teaching of salvation by Grace was very hard for me, but having done so changed the way I worship and share the good news. Earning our way to heaven is not good news because no one is good except God our Father. By Jesus blood we are cleansed. Faith and grace powers us to obey and to do the good works prepared for us to do.
Larry, I think this is the jest of the two examples you mentioned. Obedience, but obedience in faith, but of course there are examples of Jesus healing others with them not doing a single thing but being present and yet faith was still said to be there. Some people were healed miles away by another’s faith…the Centurian’s daughter.
Actually if you look at it in the many examples of healings in the Gospels, obedience wasn’t always present, unless Jesus asked for a specific action, otherwise Jesus healed them.
Faith though was always present.
Now in the OT, faith was always seen in the action of the faithful.
I think the Catholics early on took up the mantle of penance, meaning that if one sinned, then one had to counter act that sin with an action in some way. It wasn’t just enough to pray to God and ask for forgiveness.
You ask, “What scriptures would you call upon to verify that born again cannot precede baptism?”
I can’t think of any.
Born again, like salvation, was always preceded by baptism, but not only baptism in Jesus, but repentance in Jesus, faith in Jesus, confessing of Jesus, etc.
But preceding all responses was Jesus and Jesus love.
B.A.L., many who speak of faith only, actually are some of the most active in evangelism and helping others as they recognized obedience is faith in action. Many who lean towards obedience and works as saving, do less, but ask for perfection in those things they do.
Kind of the like the man with one talent who was afraid so he hid the talent and did not increase in the talents.
This is just what I have noticed.
Terry,
it took a while for me to see this also.
For many years “work out your own salvation” was taught in the coC to argue that we are saved by works, but this isn’t what the scripture is pointing to. We are to work out that which we have, the promise of salvation, by faith.
While true Naaman wouldn’t have been healed until he dipped three times, Abraham didn’t kill his son as he was initially told to do. The faith in the response to God was what God wanted to see. God wanted to see the people of Israel say, “We can take this land”, because this would have been their faith in God.
In faith God had given them the land, in faith they had to take it.
And yet even then it was God who gave them to power to take it and God who had promised it. The Jews understood that while they fought to take the land, the giving was through God.
What we have done is confused obedience with work and made them the same, but obedience doesn’t always require work and should always be in faith.
Here is wishing all you guys, and especially the JAY GUIN FAMILY a very wonderful
and happy THANKSGIVING DAY.
IN HIS LOVE,
B.A.L.
Here, Here, A happy Thanksgiving to the JAY GUIN FAMILY, servants of the God we worship. And thanks to them for keeping this site up. Jay left us a lot of valuable study and thought here for us to consider.
Amen to that B.A.L. We thank Jay’s family for sharing him with us over the years and even now.
B.A.L,
What you said to Larry, that men hate the word obey, they hate instructions, hate that God calls the shots, is true, especially if they are threatened with punishment if they do not obey. Its called rebellion. There is some of it in all of us. As Paul said in Romans, he had no wish to covet until he read in the Law, “Do not covet”. Yes, “once we were alienated from God and enemies in our minds because of our evil behavior, but now He has reconciled us by Christ’s physical body.” Col 1:21
And so how does Christ’s physical body reconcile us? “…God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.” 2 Cor 5:19.
We are no longer under the Law that says, “Obey and you will live, disobey and you will die”. That rouses rebellion in beings having a will of their own. In Christ it is, “Believe that Christ gave himself for your life, and then serve him in grateful obedience.”
Larry has located much information about saved by faith or even grace vs obedience. It is taking a little while to assemble these thoughts into a document small enough to post. But, I could customize this information to a format for your favorite translations and therefore reduce the size, if a few of you would post what translations you normally use. The holidays have also hindered some of my time which I would have devoted to this study. I really believe that some of you may be challenged more than you can imagine.
Hi Dwight Haas, after reading your reply to my post I found a post by Jay “Muscle & Shovel”: Chapter 5, Part 2 (What is faith?)
Jay gives us a great lesson on faith. Blessing for me to read again and learn from.
Terry
Hi David,
Thanks for your message. I could visit with you all day on your good thoughts. But time
doesn’t permit.
I don’t have a clue about how many honest hearts there are that are out there…only God knows.
I do know and trust and believe what God’s word says.”He who disdains instruction despises his own soul, but he who heeds rebuke, gets UNDERSTANDING.” Prov.15:32.
David, there are always going to be people who will not accept what God says. They will quibble
over words to get wiggle room for their particular beliefs. and. And a great many people
think they are thinking when actually they are just rearranging their prejudices.
