Posted on 12/15/2011 10:14:12 AM PST by Cronos
2 groups, those that are “comfortable” and those who wonder “is this all there is”. Even though there is no central organization there are remarkable similarities.
***Your book store sounds as though it is pretty limited, so you might want to expand your horizons.***
Don’t worry about me. I am just a few miles from one of the best university libraries, which I have used for the last 50 years, and they have all I need. JOHN BROWN UNIVERSITY.
***I’m glad you got out of a legalistic system and hope the church you now attend preaches and teaches the whole counsel of God.****
When I told the Coc preachers of those doctrines, they were so close to the Coc beliefs that I was virtually accepted except on one or two points. But it wasn’t enough for them. I had to be a MEMBER of their church in ALL points, and that was the stickler which broke the camel’s back.
Since then I have been enjoying Liberty in Christ and not bondage to anyone.
“there can be several congregations in a single town that have each come to different conclusions about a subject....”
Then how can there be consensus on what CoC doctrine really is. No wonder the several CoC churches here do not care to associate with each other as each considers itself the “only true church”.
***at least 3 of these groups (LDS, JW, SDA) were founded in NY within about 60 years and 100 miles of each other.***
Christian Scientists were formed thereabouts too, correct?***
Let’s add to that group those little ladies the FOX sisters who started the table rapping cults of Spiritualsim in which people thought thy could communicate with the dead. ask a question and the little lady would “pop” her toe and claim it was an answer from the dead. So many pops for yes, so many pops for no.
**I find the scriptures themselves sufficient, without having a group of uninspired men reformulate them***
How can you call these people “uninspired” as it was these people who safely guarded and passed down the BIBLE to us.
By YOUR standards the translators of the KJV and all other Bibles were vile lost men.
Go to ANY CoC and you will see preachers reading out of bibles translated by what you would refer to as LOST MEN.
What is the difference between the Nicene Creed and a CoC pamphlet by V E Howard or A G Hobbs?
The Nicene creed and the others are believable!
I disagree with you, however you have posted your point calmly and without malice, thank you — can we agree to disagree?
“How can you call these people “uninspired” as it was these people who safely guarded and passed down the BIBLE to us.”
I believe the scriptures are God-breathed. I don’t believe that is true of the creeds. But I won’t take offense if you believe the creeds are inspired.
“By YOUR standards the translators of the KJV and all other Bibles were vile lost men.”
If you point me to the place I made that statement, I would appreciate it. If you can’t, then you’re making things up and I see no need to continue our discussion.
However, I have appreciated the irenic spirit of your comments on this thread.
“I disagree with you, however you have posted your point calmly and without malice, thank you — can we agree to disagree?”
Of course. Best regards.
And yet the entire core of CoC belief can be said by a parrot over and over again!
Acts 2:38
Acts 2:38
Acts 2:38
Acts 2:38
without ever asking why Paul was already chosen by God before he was ever baptized (He is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name...), or why Cornelius exhibited the “signs” that FOLLOWED baptism before he was baptized ACTS 10: 43-45
“i guess Peter was preaching another gospel when he gave “instructions” in Acts 2:38.
for that matter St Augustine must have been following another gospel as well.”
That’s your opinion not mine.
***If you point me to the place I made that statement, I would appreciate it. If you can’t, then you’re making things up and I see no need to continue our discussion.***
Are you then admitting that men who were Presbyterian and Anglican, and sprinkled for remission of sin can translate a bible that you will accept?
I have a full list of the KJV translators if you are interested. Won’t see a Campbellite in the group.
And if you are interested in the Genevea bible I can show you a printed prayer in the back against “the Papists and the Anabaptists”.
***However, I have appreciated the irenic spirit of your comments on this thread.***
I talked to a local CoC preacher I worked with a few years ago.
I asked, “The Eastern Orthodox believe in immersion baptism. Are they correct?”
He said..”Yes, they are correct.
I said...”Will you then accept them as brothers in the Lord?”
He said...”NO! because it was not done by one of our preachers!”
That told me what I wanted to know. Will YOU accept Eastern Orthodox as brothers in the Lord, and if not, why not!
Do you have a problem with baptism? Is it an offensive stumbling block for you?
Why is it so many people resist the clear instructions regarding baptism, yet will embrace all other commands?
Answer a question, PLEASE, instead of glossing it over. Look at Acts 19.
1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied. 4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.
