RE: Faith Alone & The Christian Church/Churches of Christ (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Christian Doctrine



Message

Tomb -> RE: Faith Alone & The Christian Church/Churches of Christ (5/25/2008 1:16:43 AM)


I would like to apologize for all those members of the church of Christ who have been unkind,but I cannot do it.


I would like to say that sometimes people are upset more at the message we teach,rather than the manner which we deliver that message (John 17:17). Some do not want to admit it,nor submit to that message. So they attack the messenger.


I would also ask that people please do not charge the church of Christ with teaching we are saved by works alone. That is not, nor has it ever been our position,yet people continue to charge us with teaching salvation by works alone.

If you will go to the website below you will find a lesson entitled -


"A Reply To A Denominational Preacher"


On about page 21 you will find a lesson about "Grace"


http://missionprinting.us/mp_newindex.html

Click on publications



GrahamCracker -> RE: Faith Alone & The Christian Church/Churches of Christ (5/25/2008 5:23:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FolkSingerBlues

Larry (good to see you again),
If a man doesn't participate in his salvation he can't be saved...lol

Phillipians 2:12


I'm glad that we can be congenial. But I don't think "work out your salvation" means "work for your salvation."



MusicianDad -> RE: Faith Alone & The Christian Church/Churches of Christ (5/25/2008 8:10:52 PM)

While I do accept salvation by grace through faith alone, it seems to me that many Christians are artificially separating baptism from salvation. In scripture I read how the apostles were very eager and took every opportunity to baptise anyone who came to faith in Christ. I read example after example of new believers who couldn't wait to be obedient to God in baptism. Yet today I hear many say that baptism is not necessary. Necessary for what? Are Christians free of the burden of obedience? Can one be in The Way and not be obedient? Isn't this what James was talking about, that without works faith is dead? How did we get to the point where baptism could be called unnecessary? Does that mean that we don't have to preach or make disciples either? I understand that salvation is by grace through faith, not grace by obedience, but I wish more folks would take evidence of salvation (ie works) a little more seriously.



Tomb -> RE: Faith Alone & The Christian Church/Churches of Christ (5/26/2008 9:18:09 AM)

(2Thess.1:7-9) - 7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;


This one section of scripture crushes the "faith alone" doctrine. If one does not obey the gospel The Lord will punish him with everlasting destruction form the Lord.

Notice also what (1Peter 1:22) teaches us - 22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth. A soul cannot be purified without obeying truth.

Next let us look at (1Cor.6:11) -

11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God (Acts 2:38 ; 22:16 ; 8:38,39).

In (Acts 2:37) They asked what shall we do? They were not told you can do nothing to save yourself,they were told to repent and be baptized. Also notice (Acts 22:16). Paul travelled for three days to have his sins washed in water baptism. Notice the baptism that the word of God speaks of is a burial or immersion in water (not pouring or sprinkling).


The above verses teach us that one must obey the gospel or suffer punishment.
We purify our souls by obeying truth

Notice that in (1Cor.6:11) sanctification and justification come after the washing (not before) (Acts 22:16). Most denominations teach that a person is saved before obeying anything.That is contrary to what the verses above teach us.

That concerns me greatly.

_____________________________________________________________________________



GBNTV - Great Bible Lessons

http://www.gbntv.org/



MusicianDad -> RE: Faith Alone & The Christian Church/Churches of Christ (5/26/2008 10:14:24 AM)

I don't see where the Bible splits hairs and lays down the exact nano-second a person goes from lost to saved. I've heard it preached in the church of Christ that a person is damned until they come up our of the water. I don't see scripture going there. For those who take that stand, would it be futile to preach to those, oh say, incarserated in China where baptism is not an option?



belong2Him -> RE: Faith Alone & The Christian Church/Churches of Christ (5/26/2008 10:49:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MusicianDad

I don't see where the Bible splits hairs and lays down the exact nano-second a person goes from lost to saved.


oh!! i know! look...'passed from death unto life'

john 5:24, "...he that heareth My word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life".

romans 6:4-8, "therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that 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 planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. for he that is dead is freed from sin. now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him".

also in 1 john 3:14, "we know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren...".