CHRIST said, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness for they shall be filled.”
There can be no sincere love without a sincere love of TRUTH. And we are no longer on a TRUTH quest, but a happy quest…somewhat prideful in all its claims. Compromise does not glorify the Lord and doesn’t lead to growth, but to apostasy. We don’t get to call the shots on “When, How, What, Where, and How Come? There are some amazing insights given to one who is willing to immerse themselves in the SCRIPTURES.
One reason why we should pray about all of this is because God can do more in a second than
what we can do for ourselves in a lifetime.
All the Best, David.
B.A.L.
Hey Larry,
Looking forward to what you have to say….I like a good challenge.
But looking at it all…..I don’t think its about Faith and Grace vs. Obedience.
Its about all of these things working together in the right frame of The Lord’s
will. Eph.1:11 Working out everything in conformity with the purpose of his WILL.
I have to get back with you later, Larry. I am running behind today.
THANKS, Larry,.
B.A.L.
B.A.L, the problem that I see is that beyond the truth that Jesus is Lord and Savior, we are poor at dividing between truth and what we want to be truth. The only truth is the scriptures, but we try to interpret the truth, instead of accepting it.
It is not about a “truth quest”, but a God quest.
The truth is that we aren’t inspired and carry a lot of biases and baggage and more than often see what we want to see and then call it truth.
Dwight
Agree it is a God quest. In the gospel of John, the word “truth” many times is the truth about God and what He has done for man. “Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ”, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free”, “worship in spirit and truth”, etc. It use to be common in the CofC to here that so and so “learned the truth”, meaning that he converted to the CofC from another denomination. In my estimation, that is not quiet as grand a truth as John and Jesus spoke about.
Our biggest challenge is to focus on Jesus and follow in His footsteps, which means love one another and aid the helpless and seek God. About th3 only thing that happens when we judge others is bringing God judgment on us.
For many years of my life I have been hearing about the concept of us being saved by faith or saved by grace. This is especially guided to opposing that we are saved during baptism. One of the key words involved while explaining that salvation is a free gift, is that if it is free we cannot be told to (obey), that would like a work or a purchase of our salvation.
B.A.L. posted a comment using the term (obey) in relationship to becoming a Christian, wherein comments brought replies opposing the need of (obedience). I have always understood there was a directive that (obedience) was commanded prior to Christ or God accepting an individual into the Body of Christ. Therefore I decided that it was time that I used my own resources to identify truth on this subject. I am providing you with a summary of this effort. But, I am hoping that you will follow through with the studies that I am suggesting.
My first suggestion here is, if you are able to comment here you evidently have access to a computer which is capable to running Bible searching software. I know that you can read and post from a phone but, those normally will not be effective in searching the scriptures for the content you should see. If you don’t have a good search program, e-sword is very affordable, it has a free version, a very small fee will get you many translations and more study helps than you could read in a lifetime. But, most important the search capabilities will allow you to find scriptures which are related to what you want to study.
With this in mind, do some searches on the following words and phrases in multiple translations in the New Testament. The following phrases can be searched in context or as individual words found in verses. Saved by faith, Saving faith, Saved by, Faith saves, Faith saved,
By using a word like Obey and clicking a box that identifies regular expressions you will get all words that contain obey, like obeys, obeyed, and disobey in the KJV you will find 33 matches in 31 verses. But, in ASV 26 verses, GNB 145 verses, GW 90 verses, ERV 153 verses, CEV 210 verses, NIV 49 times in 47 verses. But, that word will not return these, obedient, obedience, disobedient. They will need the phrase (obed).
Why would I go to the trouble to explain this to you? Because, I want you to look at these translations which have high numbers and compare them to the others and you will see that the concept being conveyed by the message is the same as obeying. Messages phrased like [whosoever shall do the will of my Father] [walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord] [Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them ] [My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it] are saying (obey) . Of course, I only listed a sample, you get involved, see for yourself.
(Mat 7:21 CEV) Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who (obey) my Father in heaven will get in.
(Mat 7:24 CEV) Anyone who hears and (obeys) these teachings of mine is like a wise person who built a house on solid rock.
(Mat 7:26 CEV) Anyone who hears my teachings and doesn’t (obey) them is like a foolish person who built a house on sand.
(Mat 12:50 CEV) Anyone who (obeys) my Father in heaven is my brother or sister or mother.”
(Mat 19:17 CEV) Jesus said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? Only God is good. If you want to have eternal life, you must (obey) his commandments.”