Paul links receiving the Holy Spirit with baptism. His immediate question after learning these men did not have the Holy Spirit was “Then what baptism did you receive?” Getting dunked in water was not enough, or John's baptism would have been sufficient. Paul took it seriously enough to re-baptize these believing men in the name of Jesus.
Your mocking tone regarding Acts 2:38 is disturbing. God's Word is serious business and should be discussed with discovering His will for us, not with disdain for what others have concluded.
So here's the question: Have you been baptized? I find that people who resist baptism don't want anyone else to think it is a command or important.
Baptism is NOT a work BTW, it is an obedient response to God's clear command. IOW, I can't baptize myself, I must submit to it and demonstrate publicly that I have symbolically died to my old life.
1 Peter 3:21 is pretty clear:
21 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, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
Baptism SAVES you??? Clearly not the act of getting wet, but appealing to God to save us by the resurrection of Jesus.
Baptism is a pledge and an expression of the believer to be joined into the resurrection. The act of baptism being our symbolic joining in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus is detailed in Romans 6:3 and following:
3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.
So, Ruy, is baptism necessary?
***So, Ruy, is baptism necessary? ****
If baptism were so necessary why would the CoC not accept my baptism in a cold running creek? Why will they not accept other Baptist or pentecostal immersionism?
NO! It only has to be YOUR baptism. So the CoC has thrown up walls of it’s own making. Even “ remission of sin” baptisms are not accepted by your church. It is YOUR way or the highway. NO THANKS!
Even the Catholics will accept baptisms from converters that have been baptized in Protestant Trinitarian churches.
I knew a man who had been baptised by sprinkling, then he changed churches several times.
He was Sprinkled, immersed, immersed three times backward, immersed forward, immersed three times forward, sprinkled again... So, which was “correct”?
And another man I worked with who felt he was such a sinner he went forward in his church and got re baptized about once a month.
Like Cornelius, as Peter said, To him give all the prophets witness, that through HIS NAME whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
“Even to them that believe on his name...”
This is not a convincing argument. All of us were chosen before the foundation of the world, long before we knew sin. (Ephesians 1:3-14)
Read Paul's own account of his conversion in Acts 22:
14 “Then he said: ‘The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. 15 You will be his witness to all people of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’
Paul had been selected for sure, but he still had to have his sins WASHED AWAY.
I dunno, because that particular congregation lacked understanding? I can't speak for other people.
If your baptism was in accordance with God's word it is valid. Period.
There are several strains of Pharisaic people in the CoC (and other groups) but so what? My or your salvation does not ride on what other people think.
The point is, scripture is the only authority, hence God's command to 'work out your salvation with fear and trembling'
IOW, each of us will stand before God's throne and give an accounting for what we did with our 'talents' and how seriously we took God's commands.
And another man I worked with who felt he was such a sinner he went forward in his church and got re baptized about once a month.
This poor unfortunate also misunderstands God's grace and the 'once for all' sacrifice of Jesus. 'Getting dunked' in and of itself means nothing. We must understand that Jesus' blood CONTINUOUSLY washes us of our sins.
Baptism was nothing but a symbolic gesture of a change in life. Only the blood of Christ can remove sin. Water merely gets you wet and shows lookers on that you mean it. Even the American Indians did it when adopting a stranger into their tribe, they would throw him in a creek to wash the old tribe off so he became a member of the new tribe.
And the Hindus still do it quite often. "even to them that believe on his name."
Have you even read my posts?
Let's review.
1 Peter 3:21 clearly states much of what you just posted. Acts 19 links receiving the Holy Spirit with baptism. (So baptism is quite a bit more significant than 'nothing but a symbolic gesture') Romans 6 details how baptism is required to join in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus.
C'mon Ruy, quit dancing.
Is baptism necessary?
The Church was founded by Christ and will be extant till is return, at no time was it ever not in existence on the face of the earth after its founding.
As to can an unbaptized person baptize another a simple question arises Who Baptized John ?
If 2 persons whom had never been anything religion wise read and understood the bible could not one baptize the other, it is not a the act not the person performing the act that is of import I think.
“I went to the Bible Book Store today. I didn’t see any of the authors you mentioned, just the ones I listed.
Didn’t see any CofC authors there at all except Max Lucado and his powder puff books.”
Max Lucado no longer uses the name Church of Christ but only Oak Hills Church.
bttt
To me where Campbell was correct and in accord with the New Testament I will with out hesitation agree with his views, (as they are BIBLICAL VIEWS) where he differs I will differ.
