Posted on 08/24/2015 8:10:50 PM PDT by damonw
I am posting only an excerpt here because this written debate is pretty long. Read the excerpts to find out what a Synecdoche is if you do not already know. I am the baptist in the debate and think I won hands down because the CoC guy could not even prove that verbs can be synecdoches, but I did finish weakly. I am posting this to FR because in my research I found this to be the only debate on the subject even though the argument is often used by more advanced CoC debaters. Here is opening clips of my opening statement. And Dave Bells opening clip is in the first comment below.
DEBATE: Is faith a Synecdoche? Denial Opening Statement by Damon Whitsell
Hello Dave, thanks for this debate and bringing up this interesting topic, it’s a new one for me. In researching for this debate I found many Church of Christ articles that claimed faith is a synecdoche. But they all just made the assertion without trying to prove or make a positive case for that assertion. I look forward to hearing your affirmative case and responding.
A Synecdoche, as I understand it, is a figure of speech in which a part represents a whole of something, or the whole represents a part of something, such as a “hand” represents a “worker”. And from our prior interactions and your posting in the group, I take it that by saying “faith is a synecdoche” you mean the word faith means to do or “obey” the “whole plan of salvation” which is “hear, repent of sin, believe, confess, be baptized for remission of sin and live a faithful life” (6 steps). I think you will have a hard time establishing the truthfulness of that claim and my reasons follow.
(Excerpt) Read more at how2becomeachristian.wordpress.com ...
It’s not ad hominem to call out the schoolyard bully for being s bully. You said yourself that you’re on a mission to attack the church.
You’re not interested in debate. So, what would be the point of debating you. Your small minded behavior IS the only point of rebuttal.
I find it quite ironic that the guy who yesterday stated that his chief complaint was the coC believes only it can be saved deems himself judge, jury, and eternal executioner on the church.
Pot:kettle.
The problem of commenting without reading is that you have to make assumptions. The debate does not mention baptism except to say that it is a part of the hardliner CoC plan of salvation. And baptism is a work because it is something we have to do. You CoC say it is not a work but baptism is not a passive act that the one being baptized does not do. God did not drive you to the CoC church and neither did the pastor (or anyone else) get in the baptistery for you. The only baptisms that are truly passive are the baptisms by proxy that the Mormons do.
And of course you see and command and example to be baptized to be saved because of the CoC faulty CENI (command, example, and necessary inference) hermanuitic. You should give that up and go with what the bible says and not what you say it infers. CENI is just a way to make the bible say what you want it to say. And after all the CoC creed (that is “not a creed”) says you guys speak where the bible speaks and are silent where the bible is silent. But is should say “we speak where we say the bible infers and are silent when we want to be”.
I do not believe in the sinners prayer and I am nor reformed brother.
The verse is not about salvation and baptism is not a passive act for the one being baptized. No one drives you to the church and not one gets in the baptistery for you, it is something you do and therefore is a work.
I’m a bully huh? LOLOL I am merely defending the truth against the false notion that faith is a synecdoche. And the CoC is not “the church”.
Oh, so it does mention baptism, and your response was that it's part of the "hardliner" coC plan of salvation. I guess my assumption wasn't so far off after all, was it? Nice invectives, there, by the way. What's next, the "Campbellite" moniker? /roll eyes
I believe that faith is the opening step. Paul makes it even more clear when he says “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved’ (Ro 10:13)
That drives many to fits, because they want to bring up everything from repentance to perseverance and say that Paul doesn’t really mean what Paul is saying.
I believe Paul means what Paul is saying.
Paul had such amazing trust in God that he knew that God would finish the good work he started in anyone. (Php 1:6 “ being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.”)
In other words, after the first step, it is certain that God’s in control and will ensure that any other step will be completed.
So, is ‘faith’ a summation of everything that is meant in the theology of salvation? In a sense, yes. In that, I think you’re right. It’s just I think God is the prime mover and not us. For all is by faith from first to last. Rom 1:17 “17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.””
But baptism is not debate in the debate. And as far as invectives, “hardline CoC is much more true than “the one true church”.
And what specifically is this debates outcome? Wouldn’t God’s grace be large enough that if both of you were 100% wrong His grace would still cover you?
***It’s not ad hominem to call out the schoolyard bully for being s bully. ***
Bully? Anyone who has ever listened to a preacher on the radio can spot a CofC bully immediately, like V.E.Howard, by their on air arrogance (My friends, are you listening?) and their preaching of “WE are right, and YOU are going to hell!”
Like the Cheyenne Dog soldiers they drive their stake of “Baptismal Regeneration” into the ground and ALL their doctrines revolve around it.
If a person comes to Christ and follows the Lord in baptism, THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH! The Campbellite demands it be specifically “for remission of sin!
When I pointed out to a Campbellite preacher that the Eastern Orthodox immerse believers, he said it was correct.
Then I asked if they were saved and would he would call the Orthodox brothers in Christ and he said “NO!”
Why? HE said, “They weren’t baptized by a CofC preacher!”
**This is a difficult area to navigate in the Bible, as various references seem at odds with each other, ***
Difficult only till you realize who is speaking and to whom he his speaking.