(Mar 7:8 CEV) You (disobey) God’s commands in order to (obey) what humans have taught.
Luk 6:46-49 CEV Why do you keep on saying that I am your Lord, when you refuse to do what I say? (47) Anyone who comes and listens to me and (obeys) me (48) is like someone who dug down deep and built a house on solid rock. When the flood came and the river rushed against the house, it was built so well that it didn’t even shake. (49) But anyone who hears what I say and doesn’t (obey) me is like someone whose house wasn’t built on solid rock. As soon as the river rushed against that house, it was smashed to pieces!
Luk 7:29-30 CEV Everyone had been listening to John. Even the tax collectors had (obeyed) God and had done what was right by letting John baptize them. (30) But the Pharisees and the experts in the Law of Moses refused to (obey) God and be baptized by John.
Luk 10:17-20 CEV When the seventy-two followers returned, they were excited and said, “Lord, even the demons (obeyed) when we spoke in your name!” (18) Jesus told them: I saw Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning. (19) I have given you the power to trample on snakes and scorpions and to defeat the power of your enemy Satan. Nothing can harm you. (20) But don’t be happy because evil spirits (obey) you. Be happy that your names are written in heaven!
LC Even the Demons understood obedience.
Luk 11:28 CEV Jesus replied, “That’s true, but the people who are really blessed are the ones who hear and (obey) God’s message!”
Joh 8:31 CEV Jesus told the people who had faith in him, “If you keep on (obeying) what I have said, you truly are my disciples.
Joh 8:51-52 CEV I tell you for certain that if you (obey) my words, you will never die.” (52) Then the people said, “Now we are sure that you have a demon. Abraham is dead, and so are the prophets. How can you say that no one who (obeys) your words will ever die?
Joh 9:31 CEV We know that God listens only to people who love and (obey) him. God doesn’t listen to sinners.
Joh 14:23-24 CEV Jesus replied: If anyone loves me, they will (obey) me. Then my Father will love them, and we will come to them and live in them. (24) But anyone who doesn’t love me, won’t (obey) me. What they have heard me say doesn’t really come from me, but from the Father who sent me.
This list could continue on and on, so I’ll stop here and solicit comments from you.
P.S. While Jesus walked on this earth he healed men and women and saved several noting that he saw faith in them. Many of you have used these instances to portray that he is still doing the same now. I must ask you these questions; do you believe that no other Jews had the same faith that those who Jesus healed had? Why is that important? Because, after the Day of Pentecost there is no record of the Apostles or any other teacher finding a Jew or Gentile who was already saved and did not baptize them because of his faith in Jesus or God which he or she had prior to his death.
Another thought. As you observe the following passages. Would you believe that the Pharisees and experts did not have faith or believe God? Evidently, all the Jews were faithless and did not believe God, because the rules that men are using to claim faith saves today would have saved them also. Remember Saul and his commitment to the Law of God? Would anyone declare that he did not have enough faith to save him? Notice his own comment.
Act 22:3-5 CEV I am a Jew, born and raised in the city of Tarsus in Cilicia. I was a student of Gamaliel and was taught to follow every single law of our ancestors. In fact, I was just as eager to obey God as any of you are today. (4) I made trouble for everyone who followed the Lord’s Way, and I even had some of them killed. I had others arrested and put in jail. I didn’t care if they were men or women. (5) The high priest and all the council members can tell you that this is true. They even gave me letters to the Jewish leaders in Damascus, so that I could arrest people there and bring them to Jerusalem to be punished.
[LC] When Paul says that he was just as eager to obey God as any of you today, would we not believe that is faith? Paul had faith in God and those who Jesus saved had faith in God (would we attempt to state that the faith that Jesus saw in those he healed was in him) or was it in God?
(Luk 7:30 CEV) But the Pharisees and the experts in the Law of Moses refused to obey God and be baptized by John.
(Act 7:39 CEV) But our ancestors refused to obey Moses. They rejected him and wanted to go back to Egypt.
(Heb 12:25 CEV) Make sure that you obey the one who speaks to you. The people did not escape, when they refused to obey the one who spoke to them at Mount Sinai. Do you think you can possibly escape, if you refuse to obey the one who speaks to you from heaven?
(LC) I realize that those spoken of here lived prior to Jesus’ death, but would you consider them saved if those actions were seen today?
Joh 12:42-43 CEV Even then, many of the leaders put their faith in Jesus, but they did not tell anyone about it. The Pharisees had already given orders for the people not to have anything to do with anyone who had faith in Jesus. (43) And besides, the leaders liked praise from others more than they liked praise from God.