:) jennifer



FolkSingerBlues -> RE: Faith Alone & The Christian Church/Churches of Christ (5/26/2008 8:06:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: FolkSingerBlues

Larry (good to see you again),
If a man doesn't participate in his salvation he can't be saved...lol

Phillipians 2:12


I'm glad that we can be congenial. But I don't think "work out your salvation" means "work for your salvation."


Larry, I didn't say work for our salvation.



Linkoln -> RE: Faith Alone & The Christian Church/Churches of Christ (5/27/2008 10:07:42 AM)

I would like to give the best definition of Justification from a theologian that I have admired for some time. the following is taken from Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem.




In God's legal declaration of justification, he specifically declares that we are just in his sight. This declaration involves two aspects. First, it means that he declares that we have no penalty to pay for sin, including past, present, and future sins. After a long discussion of justification by faith alone (Rom. 4:1-5:21), and a parenthetical discussion on remaining sin in the Christian life, Paul returns to his main argument in the book of Romans and tells what is true of those who have been justified by faith: "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1). In this sense those who are justified have no penalty to pay for sin. This means that we are not subject to any charge of guilt or condemnation: "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies; who is to condemn?" (Rom. 8:33-34)

The ideal of full forgiveness of sins is prominent when Paul discusses justification by faith alone in Romans 4. Paul quotes David as pronouncing a blessing on one "to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works." He then recalls how David said, "Blesses are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin" (Rom. 4:6-8). This justification therefore clearly involves the forgiveness of sins. David spoke similarly in Psalm 103:12, "As far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us (cf. v.3).

The second aspect of justification is that God must declare us not to be merely neutral in his sight but actually to be righteous in his sight. In fact, he must declare us to have the merits of perfect righteousness before him. As a solution for our need for righteousness, Paul tells us that "the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe" (Rom. 3:21-22). He says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" (Rom. 4:3, quoting Gen. 15:6). This came about through the obedience of Christ, for Paul says at the end of this extensive discussion of justification by faith that "by one man's obedience many will be made righteous" (Rom. 5:19). The second aspect of God's declaration in justification, then, is that we have the merits of perfect righteousness.



This may or may not make sense to you. As I look at Grudem's thoughts and the scripture that he has referenced I believe that he has an outstanding definition. This matches up with what Paul has said concerning the situation. I quote this definition of justification because it matters in our doctrine of salvation. If you do not agree then please point out what you disagree with and hopefully we can have a fruitful discussion.



swordsman -> you might try the Bible (5/27/2008 9:38:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Linkoln

I was reading on a Restoration Movement (Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ) forum this morning and saw yet another slam by this group against those who believe that salvation comes by grace through faith before water baptism.

Many within this group believe that if you do not believe what they do about baptism that you are leading others astray and you are a false teacher?

They teach that at the moment of water baptism is the moment you receive the Holy Spirit and have your sins forgiven.

How should those of us who are Evangelical approach such a group????


sw: As a member of the church of Christ, I would suggest that you approach us with what God says (that men are saved by faith) than with what Luther said (that men are saved by faith alone).

I would also suggest that you approach us with what God says (be baptized for the forgiveness of sins - Acts 2:38) instead of what men have dreamed up (pray for forgiveness of sins).

Swordsman



Hobbs -> RE: you might try the Bible (5/28/2008 9:25:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: swordsman

quote:

ORIGINAL: Linkoln

I was reading on a Restoration Movement (Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ) forum this morning and saw yet another slam by this group against those who believe that salvation comes by grace through faith before water baptism.

Many within this group believe that if you do not believe what they do about baptism that you are leading others astray and you are a false teacher?

They teach that at the moment of water baptism is the moment you receive the Holy Spirit and have your sins forgiven.

How should those of us who are Evangelical approach such a group????


sw: As a member of the church of Christ, I would suggest that you approach us with what God says (that men are saved by faith) than with what Luther said (that men are saved by faith alone).

I would also suggest that you approach us with what God says (be baptized for the forgiveness of sins - Acts 2:38) instead of what men have dreamed up (pray for forgiveness of sins).

Swordsman




I am currently a Restoration Movement Pastor who is in the process of leaving the movement for the Reformed Church. I would have to say that the post that Linkoln posted with the Grudem quote is right on. There are many like myself in the Restoration Movement who are leaving and cannot agree with baptismal regeneration or semi-pelagian theology.



swordsman -> that's sad (5/28/2008 12:20:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hobbs

quote:

ORIGINAL: swordsman

quote:

ORIGINAL: Linkoln

I was reading on a Restoration Movement (Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ) forum this morning and saw yet another slam by this group against those who believe that salvation comes by grace through faith before water baptism.