PAUL was the Apostle to the Gentiles. Did not require the Gentiles to convert to Judaism before becoming Christian, did not require any of the Jewish rituals for Gentiles,(circumcision, Temple sacrifices), and preached Salvation without Works.
James, an apostle to the Circumcision, wrote to the TWELVE TRIBES SCATTERED ABROAD, and held all Jewish believers to the LAW. Was quick to show Paul how many people believed and “were zealous of the law!”. This included Pharisees who demanded Gentile circumcision, and Temple priests.
James even talked Paul into taking men with vows on their heads and paying for their sacrifices in the Temple to show the people that the things they had heard about Paul preaching against MOSES was not so. To him, salvation was by faith in Christ, AND continuation of the Jewish requirements.
Paul’s own words...Gal 2:2
And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
Gal 2:3
But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
Gal 2:4
And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
Gal 2:7
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Gal 2:8
(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
Gal 2:9
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
It seems someone has decided that works=works=works. So no matter how the Bible writers use the word, it always means the same thing. This is a common error made by those who go to the Bible to prove what they believe, rather than going to it to learn what God says.
There’s “works”...and then there’s “works”. There are works done in faith and inseparable from it (Heb. 11, James. 2, etc.) And there are works (Titus 3, Romans, etc.) that are in opposition to faith, seeking justification without faith. Which one will the servant of Christ do?
The faith that obeys is the faith that saves. Any other “faith” is a fake.
Faith and obedience are inseparable. You might as well try to separate the body from the spirit as to separate faith from obedience. The result either way is something dead.
Why was Abraham justified by works? Because he worked in faith.
Why was Abraham justified by faith? Because his faith worked in his works of obedience.
Will we be like Abraham, Enoch, Noah, and Rahab, with obedient faith? Or like those who claim to have faith but refuse to submit as servants to the Master’s commands?
***What’s next, the “Campbellite” moniker? /roll eyes***
If the shoe fits...
Nice. Judging by your other post, it seems you're very comfortable judging a large group of people by the extreme views of a few.
I suppose I could reciprocate by using the Westboro Baptist Church as the bellweather for all people of the Baptist faith. However, I would then be modeling you, and that's something I'm going to try to avoid...
***I suppose I could reciprocate by using the Westboro Baptist Church as the bellweather for all people of the Baptist faith.***
Won’t bother me as I’m not a baptist but I do go to a Baptist church.
It is hard to believe that the old Scots-Irish Presbyterians who came to America fell for Campbell’s restorationist claims.
Does the Philippines-based Church of Christ (Iglesia ni Cristo) have any relationship to CoC? They have a very heavy emphasis on works (you better join their church or you will go to hell!)
Interesting. I said I had no problem with a baby Christian being saved, even if they had no fruit. How much more can you get on “saved by faith,” than that? Isn’t that what you believe?
Let’s move forward a bit in time. Someone accepts Christ and then proceeds to murder a bunch of people. There was not a single person to attest to this man’s fruit. Is this person saved or not?
I would contend that it is possible, but not assured, this mass murderer was saved. As someone who is saved is expected to show fruit in time, it would surely be something questionable with those who knew him when he accepted Christ.
Let’s take this a step further. If this man was thought to be likely to have murdered, but was only under suspicion, would you let this person babysit your kids? I mean, he’s as solid a Christian as you in every way, because according to you, fruits don’t ever need to be manifested. We are to trust our fellow Christians and provide forbearance, so any attempt to determine where one is with God, as long as that person said he accepted Christ, is moot, in your eyes.
The truth is that no one knows who is surely saved and who isn’t—only God knows. We can catalog those who have claimed to have accepted Christ and hold these people to Christian standards, but if someone did not accept Christ and lied that he had, surely it is wrong to say that person is saved when you can’t possibly know. Especially if no fruits were ever shown.
We move forward in life as Christians trying to do as best we can. This will also mean we assume others believe in Christ who say they do and we will help them, and others, accordingly. These we do for our own walk in Christ, however. What I do and how I respond is on me and me alone. I cannot save anyone, but I can help others to be saved. In the end, their salvation is on them as it is on me. God wills all be saved, but God does not always get what He wills.
If you believe someone is saved, yet you do not trust them from their works and words, how are you not denying God and the Holy Spirit within that person as being exactly what God wanted them to be while with you? Sure, you may think it unwise to trust someone who shows they can’t be trusted, but according to you, all that should matter is whether they are truly saved or not, and to you, that simply means minimal lip service. After that, by what right do you have to oppose your Christian brother, right? It could be you that is less safe to babysit your own children than this mass murderer, after all (in your world).
We are all equal in the eyes of God once we accepted Christ. To think otherwise is heresy. According to you, we have no right to view fruits or actions to either determine if one is with Christ or not—we have only their word.
Again, only God knows the truth. All we can do is be as Christ-like as possible while on Earth.
We have to accept Christ to be saved. God expects something good to come from us as God ensures we all get a gift from the Holy Spirit to use to help glorify Him. We expect something good to come from people who are Christians to help us understand their walk with God. These actions do not save anyone by themselves, though.
Well said. My wife wanted me to give your words a big, “thumbs up.”
I never said that salvation required only works or faith with works. Read my posts.
If you die as one who just accepted Christ a minute before, you never had time to evince any fruits, yet you should be saved.
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.