Larry,
You wrote, “For many years of my life I have been hearing about the concept of us being saved by faith or saved by grace. This is especially guided to opposing that we are saved during baptism.”
While this is kind of true, it is not true of many that see saved by faith or saved by grace not opposing the fact that we are saved during baptism.
What generally happens is we take sides, which is especially true between the Baptist and the coC camps, where one argues from one point of salvation and the other from the other point and then we focus on those particular points.
Ironically even the Baptist who argue that you are saved before baptism, if baptism is a work, also argue that one must be baptized as this is obedience to God and to disobey is sinful.
Then we have the coC who argue that Baptism is the point of salvation, even though they admit that one can be lost after baptism and not even be saved during baptism if the faith isn’t placed in Jesus and I do remember a time not too long ago where the coC argued that “works do save” and baptism was one of those saving works.
I think we in the coC and the Baptist need to stop debating and come to the cross in unity realizing that obedience is Godly and baptism is obedience, but that baptism isn’t a work of man and that to say that faith saves and saved by grace isn’t to be pitted against obedience and baptism.
We are both wrong in our estimation of where salvation lies, when we place the point of salvation in a thing and not Jesus.
Paul and the apostles taught Jesus, not faith or baptism.
Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life.”
Jesus wanted Himself to be the focus or man’s salvation.
Those that turned to Jesus in faith were baptized, see Acts 2.
When I made the statement, “Our biggest challenge is to focus on Jesus and follow in His footsteps, which means love one another and aid the helpless and seek God.”
This automatically included being baptized, which Jesus was, and dying and being raised, which Jesus was also.
But we must also realize that our salvation doesn’t start at baptism and end at baptism, it is just a part of it. It takes us off the road of the world and places on the spiritual road to heaven, and while so, we must live in the Spirit, by doing the works of the Spirit.
While we die to the world, we must live to Christ and work for Christ.
I think one of the worst ploys I have seen in regards to “baptism saves” is the coC baptism chart, because as well meaning as it is, it creates a scenario where Christ is no longer preached, but baptism and in its attempt to show the connection between preaching and baptism in sheer numbers of occurrence it totally leaves out the most important part of salvation…Jesus, the Savior.
Jesus is always there in context of any discussion on salvation in the scriptures.
Paul taught Christ and Christ crucified as well as Peter.
Always.
And if Jesus, then faith, even though not directly mentioned in the text.
And grace and mercy is never mentioned, even though that is what salvation is…grace and mercy.
Admittedly I used to love these charts, but I have come to hate them for their lack of showing the truth to get to a debate point.
Salvation is a result of us seeking God and following Christ.
Hey Larry,
WOW!!! Words fail me on expressing to you how wonderful your message is. You are really doing some good deeds here,
One will always get flack from those who refuse to accept the whole COUNSEL of GOD.
Rom. 11:22: “Behold therefore the GOODNESS and SEVERITY of GOD: On them which fell, severity, but toward you, if you continue in HIS GOODNESS, otherwise, you also will be cut off.
Ephesians 4:3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.
This is our goal. And as Paul said, “And this is my prayer that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and
may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ.” Phil. 1:9.
THANKS, Larry…AWESOME…..
B.A.L.
Suggest Jay’s Faith and Baptism post and series be read:
/2017/02/n-t-wrights-the-day-the-revolution-began-romans-reconsidered-part-46-introduction-to-chapters-6-8/
What concerns me is that many in the CofC wrap the whole of obedience, concerning Jesus’ teachings, around baptism. That is exactly the same thing the Judaizers did, concerning the Law, with circumcision. The Judaizers claimed that if one was circumcised, he had obeyed the Law. The CofC claims that if one was baptized, he has obeyed Christ. When we are baptized and saved, we are counted as being righteous before God. Does anyone really think obeying one ordinance of Christ counts for obeying everything he taught? No, we are counted as righteous because we place our faith in him, not because we have obeyed one ordinance he gave. I am not saying the CofC preaches another gospel as the Judaizers did, but that is getting too close for comfort for me. It made Jay uncomfortable too, as he wrote “Do we preach another gospel?” I had those concerns before I had ever seen this website. I gravitated to this site because I found that Jay was one of the few people that seemed to agree with my conclusions on baptism and the Holy Spirit. If someone says he has studied baptism, but hasn’t learned something about the Holy Spirit, then you can be sure he hasn’t really studied baptism.