Many within this group believe that if you do not believe what they do about baptism that you are leading others astray and you are a false teacher?

They teach that at the moment of water baptism is the moment you receive the Holy Spirit and have your sins forgiven.

How should those of us who are Evangelical approach such a group????


sw: As a member of the church of Christ, I would suggest that you approach us with what God says (that men are saved by faith) than with what Luther said (that men are saved by faith alone).

I would also suggest that you approach us with what God says (be baptized for the forgiveness of sins - Acts 2:38) instead of what men have dreamed up (pray for forgiveness of sins).

Swordsman




I am currently a Restoration Movement Pastor who is in the process of leaving the movement for the Reformed Church. I would have to say that the post that Linkoln posted with the Grudem quote is right on. There are many like myself in the Restoration Movement who are leaving and cannot agree with baptismal regeneration or semi-pelagian theology.


sw: Sorry to hear that. Apparently, you've already left one biblical idea for the denominational concept of pastor. :( I haven't read the post with the Grudem quote.

Baptismal regeneration is not what we teach. That's a Catholic idea and it goes beyond the teaching of the Bible. We teach that regeneration occurs during baptism. And what we teach is straight from the Bible.

Sadly, you're going to a modern heresy which has given up the Bible for what Luther said instead.

Now, you'll say things about baptism that can't be found in scripture at all like
(1) it's a public confession of one's faith. Book, chapter, verse?
(2) it's an outward sign of an inward work of grace already accomplished. bcv?
(3) it's a symbol of one's salvation. bcv?

You'll start teaching and saying things like that that sound so sweet, the doctrines and commandments of men, while I shall continue to tell people to "arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16).

What I teach will come directly from the Bible and your teaching directly from men. :(

Reformed is Calvinism, right?

I know of no doctrine in all the world that speaks more directly against the holy and just and loving God than Calvinism.

Swordsman



swordsman -> he added to the word of God (5/28/2008 12:35:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Linkoln

I would like to give the best definition of Justification from a theologian that I have admired for some time. the following is taken from Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem.




In God's legal declaration of justification, he specifically declares that we are just in his sight. This declaration involves two aspects. First, it means that he declares that we have no penalty to pay for sin, including past, present, and future sins. After a long discussion of justification by faith alone (Rom. 4:1-5:21), and a parenthetical discussion on remaining sin in the Christian life, Paul returns to his main argument in the book of Romans and tells what is true of those who have been justified by faith: "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1). In this sense those who are justified have no penalty to pay for sin. This means that we are not subject to any charge of guilt or condemnation: "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies; who is to condemn?" (Rom. 8:33-34)

The ideal of full forgiveness of sins is prominent when Paul discusses justification by faith alone in Romans 4. Paul quotes David as pronouncing a blessing on one "to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works." He then recalls how David said, "Blesses are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin" (Rom. 4:6-8). This justification therefore clearly involves the forgiveness of sins. David spoke similarly in Psalm 103:12, "As far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us (cf. v.3).

The second aspect of justification is that God must declare us not to be merely neutral in his sight but actually to be righteous in his sight. In fact, he must declare us to have the merits of perfect righteousness before him. As a solution for our need for righteousness, Paul tells us that "the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe" (Rom. 3:21-22). He says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" (Rom. 4:3, quoting Gen. 15:6). This came about through the obedience of Christ, for Paul says at the end of this extensive discussion of justification by faith that "by one man's obedience many will be made righteous" (Rom. 5:19). The second aspect of God's declaration in justification, then, is that we have the merits of perfect righteousness.



This may or may not make sense to you. As I look at Grudem's thoughts and the scripture that he has referenced I believe that he has an outstanding definition. This matches up with what Paul has said concerning the situation. I quote this definition of justification because it matters in our doctrine of salvation. If you do not agree then please point out what you disagree with and hopefully we can have a fruitful discussion.


sw: Gruden is right about virtually everything except in his addition to the word of God. Did you catch it? Did you catch where he added to the word of God, put in an extra word a couple of times so that he was then saying something God NEVER says?

Skeptics do the same thing when they read the gospel of John. Ah! Mary came to the tomb alone! That means John contradicts the other gospels and scripture has error in it and cannot be the word of God!