I dont follow Campbell exept in that he tried followed the New Testament and I try to do the same.
I use the word TRY because none are perfect not one.
The CHURCH and congrations are not the same thing.
Rome
Corinth
Jerusalem
etc..
Were all Part of the Same CHURCH that being Christs Church but each had its own Elders and Deacons.. thus the turn of phrase.. the Church the met at Rome.
Then I would think him in error, as the Baptized person is of import not the Baptizer.
If the Baptized person was baptized for the remission of sin and to join Christ, who is any man to say it was not so ?
(this all assumes that the manner of baptism was in accordance with those shown to us in the new testament)_
***Romans 6 details how baptism is required to join in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus.***
Like all immersionists they see the word “baptism” and think water.
Read Romans 6 carefully;
Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized INTO Christ were baptized INTO his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism INTO DEATH: like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection.
***Now pay attention!****
Knowing this that our old man IS CRUCIFIED WITH HIM, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should no longer serve sin.
Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ, never the less I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me...
Ever notice how Paul references the Crucifiction of Christ? Did you ever notice that Paul also said, concerning water baptism, I Cor 1:14, I THANK GOD that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
Lest any should say that I baptized in my own name.
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas, besides, I KNOW NOT WHETHER I BAPTIZED ANY OTHER.
FOR CHRIST SENT ME NOT TO BAPTIZE, BUT TO PREACH THE GOSPEL....
If water baptism were so important why did God not include that in Paul’s commission? Paul did baptize but you can see he didn’t seem to keep too much track of it.
There are mentions of water baptism and baptism INTO Christ. Can you discern the difference?
Good discussion on baptism from the ancient Greeks here.
http://www.ucmi.org/ucmi/chap11.htm
***Were all Part of the Same CHURCH that being Christs Church but each had its own Elders and Deacons.. thus the turn of phrase.. the Church the met at Rome.****
Then why did James demand that Paul take a vow, go to the TEMPLE with other Christians with vows and pay for their animal sacrifices!
Was this part of the self governing of the CoC in Jerusalem as opposed to the CoC in Ephesus or Corinth?
***Then I would think him in error, as the Baptized person is of import not the Baptizer.***
Then why can one not just jump in a creek or swimming pool and declare himself self-baptized? Is it valid?
I can think of a false prophet who self-baptized himself before starting his cult.
Can a man and woman be self-married? Is it valid?
You lecture me on the meaning of baptism somehow NOT being an immersion in water, then you link to a page that lays out that baptism is clearly immersion in water.
("Baptism as was commonly practiced in the New Testament church was immersion baptism. The word "baptism" comes from the Greek word "baptizo" which means to dip.")
You are right that Paul did not make it his concern to 'close' the deal with baptism. His primary calling was to preach the gospel. Even in Acts 19, it appears he simply ordered that they be re-baptized, he doesn't appear to have done the act.
You have yet to deal with any of my questions, but I'll press on anyway, like Don Quixote.
Since you will not answer whether or not baptism is necessary, riddle me this; Why did Paul re-baptize those BELIEVERS in Acts 19?
Seems odd, doesn't it? If baptism is simply an outward sign to onlookers, why would a man of Paul's understanding insist that they be re-baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Let's think *Consistent* here
***Let’s think *Consistent* here ***
Ok. From the link...
“When used in the NT, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism.”
And this is what I am trying to get across. Paul is talking of our union with Christ, not water baptism. Paul also indicates that union happened ON THE CROSS. (I am crucified with Christ).
Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into WATER were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into WATER...
But then that is not what it says, does it.
And the link I gave shows that there is a difference between bapto and baptizo. One is an in and out dipping (bapto), like all immersionist churches do.
The important one is a baptizo in which a person is PERMANENTLY immersed, or drowned, or overwhelmed IN CHRIST.
So, were you temporarily bapto’d into water? Or permantly baptizo’d into Christ. There is a difference and the later one ain’t wet.
Further more, baptizo does not always mean WATER. It can be anything that permanently changes the person or thing being placed into it. Military people often talk of their baptism by combat.
In this case I showed how the Greeks used the words to make pickles. They bapto’d the cucumber (in and out), then they permanently baptizo’d it in vinegar to make a permanent change in it as it takes on the characteristics of what it has been permanently dipped into.
For BY one Spirit are we all baptizo’d into one body, whether Jew or Greek we have all been made to drink by one SPIRIT. Again, no water mentioned.