Baptism for remission of sins can be harmonized with salvation by grace through faith – not of works, if we get off the salvation because of our act of obedience to law kick. The ceremony of baptism saves. The ceremony of marriage marries. Showing up for the ceremony is not the cause of ones salvation or his marriage. The cause of ones salvation is his faith in Christ. The cause of ones marriage is the reciprocal faith in the partners of the marriage. Marriage is just one ceremony among many that illustrate how ceremonies change ones status, but are not the cause of the change in status. It should need no explanation because everyone understands it. This concept has been understood for thousands of years all over the world.
As we did deeper and deeper into what we have been taught and what we have observed being taught about especially, salvation. We should always keep in mind that Satan has joined with many organizations to corrupt God’s teachings. Our observation of what is being taught by many should drive a Christian who Loves God to meet all deviations of his Word with an incontestable wall of his Word properly divided. When I used the term divided I am thinking about this scripture.
2Ti 2:15 KJV Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Many prefer other translations, another rendering would be.
2Ti 2:15 ESV Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
All the translations that I inspected conveyed the same context (keeping it in the proper order to convey the same message God expressed).
Dwight, I am fully aware that some Baptist’s teach baptism properly, I learned about that not from those I considered my brothers in Christ, but from attempting to explain to some of the Baptist members that their church had taught them wrong. I have in the past exclaimed that baptist churches were like Heinz 57 sauce not all taught the same message. Back then I thought that every cofC taught the same message, after all we taught the Bible, not our opinions. The wrong teaching of the Baptist church, was making baptism into a ritual or ordinance of the church. I had confirmed that the teaching from the organized Baptist was in fact used as an ordinance when I attended Seminary Extension Courses. One of the classes I participated in was contemporary preaching. Each student was required to give a 10 minute sermon, subjects were not assigned. Could you guess that my sermon was about baptism? If I remember correctly there were 21 members in the class, all of these classmates were in training to be or extended requirements for Baptist preachers ( Pastors), I was the exception. The complete class was also required to critique each sermon. The sermon was required to be exactly 10 minutes, I was sure that I could not convey all the most convincing text in that short message. Therefore, I had typed my whole sermon and mostly read from the document, and just as I believed, the instructor was looking at his watch carefully ( from his facial expressions I believe that he was desirous to cut my sermon short), but he did not and I still ran short of time. Then in the last statement, I announced there was a copy of the sermon text complete for all to read to completion. One of the comments that came from those class members, I will never forget, “don’t you feel uneasy among all of us heathens”. At that point I felt assured that they had understood my message, and might have categorized themselves appropriately. I did get a passing score on the class because the instructor was not able to classify my sermon as false doctrine. He was very careful to advise me that what I had taught was not what was being taught by the Baptist organizations.
I have rehearsed this event for you because I saw that same concept (ordinance) or church ordinance pop up here. That is exactly on the opposite side of the purpose of baptism in scripture. Baptism was brought to earth prior to the creation of the church. Baptism was even prior to Christ coming to earth. Remember Christ mentioned after his death and resurrection and close to his ascension that He would build his church. It did not exist prior to The Day of Pentecost. The church has no authority over baptism. The Baptist’s in general were using baptism as a prerequisite to becoming a member of the Baptist Church.
On the other side of this same picture we also have churches teaching that baptism is optional, according to the wishes of the individual. Not limited to those is also the concept that an individual is (born again) prior to baptism when the individual comes to faith. Most of those explain that baptism is (an outward expression of an event which took place in an individual), that the baptism is just for the announcement to others of the commitment of an individual. I would challenge anyone to prove that concept by an example in scripture. I did not see Jay accept that task. Maybe he did not understand my request.
Lets get this challenge going, any takers.
Terry,
I looked again at the reference that you directed us. I see that I did not comment on that post. There were some times when I endeavored to put a comment together and it became so large that I did not get it completed before another hot subject needed attention. I did not hold Mr. Wright’s teachings in as high esteem as Jay did. I also believe that he lost many followers as he promoted Mr. Wright. I did not see much in this post about baptism except the desire to confirm that Paul was not teaching the basics of baptism. There was communication about the OT in which a statement was made that Abraham was not baptized. But, that would be out of context, baptism was not applicable to OT instructions. You cannot intermix the two Covenants. The majority of this post was an attempt to place faith as the dividing line between a lost person and salvation and exclude baptism as the birth point of a child of God. Even Jay made mention of the lack of identifying baptism in this post. But, it is important to understand that everyone he was writing to here was identified as the Church at Rome, all had already been baptized, yet he in chapter six explained to them things that they evidently did not see at baptism. Why could I be fully convinced that all those were baptized? Because, if Paul had believed that there were some there who were not baptized he would have been disobeying Jesus instructions about how to make disciples. He already accepted his audience to be disciples.