Did you catch his addition to the word of God? Martin Luther started it. He had the gall to write INTO THE TEXT of his copy of Romans. Don't most people condemn JW's for adding to John 1:1 and other places? And yet some follow Luther who did the same thing? :(

Yes, men are justified by faith and not by works of the Law of Moses. That is Paul's teaching in Rom.4. The context repeatedly shows it.

Men are justified by faith when they are baptized into Christ, rising from those waters to walk in newness of life (Rom.6:3-6), born again of water and the Spirit (John 3:5).

Swordsman



Hobbs -> RE: he added to the word of God (5/29/2008 8:20:21 AM)

It never ceases to amaze me how those in the RM can cling so tightly to baptism as the moment of salvation. On the fact that the RM did not come into existence until the late 1800's should be enough to frighten anyone, but it is not.

Romans chapters 3-5 deal with the fact that God justifies those who place their faith in Christ. When we get to Romans 6 Paul begins to tell us how our lives are to be different because of this justification by faith. The mentioning of baptism in Romans 6 is for an example and is completely symbolic. Don't forget about Cornelius in Acts 10 either. He was filled with the Holy Spirit before his water baptism. You can cling to your tradition I will cling to the Word of God.



greatdivide46 -> RE: he added to the word of God (5/29/2008 8:43:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hobbs

It never ceases to amaze me how those in the RM can cling so tightly to baptism as the moment of salvation. On the fact that the RM did not come into existence until the late 1800's should be enough to frighten anyone, but it is not.

Romans chapters 3-5 deal with the fact that God justifies those who place their faith in Christ. When we get to Romans 6 Paul begins to tell us how our lives are to be different because of this justification by faith. The mentioning of baptism in Romans 6 is for an example and is completely symbolic. Don't forget about Cornelius in Acts 10 either. He was filled with the Holy Spirit before his water baptism. You can cling to your tradition I will cling to the Word of God.

I have yet to have a person who dismisses baptism, show me anywhere in Scripture where it says we are saved by faith alone apart from anything else. On the other hand I've come across multiple scriptures that indicate that there is some kind of a link between baptism and salvation, whether you think its symbolic or not.

I think I'll go with the Word of God on this one [:)]



swordsman -> RE: he added to the word of God (5/29/2008 9:19:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hobbs

It never ceases to amaze me how those in the RM can cling so tightly to baptism as the moment of salvation. On the fact that the RM did not come into existence until the late 1800's should be enough to frighten anyone, but it is not.


sw: Hm. Let's use your reasoning. It never ceases to amaze me how those in the faith only movement cling so tightly to the sinner's prayer, something that was invented as a matter of convenience when tent preachers needed something faster than the mourner's bench. After all, not a single Christian in the 2nd century, nor 3rd, nor 4th, etc, taught any such thing. Besides that, not a single person was told to pray to become a Christian in the NT!

quote:

Romans chapters 3-5 deal with the fact that God justifies those who place their faith in Christ.


sw: Indeed! But when? When one is baptized. Gal.3:26 says that men become children of God by faith FOR as many as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Thus, v.27 explains how one becomes a child of God by faith - by being baptized.

quote:

When we get to Romans 6 Paul begins to tell us how our lives are to be different because of this justification by faith. The mentioning of baptism in Romans 6 is for an example and is completely symbolic.


sw: Sorry, but it says nothing at all about being completely symbolic. One is baptized INTO Christ. Thus, since "into" is the act of entering, one is outside of Christ and lost before baptism, inside of Him and saved thereafter. Rom.6 says that the body of sin was done away with during baptism, agreeing with Acts 2:38; 22:16; Eph.5:26 and Col.2:11,12. Furthermore, it also teaches that one is dead in sin as he comes to baptism, is buried in those waters, and raised from them to walk in newness of life. Hence, one is born again in those waters. (John 3:5; Titus 3:5).

quote:

Don't forget about Cornelius in Acts 10 either. He was filled with the Holy Spirit before his water baptism. You can cling to your tradition I will cling to the Word of God.


sw: No, the Bible does NOT say that he was filled with the Spirit before being baptized. It says other things, but not that. What happened with Cornelius is that he was empowered by God to speak in tongues. But Balaam's donkey was empowered by God to speak in a tongue and he wasn't saved.