But then lets look at another one...
Mar 7:4 And [when they come] from the market, except they wash (baptizo), they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, [as] the washing(baptismos) of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables (or couches).
So, did the Pharisees bathe every time they came from the market, by immersion. and did they also immerse their tables or couches? (or did they sprinkle them for ritual cleanliness.)
You have steadfastly refused to answer any of my simple questions.
Stop trying to evade.
WHY did Paul REQUIRE the 12 BELIEVERS to be re-baptized in Acts 19?
***WHY did Paul REQUIRE the 12 BELIEVERS to be re-baptized in Acts 19? ***
It was NOT for remission of sin as that is what John preached, and these were people who had been baptized by John, FOR THE REMISSION OF SIN.
Mark 1: 4. John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS.
Now, did these men gain new sins that required baptism again AFTER THE CRUCIFICTION? If baptism for remission was again later required should all Christians be rebaptized every few weeks to remove old sins?
NO! They were baptized with ritual baptism to be identified as followers of JESUS. They were already believers.
Acts 19:2. He said unto them, have ye received the Holy Ghost SINCE YE BELIEVED?
No different than a standard Baptist church baptism.
Just curious. Does the CoC dismiss the Old Testament? Thanks.
Absolutely not. The whole Bible is necessary to fully understand God's will.
2 Timothy 3:15-17
15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Now does the Old Covenant still bind us? No. Hebrews 8 explains this:
6 But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises. 7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said: “The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 9 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. 10 This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 11 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." 13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
Acts 19 is an enormously important bit of scripture because it unlocks WHY baptism is a commandment.
This part of God's Word makes it clear that 'immersion' is much more than getting wet.
There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
Getting dunked by John was not enough to receive the indwelling presence of God's Holy Spirit. Prior to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, the Holy Spirit did not dwell within men. We see plenty of examples of the Holy Spirit being given to people, mostly prophets, in the Old Testament but it was not a regular occurrence.
Hebrews 11, the great chapter listing the heroes of faith under the Old Covenant ends this way:
39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. 40 God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.
None of these heroes of faith had received what had been promised. What was promised? God living right inside us. That's what differentiates the Christian age from the time before. Because God sacrificed part of Himself for our sins, He puts a part of Himself into us to 'seal' us for resurrection. Submitting to baptism (which a shocking number of believers will not do) is declaring our desire to be joined to Him symbolically in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.
Acts 19 makes it clear, if you are willing to see, that by doing so God then seals us with His Holy Spirit.
Ruy, I do understand that the getting wet part is not the deeper meaning.
These 12 men were re-baptized because they had no understanding of, or contact with, the Holy Spirit. That is the power here, not getting wet.
Luke 3:
15 The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Christ. 16 John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
This re-baptism in the name of the LORD Jesus was to receive the Holy Spirit. We can see that in the post crucifixion era, baptism was still done with water (Acts 8, Ethiopian official) and here in Acts 19, the implication is that the ordinary use of 'baptism' meant they were dunked in water as well. The difference between John's baptism and the post-crucifixion baptism was that God seals us with the Holy Spirit!
I must ask you, brother Ruy, has God sealed you for resurrection? I hope you have His Spirit indwelling you.
***“Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” ****
Well, St Paul must have recognized them as believers. the question of salvation never entered into the question, only the question of the Holy Spirit.
By re-identifying them with Jesus by baptism he then confired the Holy Spirit on them.
Baptism did not remit their sin as sin had already been remitted by JOHN. And JOHN required proof of a change in their life before he would baptize. This is why the Pharisees and Sadducees refused to be baptized by him.
But then we have a problem.
When Cornelius was converted by Peter, the Holy Spirit fell on them before they were baptized.
Look at the exact point when the Spirit filled them.
Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Then Peter asks if anyone could forbid baptism for these people who already showed the signs of salvation and the filling of the Holy Spirit.
So, was Cornelius saved when he believed and was filled with the Holy Spirit, or later when he got wet?
Yes, He did come upon them before baptism.
This is also true on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 when He filled the apostles and appeared as 'tongues of fire' resting on each of them.
Why do you suppose only on 2 recorded occasions did the Spirit fill men prior to baptism?
It is important to note that these 2 occasions were major departures from prior theology. The day of Pentecost was the establishment of the Lord's church, closing and fulfilling the covenant age of Moses.