If you see a different version please explain.
I’ve been reading these posts about the “debate”. I think that’s the whole reason there should not be a debate. It really is about reaching unbelievers. Go out into the world and proclaim the message of Christ.
Larry, I reread Jay’s post in light of your reply. First, while I didn’t personally know Jay, I do know he loved us and was faithful to us. When he came across an author, book, technology, etc that interested him he shared it with us. I’m thankful to have been introduced to Bro. Wright by Jay. While Bro. Wright’s intellect, as was Jay’s, is well-above my pay-grade it has been a blessing to read his writings.
I think your summary of Jay’s post left a lot of meat on the table. It blessed me to reread his post. Having been raised in the cofC and a member of legalistic cofC for many years I can certainly relate and appreciate Jay’s teaching here.
It seems to me that as in the time of the inspired writing of Paul the Romans were facing the same issue as we are – salvation by works. It occurred to me, that we in the cofC left out faith as a step of salvation, believing is part of faith, but faith is much more than believing. I like to read Hebrews 11 and the faith of those mentioned, their faith went well beyond believing; because of their faith they trusted, obeyed and loved God. I think the Romans, as we do, needed to be taught Faith.
I encourage all to read Jay’s post if you haven’t already. Don’t let salvation by works teachers rob you of the Good News. You are saved by the Grace of God through faith! This Good News and the joy that comes from it powers and motivates us to do the good works God has prepared for us to do. Ask God to show you the good work he wants you to do and do those works with the joy of being saved by Grace through the blood of Jesus.
To those brothers and sisters that choose to remain in the legalistic tradition, I believe you, as I, are saved by Grace not by works. You do not have worry about being good enough when you die to go to heaven. We will never be good enough, that’s why the Good News is really Good News!
Pray for God’s blessing for all of us that as Vick said we reach out to those that need to hear the Good News! Sometimes I hear people pray for God to lead someone to them that God wants to hear the Good News. God has already answered that prayer, those people are all around us, hairdresser, barber, cashier, co-worker, neighbor, etc. I pray God open our eyes and heart to see them as Jesus did and with love share the Good News with them.
Terry
Dwight
I well remember when CofC preachers and writers said baptism is a work and that works do save. They were wrong, but at least consistent in their wrongness. Later CofC preachers and writers began saying works do not save and baptism is not a work, but would proceed to explain baptism as if it was a work, using the same arguments, from James 2 that former preachers and writers had used, and changing “works” to “acts of obedience”. They were wrong, and not even honest in their arguments. This confusion is what drove me to examine the doctrine for myself. I may still have it wrong, but at least, not confused.
Larry,
The passage you cite of 2Ti 2:15 KJV “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
is actually closer akin to the other translation of
2Ti 2:15 ESV “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.”
If you go back to the even the CJB (complete Jewish Bible) and the word meaning itself you find that division is not really the concept, but rather “a line to” the truth.
This is another case where the translators present something that does the scripture a disservice, after all we are not supposed to divide or dissect the word, but unite it.
Way to often we pick apart the word like vultures dividing it from its context and meaning.
Back to Baptism:
Baptism is not optional, but a command, after one comes to believe in Jesus.
And it is not a work, at least not of man.
James does seem to indicate that baptism is an outside event that represents an inward event, but it isn’t a past event, but a present event of a spiritual conversion to Christ.
Salvation doesn’t rest upon baptism, but rest upon a person following Jesus, which includes faith, repentance, baptism, faith, repentance, loving your neighbor, forgiving others, etc.
A person can be baptized and still not be saved if they deny the faith of Christ, if they do not repent, etc.
If baptism isn’t a work, but a response of surrender to God, as I believe, then works are an expression of one who is saved.
These works cannot save us, as we will, falter.
If we sin in one thing, we sin in all things.
This is where grace and mercy come in in regards to our forgiveness in our faith.
Now if one is baptized believing they are already saved, are they saved?
Yes, after all they followed through with the baptism in obedience.
Peter doesn’t state, “repent and be baptized and have faith in baptism to save you”, after all they were supposed to have faith in Jesus to save them.
Baptism placed them into and before Jesus, the forgiver of man.
But then again there are many who are baptized who do not have faith in Christ to save them, but rather the baptism, which is also wrong thinking.
David, unfortunately the coC has done as much damage as the Baptist have in regards to baptism in their own way in making baptism a work and salvation based on man’s works.