The Bible does not say that before Cornelius was baptized that he was

saved or
forgiven or
sins blotted out or
indwelt by the Spirit or
justified or
regenerated or
a child of God or
in Christ or
in the church or
in the body or
a Christian or
a child of God or
born again or

anything else that is equivalent to salvation.

When you say traditions of men, you ought to look in the mirror.

Luther said by faith alone, not the Bible.

It is men who invented the sinner's prayer for forgiveness to replace baptism for forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38).

Swordsman



GrahamCracker -> RE: Faith Alone & The Christian Church/Churches of Christ (5/29/2008 11:59:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FolkSingerBlues

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
I'm glad that we can be congenial. But I don't think "work out your salvation" means "work for your salvation."


Larry, I didn't say work for our salvation.


Well, then. I misunderstood the intent about your referencing Phil. 2:12



GrahamCracker -> RE: Faith Alone & The Christian Church/Churches of Christ (5/29/2008 12:35:12 PM)

quote:

sw: No, the Bible does NOT say that he was filled with the Spirit before being baptized. It says other things, but not that. What happened with Cornelius is that he was empowered by God to speak in tongues....


1) Speaking of the Church on the Day of Pentecost:

"All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit..." (Acts 2:4)

2) Speaking of it says: "...the fit of the Holy Spirit was pour out even on the Gentiles..." (Acts 10:45)

Peter said: [Cornelius] received the Holy Spirit just as we did...(Acts 10:47)
"...the Holy Spirit came on them just as he did on us at the beginning..." (11:15)

..."God gave them the same gift as he also gave us after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ..." (Acts 11:17)

Can someone be baptized with the HS or have the Spirit poured out on them without being filled?



swordsman -> Ephesians commanded to be filled with the Spirit (5/29/2008 1:27:08 PM)

quote:

sw: No, the Bible does NOT say that he was filled with the Spirit before being baptized. It says other things, but not that. What happened with Cornelius is that he was empowered by God to speak in tongues....


1) Speaking of the Church on the Day of Pentecost:

"All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit..." (Acts 2:4)

2) Speaking of it says: "...the fit of the Holy Spirit was pour out even on the Gentiles..." (Acts 10:45)

Peter said: [Cornelius] received the Holy Spirit just as we did...(Acts 10:47)
"...the Holy Spirit came on them just as he did on us at the beginning..." (11:15)

..."God gave them the same gift as he also gave us after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ..." (Acts 11:17)

Can someone be baptized with the HS or have the Spirit poured out on them without being filled?


sw: Of course they can. People would say the Christians in Ephesus had been baptized with the Spirit, that the Spirit had been poured out upon them. But they were commanded to be filled with the Spirit (Eph.5:19).

The problem is that people take all these phrases about the Spirit, use them as if they mean the same thing, and don't even bother to define the meaning of any of them.

Swordsman



GrahamCracker -> Faith Alone & The Christian Church/Churches of Christ (5/29/2008 3:32:00 PM)

quote:

sw: Of course they can. People would say the Christians in Ephesus had been baptized with the Spirit, that the Spirit had been poured out upon them. But they were commanded to be filled with the Spirit (Eph.5:19).

The problem is that people take all these phrases about the Spirit, use them as if they mean the same thing, and don't even bother to define the meaning of any of them.


Well, then. Either you must agree with those people or you must think that I agree with them. Provisionally, at least, I have to conclude that all true Christians have been baptized with the HS. I am not saying that the manifestations spoken of in Acts are inherent to being baptized with the HS. Obviously, there is strong disagreement in the evangelical community regarding God's intentions about this.

Just let me say that one who was previously baptized with the HS was only filled at that time. It does not mean they have to remain filled. So the command to be filled would be a command to filled again. But for speaking with regard to those who claim to know the Greek verb tense, the command suggests a command to be continually filled. Anyway, if they were baptized with the HS in the NT era, then I must conclude that they were saved. If they were not saved they would not be filled. Unless you think this is the only example in the NT, we don't have any example of unsaved people in the NT either being filled with the HS or being baptized with the HS unless they believed in Christ.

The scripture in Acts says that Cornelius and company had received the HS just as the original Disciples had. If Cornelius and company were baptized with the HS but not filled, then they obviously could not have received the HS in the same way. They received the HS in some different sense. That is pretty much a non sequitur insofar as interpreting the passage. One has to go out of their way in order to interpret the passage that way.