Cornelius represented salvation coming to the Gentiles and revealing the hidden mystery God had intended from the beginning.
I think it is instructive that in Acts 10 Peter and the other Jewish believers remark: received the Holy Spirit just as we did
46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” 48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.
God moved in such a compelling way that Peter realized that his vision of the sheet being lowered with unclean animals coupled with seeing these Gentiles be immersed in the Holy Spirit in a clearly unique way Just as they had was God's clear stamp of approval for the Gentiles to be part of the kingdom.
So, was Cornelius saved when he believed and was filled with the Holy Spirit, or later when he got wet?
Yes.
These things are so tightly tied together they are inseparable. 'Later' was clearly the same hour. As I have repeatedly stated, the getting wet part is not the focus. Baptism is part of the same submission process that believing is, and baptism takes less 'effort' on your part than believing does, yet no one balks at the notion one must believe.
Peter and Paul both commanded that baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus was a requirement. Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3 that to enter the kingdom one must be born of water and the Spirit, harmonizing the two elements of baptism.
In the case of Acts 19, it was for receiving the Holy Spirit, as is normal for most believers. In the case of Cornelius, it was because they had received the Spirit in a remarkable way.
This also shows that we can not put God in a box. He is Sovereign and He will save who He wants, how and when He wants.
The real question boils down to: will we submit to God's clear instruction?
So, was Cornelius saved when he believed and was filled with the Holy Spirit, or later when he got wet?
“Yes.”
Your answer is ambiguous. So, which was it.
When he was filled with the Holy Spirit?
OR
when he got wet.
The bible says we are 'saved' by many elements that are all tied together and can't be isolated.
1 Peter 3:21 Baptism now saves you
Romans 10:10 Confession saves you
Ephesians 2:8 Grace saves you
and so on.
Each of these elements are part of the package deal.
If a man and a woman said to each other the before God they were married, the state my not agree but I (and is my opinion) they would be as married as they could be.
Colossians 2:14 and following (among others) shows that the Old Testament was no longer in force but that the New Covenant is.
If possible please cite where we are told in the New Testament to do the same as the men spoken of in Acts 21:17.
It seems to be quite specific as to the event and the time.
Ambiguous as this...
Do you or or do you not beat your wife?
“Yes”.
See how silly your answer is?
***The bible says we are ‘saved’ by many elements that are all tied together and can't be isolated.****
I am very much aware of the CoC trying to find all the verses and have put them in a step format.
What must I do to be saved?
1. Do this..
2. Do that.
3. Do this over here.
4.Do that over there
It is not enough for you to do what Paul (who was NOT sent to baptize) and Silas said to the jailer..
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
No step 1, step 2, and so on for Paul.
And Peter, who said...
Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Again no Step 1, step 2.
And Peter's defense...
Act 11:14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Act 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as [he did] unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
And John..
Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
And Paul again..
Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Now if baptism in water was that important the Apostles would have reinterated it at every opportunity.
When Paul speaks of being “baptized into Christ” he is not speaking of water but our identification with Christ when our sins were hanged on the Cross with Christ. It is as if we were the ones crucified.
When Peter speaks of baptism in Peter 3:21, he is referring to the ARK as a type or figure of Christ (the like figure) when Noah entered into it. The same as we have been placed into Christ by the Holy Spirit.
The evil generations were the ones who got baptized by immersion with water washing them away. Water baptism merely identifes the person being baptzed as a follower of Christ, as the 12 from Alexandria.
***If possible please cite where we are told in the New Testament to do the same as the men spoken of in Acts 21:17.***
If the Christian teachings of the early church, Jewish and Gentile, were the same, why did the CHRISTIAN Ruler of JERUSLALEM (James) require Paul to take men with vows, offer animal sacrifices if those things were done away?
Sacrifices became useless when Christ became the ONE sacrifice for all and Temple worship stopped when the Romans destroyed it.
There are several things the early church did that were no longer done just a few years later, such as communal living and having all things equal.
Thankfully God stepped in and stopped this before Paul could complete his orders from James. Paul eventually won a free trip to Rome as a consolation prize. ;-)
Pointing out that belief, repentance, confession, faith, baptism are ALL elements of the salvation event is clearly NOT formulating a 'step format.'
You reference Acts 10 but stop there because it fits your notion. I agree with Acts 10. I also agree with Acts 2, Acts 19, Acts 22 and many others I have posted. I have pointed out how many other passages include supplemental information to the question of: 'What must I do to be saved.'