There was a flyer going around in the 70s called “work out your own salvation”, which was about man saving himself, overlooking the fact that verse used was in regards to those who were already saved and this was about performing works based on one salvation. Similar to work out your muscles, which means you have muscles to work out.
All in all, salvation doesn’t revolve around faith and/or baptism, but Jesus.
HE is the point of salvation that all things point to and come from and go through, when we follow Him doing God’s will.
Terry, upon reading your post I am struck that I think we may teach too much on faith and works, meaning we have many lessons on what faith is (using Heb.10) and what we must not do in “assembly worship” (not do instrumental music, etc.), but we are very poor at execution. We don’t take our faith and works to the world around us, but keep them locked up inside the church.
We pay our “preachers” to preach to us, the saved, on how to be saved.
We are who James is aimed at. Those who believe they have faith, but don’t exercise it in love towards the needy, spiritually and physically.
And the works we do aren’t works of the Spirit, but works of legalism involving assembly ceremony.
Hey Vick,
You are exactly right on.
Don’t you think we should bring back the Kitchen table in the whole scheme of things? We quit growing when we lost our FIRST LOVE…Rev.. 2:4 and started having strife in the Church which is what is happening on this blog.
Matt. 24:12,13.Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold. But he who stands FIRM to the end will be saved.
B.A.L.
I really didn’t think there was a spirit of strife going on in this blog. If there is one thing Jay believed in it was open discussion of the scriptures without ad hominem while sharing different thoughts.
Vick,
You have caught my curiosity. In this statement, “Go out into the world and proclaim the message of Christ.” Could you supply a sample of what that communication would sound like?
Terry,
Am I properly understanding your comment if I see that you are calling baptism part of the legalistic tradition?
I also wonder where you would see that Jesus did not tell men of their faults, as this statement implies. “I pray God open our eyes and heart to see them as Jesus did and with love share the Good News with them.”
John the Baptist began preparing the Way, notice his description of some of the Jews coming to him.
Mat 3:7-12 ESV But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? (8) Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. (9) And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. (10) Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (11) “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. (12) His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
Notice some of Jesus comments to his disciples. These were his followers.
Mat 17:17-20 ESV And Jesus answered, “O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him here to me.” (18) And Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and the boy was healed instantly. (19) Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, “Why could we not cast it out?” (20) He said to them, “Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.”
Now how about messages that Jesus spoke concerning the people he saw?
Mat 11:20-24 ESV Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. (21) “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. (22) But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. (23) And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. (24) But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.”
(LC) Did anyone notice Jesus stating that they did not have faith? I saw an action of repent verse 20. Could we believe that they had faith but just neglected to repent?
Listen to Peter delivering the sermon at Pentecost found in Acts. Do you believe that anyone hearing words like this concerning their actions today would cause them to respond to (good news) they see in the message? Surely we would remember that there were many hundreds of thousands gathered to hear this sermon, only 3000 obeyed. Can you see their faith being the reason that they responded? I see the response to the message here as the last portion of verse 37. They were convicted of the sin they had committed.
Act 2:36-41 ESV Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” (37) Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” (38) And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (39) For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (40) And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” (41) So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
Jesus informs us about the world that we live in, how it will hate us. If we live our lives like Jesus did, we will receive the same results. Therefore, I believe that it is very important that God will guide us to individuals who will be receptive to his Word. What did he tell his Apostles to do when they were not accepted in a city?
Joh 15:18-27 ESV “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. (19) If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. (20) Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. (21) But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. (22) If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. (23) Whoever hates me hates my Father also. (24) If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. (25) But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause.’ (26) “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. (27) And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning.
Dwight,
You mentioned, “Way to often we pick apart the word like vultures dividing it from its context and meaning.” I had never seen that concept as being the result of (properly dividing the Word). Everyone, that I ever heard using that verse was applying the authority of (uniting all the context together on a subject) in opposition to separating it form its context. Good discussion though, someone may have misunderstood.
Hey Dwight,
Sometimes, we can come off as sleeping Christians.We all need to observe Eph. 5:14 known
as the “wake up call” scripture. After I made a comment on being on a Truth quest, your
contradictory remark was, “We are not on a truth quest but a God quest.” They are ‘ONE AND THE SAME” Would you like to retract that statement or would you be so kind to tell me where
you found this or what scripture you are using? John 14:6…..”I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life.”
B.A.L.
BAL,
Sadly, they (truth quest & God quest) are not necessarily one and the same. They may be the same for ‘you’…and I hope that they are…but they are not one and the same for many in my fellowship. Often times, we care more about “being right” than being the image bearers of Christ on earth. It’s entirely possible to want to win the argument more than we want to pursue Christ. I see it all the time. I’ve been there, unfortunately.