Keep in mind that absolutely nothing within the chapter of Acts 2 says directly that they were baptized with the HS. We conclude they were from predictions in chapter 1 or flash-backwards statements in Acts later on. We must conclude, therefore that the Disciples were baptized with the HS. To suggest that Cornelius and company could be baptized with the HS but not filled rests on a semantic technicality but no real sound reasoning. Using such strange reasoning, I would therefore have to conclude that the Disciple were filled with the HS but not baptized with the HS, since it doesn't say that directly.



swordsman -> end (5/29/2008 5:41:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker

quote:

sw: Of course they can. People would say the Christians in Ephesus had been baptized with the Spirit, that the Spirit had been poured out upon them. But they were commanded to be filled with the Spirit (Eph.5:19).

The problem is that people take all these phrases about the Spirit, use them as if they mean the same thing, and don't even bother to define the meaning of any of them.


Well, then. Either you must agree with those people or you must think that I agree with them. Provisionally, at least, I have to conclude that all true Christians have been baptized with the HS. I am not saying that the manifestations spoken of in Acts are inherent to being baptized with the HS. Obviously, there is strong disagreement in the evangelical community regarding God's intentions about this.

Just let me say that one who was previously baptized with the HS was only filled at that time. It does not mean they have to remain filled. So the command to be filled would be a command to filled again. But for speaking with regard to those who claim to know the Greek verb tense, the command suggests a command to be continually. Anyway, if they were baptized with the HS in the NT era, then I must conclude that they were saved. If they were not saved they would not be filled. Unless you think this is the only example in the NT, we don't have any example of unsaved people in the NT either being filled with the HS or being baptized with the HS unless they believed in Christ.

The scripture in Acts says that Cornelius and company had received the HS just as the original Disciples had. If Cornelius and company were baptized with the HS but not filled, then they obviously could not have received the HS in the same way. They received the HS in some different sense. That is pretty much a non sequitur insofar as interpreting the passage. One has to go out of their way in order to interpret the passage that way.

Keep in mind that absolutely nothing within the chapter of Acts 2 says directly that they were baptized with the HS. We conclude they were from predictions in chapter 1 or flash-backwards statements in Acts later on. We must conclude, therefore that the Disciples were baptized with the HS. To suggest that Cornelius and company could be baptized with the HS but not filled rests on a semantic technicality but no real sound reasoning. Using such strange reasoning, I would therefore have to conclude that the Disciple were filled with the HS but not baptized with the HS, since it doesn't say that directly.


sw: I'm afraid that you just continue to make assumptions about phrases concerning the Spirit. You don't define them biblically and you use them interchangeable as if they mean the same thing.

There is no defining of the baptism with the Spirit.

There is no defining of "filled with the Spirit".

There is no biblical effort to prove what "received the Spirit" means in the case of Cornelius.

And if we were to continue this discussion, there would be other phrases that would also be used with assumptions and not one lick of proof.

Your idea was shown to be wrong with just one verse. But you have not accepted your error.

So there's no point continuing to talk when you continue to make the same kind of assumptions that have already been proven totally wrong.


Swordsman



Hobbs -> RE: end (5/30/2008 8:23:04 AM)

The problem with Arminian theology from a RM perspective is that it places so much of the glory of salvation on man. God will not share his glory with another. Romans distinctly tells us that we are justified by grace through faith. Paul tells us through the Holy Spirit that once we place our faith in Christ we are completely justified before God.



GrahamCracker -> Faith Alone & The Christian Church/Churches of Christ (5/30/2008 10:03:15 AM)

quote:

sw: I'm afraid that you just continue to make assumptions about phrases concerning the Spirit. You don't define them biblically and you use them interchangeable as if they mean the same thing.

There is no defining of the baptism with the Spirit.

There is no defining of "filled with the Spirit".

There is no biblical effort to prove what "received the Spirit" means in the case of Cornelius.


I am a little puzzled about why you take me to task for failing to "define" those terms when you used them your post #65. Do I have to define my terms but you don't?

quote:

sw: Sorry, but it says nothing at all about being completely symbolic. One is baptized INTO Christ. Thus, since "into" is the act of entering, one is outside of Christ and lost before baptism, inside of Him and saved thereafter. Rom.6 says that the body of sin was done away with during baptism, agreeing with Acts 2:38; 22:16; Eph.5:26 and Col.2:11,12. Furthermore, it also teaches that one is dead in sin as he comes to baptism, is buried in those waters, and raised from them to walk in newness of life. Hence, one is born again in those waters. (John 3:5; Titus 3:5).