That isn't popular and it doesn't agree with what the mainstream is teaching, but I'd rather listen to God's word than what some megachurch pastor is peddling.
I will stand on the totality of commandments, not on the one or two that best fit my preconceived notion.
Must I believe? Of course.
Must I confess Jesus with my mouth? Of course.
Must I repent of the garbage and filth in my life? Of course.
Must I submit to baptism? Of course.
Oh. Wait. That one is apparently optional if I don't like it.
The attitude is what is important.
I must be willing to obey the commands of God whether I think they make sense or not.
Unequivocally, baptism is a COMMAND. Many people seem to balk at this command, much like Naaman did in 2 Kings 5. Dipping in the Jordan 7 times OFFENDED him, and he refused. When he finally complied with this 'silly' command God healed him.
Baptism is PART of what one must do to obey God. Just like believing, confessing and living a life that conforms to scripture.
If God commands it, am I willing to obey?
***I will stand on the totality of commandments, not on the one or two that best fit my preconceived notion.***
***If God commands it, am I willing to obey? ****
Really? Then OBEY THE COMMAND OF THE LORD!
“Ye lack ONE THING.
Sell all you have and follow me.”
The story of the rich young ruler is a great teaching.
Christ looked into the heart of the young man and realized this was the one thing he lacked, namely he was putting his trust in material things instead of spiritual.
I give away my belongings easily, too easily according to my family. You picked the wrong guy to try to shame with that one!
Anyway, this teaching is aimed at all of us, not to become blinded by the mortal realm. Try again.
***I give away my belongings easily, too easily according to my family. You picked the wrong guy to try to shame with that one!***
Well I can give you a couple of more commandments of Jesus written in red letters in this bible.
Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
And as for the rich young ruler, he asked..(short verison)
Mat 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing SHALL I DO, that I may have eternal life?
Mat 19:17 ....... but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Mat 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me.
I don’t see anything about the steps the CoC requires. No baptism mentioned at all!
The rich ruler wanted to EARN his salvation so Jesus gave him impossible things to do.
As you know it is impossible to keep the law even if you tried, so Jesus just made his request harder. “Sell all that you have...”
Do you know that the Northern Irish Restorationist movement preached exactly that and their preachers do exactly that because it is scriptural, and in their eye, any group that does not do that is unsaved.
What the young ruler failed to see in Jesus’ teaching was that ETERNAL LIFE CAN NOT BE EARNED! it is the free gift of God, and Jesus was trying to teach this.
Even St Paul said that salvation could not be earned.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
The CoCs remind me of another group here on Fr (we just had a 300 post thread a few weeks ago) that try to keep the commandments and the words of Christ. It appears they are not sure what all needs to be done so they try to cover all bases by doing it all.
Even Martin Luther wrote of the fear of failing to come up to God’s standards by your own effort in THE BONDAGE OF THE WILL.
“If I lived and worked for all eternity, my conscience would never reach comfortable certainty as to how much I must do to satisfy God. Whatever work I had done, there would still be a nagging doubt as to whether it pleased God, or whether He required something more.”
I have that certainty. I have never seen a CoC or an Irish Restorationist who did.
By the way, those Irish reatorationists are also called COONEYITES, from a preacher William Cooney.
I don't know any congregation in my area that thinks we 'earn' anything by being obedient, even the wacky extreme groups don't believe that.
***I have that certainty. I have never seen a CoC or an Irish Restorationist who did.***
Huh.
Can't speak to the Cooneyite thing, but my little congregation of 350 people are certain of being washed in the blood and saved by grace. Oh yeah, we believe in trying to be obedient too. Is that earning anything? Ha. Nope. It is the response to already being saved.
Like most baptism rejecters, you keep trying to hang a works-based salvation on me Ruy. Nope. Obedience is simply that, obeying a command. I have never thought, nor has it ever been taught from any pulpit I know of that God owes me salvation for being obedient.
Oh, and here's a clue; Baptism is NOT a work. I don't do it. Somebody does it to me. I put more effort into believing. I actually have to DO that. But nobody pretends believing is a work.
You throw these volumes of words out to convince yourself that baptism is optional. It ain't. It is part of the response to God's grace.
Oh yeah, almost forgot to address this little gem.
When did our Lord speak this?
Right. BEFORE he was crucified. Guess what? The church and the new covenant hadn't been started yet.
So they were still under Mosaic Law.
K?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.