Dwight,
Honest disagreement, even heated, does not equate to strife. I think we would be shocked to observe the eastern method of study and discourse…it would completely revision our concept of “decently and in good order.” Like so much of scripture, it may not mean what we think it means.
I wanted to let you all know that Edward Fudge passed away on Saturday. He, like Jay, had a different take on matters.
Yeah, I learned about Bro. Fudge’s passing a day or two ago. His writing makes a lot of sense to me. It makes me wonder what else have we accepted from early church teaching as non negotiable truth that may not necessarily be non negotiable truth.
Larry, what we argue for from 2 Tim.2:15 is not often what happens in the end. Preachers often like to make points and one way to do that is to correlate information, meaning they pull a scripture here and pull a scripture there and combine them into one thought. Not to say this doesn’t often work, but many times the scriptures pulled aren’t meant for that point, but a different point due to context. It was just an observation that perhaps “rightly dividing” the scriptures is not right if we are dividing the scriptures to make points.
BAL, Since Jesus is “the way, the truth and the life”, then we are to seek Jesus.
Unfortunately, as Kevin points out, many seek the truth, but many miss Jesus in doing this. The Pharisees were obsessed with seeking the truth in the scriptures of the Old Law and getting down to the truths between the truths, to the point that they were denying God and their fellow man.
And may times the truths we seek are our own truths.
There is only one Jesus and one God, the Father.
Kevin, What I meant is that I didn’t see any strife within any of the discussions on this blog or even any heated disagreements and I have seen some get heated over the many years of coming here. Actually I think we are too reserved in our discussion of the scriptures, within our assemblies, to the point to where we don’t really discuss, but just sit back and let it ride. This is why sites like this are so important, because it allows open conversations without the fear of being shut down.
I would like to say that baptism is not legalistic, in that we are not asked to perform work and we are not asked to do something complicated.
Now there are many who load other points onto accepting Jesus as God and Savior in regards to being saved, but the scriptures are pretty plain. Jesus is the point of salvation, He is the Savior of mankind and our faith, baptism, repentance, etc. should be focused on this one truth. When we are converted, we are not converted to a system or belief system, but to Christ. Christ is the head of us and we are the members, individually, of His body or congregation.
Dwight,
Your last statement is as true as it gets. But, as you have also stated in the first of this comment, many preachers ( are acting like Angel’s of light serving a different master, and most of those are unaware what they are doing) have distorted many things in their presentations. Did you find any conversions listed in other books than Acts?
Larry, the more and more I read and then look at what we have, I find that perhaps preachers were not meant to be part of the latter day saints environment. One thing that strikes me is that the apostles and preachers were heralds who were “sent” by one in authority. The apostles sent by Jesus, the preachers like Timothy were sent by Paul and by prophecy and they all had the Holy Spirit guiding them.
Otherwise we have people who spread the Gospel and we have the scriptures that all can read from.
The preachers were initially supposed to carry the word to the lost and they presented doctrine not heard or known to the people.
Do we really need people to gather scriptures together and to tell us what to do?
We have replaced the scriptures with preachers who disseminate the scriptures.
In fact much of the “worship service” is structured not around the Lord’s Supper, but the sermon.
Just thinking out loud.
Dwight,
I do not believe that the early church looked anything like what has been designed today. In fact Saul and the persecutors had to search for Christians and probably would not have found many except for non-Christians exposing them. I am also not sure they had the concept of a “worship service”. Not a word in NT of how that would have been conducted, oh except decently and in order.
Should we wonder why Saul had to extend his authority from the Chief Priest to go into an area which he was unfamiliar to find Christians to execute judgement upon? Surely, he had not found all of the Christians in Jerusalem. No they were very proficient at avoiding being caught by Saul. Actually, the volume of Christians in Jerusalem after Saul was converted is well documented.
There would have been those in the “early church” who were still attending synagogue so they would have known what a service was. Messiah believing Jews would have looked no different than they always had.
Mark,
That is very possible, but the synagogue ritual was very different than what is being performed in assemblies today. Also remember that God did not design the synagogue or its ritual.
Also Jesus designed at least one of the assemblies around the Lord’s Supper, which was based on the Passover feast. It wasn’t a ritual, but a meal based on remembering Jesus. The Christian Jews would have been familiar with the synagogue, but the gentiles not. Most of their time in the synagogues was to read scripture and maybe discuss its meaning among them. The church liturgy that we have now didn’t exist then, they met to edify each other, not to go through worship rituals.