With regard to your use of "into/enter in" in Romans 6, you attempt to narrowly define a term but ignore exceptions. It is true that the term "eis/into" can mean "enter into." However, since that assumes its analogy is baptism of water--"baptize into water," the term "baptize into water" is never once used in scripture. It is sometimes either "baptized with/de water."

"Baptized into" does not necessarily mean the physical or metaphorical act of entering into anything. A case in point, Israel was said to be "baptized unto/eis (same word in the Greek) Moses" in I Cor. 10:2. They certainly didn't enter into Moses. In Acts 2:38, Peter commanded to be "baptized into (translated for) the remission of sins..." To argue that Romans 6 must use the word "into/eis" ignores some exceptions that you must acknowledge exist.

I'm leaving town for vacation today. I will probably not be able to post much more, if any today.



swordsman -> RE: end (5/30/2008 10:08:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hobbs

The problem with Arminian theology from a RM perspective is that it places so much of the glory of salvation on man. God will not share his glory with another. Romans distinctly tells us that we are justified by grace through faith. Paul tells us through the Holy Spirit that once we place our faith in Christ we are completely justified before God.


sw: Actually, there is no glorying by man. That's just one of the reasonings of Calvinism. Calvinism does that quite a bit. They take a slant on every verse they use that goes against the tenor of the Bible and against God's holy and just and loving nature. One interpretation is built upon another like dominoes lined up ready to tumble all at once.

The doctrine of limited atonement is based entirely upon reasoning in direct contradiction to a number of scriptures.

Swordsman



GrahamCracker -> Faith Alone & The Christian Church/Churches of Christ (5/30/2008 10:15:33 AM)

Insofar as defining anything, I don't believe "baptize into" is synonymous with "entering into" anything. IOW, I don't think it means that a person is changing locations. Thus, using passages like Romans 6 as the "baptism of the HS," (a popular interpretation) is something I don't agree with.

I do note that the baptism of the HS occurs in scripture only where groups are acted upon by the HS of God. The result is that they are filled. There is no command nor example of individuals being "baptized with the HS."



FolkSingerBlues -> RE: end (5/30/2008 11:07:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hobbs

The problem with Arminian theology from a RM perspective is that it places so much of the glory of salvation on man. God will not share his glory with another. Romans distinctly tells us that we are justified by grace through faith. Paul tells us through the Holy Spirit that once we place our faith in Christ we are completely justified before God.


Hobbs, you have just shed some light on your disgust with the RM.
The RM wasn't built on the Arminian theology. However it HAS BEEN reduced to that theology. Both Calvinism and Arminianism are flawed doctrines. (they both go to HYPER extremes).
I do understand that many people in the RM movement have what on the surface seems like Arminian beliefs.
The biggest problem with the RM today is it has lost it's identity. There are only a handful of it's members who have truly tried to study the movement and why the men that started were so compelled to do so.
With that said saying that every one that is a Christian is a Calvinist would be an inaccurate statement. As would saying that all members of the RM are Arminianist.

quote:

Paul tells us through the Holy Spirit that once we place our faith in Christ we are completely justified before God.


The interesting part of these continued post regarding your statement above is that they are viewed as "weightier" scripture than others. In all honesty the above statement is true, but not complete. Have we forgotten Hebrews 11?
If one completely places his trust in God, how then can he completely try to explain how God does his job of saving people by picking apart the verses they don't want to believe (isn't that part of totally trusting?) and dismissing them.
See in the end it comes down to a respect for God's Word.
Will we teach all of it and treat it as unfallible? or will we try to explain it because it is so fallible and normal people just can't understand any of it?

These discussions are truly interesting, but equally disturbing.
I can't reduce baptism to "an outward sign of an inward change" because I see absolutely no biblical support of that. Any of us can show an outward sign that is meaningless on the inside. (THAT INCLUDES A PRAYER, WHICH IS AN ACT!)
I would have to agree that "baptism" isn't going to save anyone that uses it as some type of talisman to control what God will do by entering water. I would however totally agree that when someone places their trust in God they will follow his precepts including baptism as the spiritual and obedient act it is.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI