I had an “Aha!” moment just now.
No, not that kind of “Aha!” moment. You know, like a “Eureka!” moment. Or an “Of Course!” moment.
Let me explain. A few minutes ago, I was walking past a house on my street and heard some sort of “Hillsongy” P&W music coming from the window. I didn’t know the song, but it was one of those obviously Christian songs – and as notoriously bad Christian music can be, I don’t mean “obviously” as a critique. In fact, it made me nostalgic for a few years back when I listened to a lot of that sort of music, and it also reminded me of some pretty significant things that happened to me at that time, in my Christian walk.
Then, the “Aha!”, “Eureka!”, “Of course!” moment hit… one of the reasons why I (and probably so many other people) get so angry and sad about the message that the hyperconservatives are trying to get out, at least in my community in NC/VA.
According to their message, the Jesus that died on the cross for me and for so many others was insufficient. His death was insufficient. His defeat of hell and the grave was insufficient. The blood that he gave as an atoning sacrifice for our sins was insufficient.
According to their message, the Jesus that walked with me and my family through personal tragedy (the death of my father and the burning of my church not long after) was false. The comfort we felt from the Holy Spirit as we grieved was false comfort. The unity that we experienced with our fellow church members was a farce.
According to their message, the Jesus that has inspired men and women through the centuries to give up everything they have to work with people who have nothing was anti-Christ. Nate Saint, Ed McCully, Pete Fleming, Jim Elliot and Roger Youderian? All Lost. Lottie Moon? Lost. William Carey? Lost. The people talked about at the Voice of the Martyrs? Lost. All the faithful followers of Jesus through the ages who have believed differently than they do? Lost.
Why? How could this be? It is because they all served an insufficient Jesus.
The Promised Land
And for what? What is this wonderful alternative that they have set up? This Newly Restored Promised Land to which they are attempting to lead us? Certainly it will inspire a new generation of people who want to go to the four corners of the earth to share the Good News of God’s grace! Well, let’s look and see.
“If you don’t take the Lord’s Supper each first day of the week you are lost!”
“If you play a guitar in a church service, you are lost!”
“If you aren’t baptized exactly the way I say you should be according to my interpretation of Scripture, you are lost!”
“If you don’t follow the rules I have set up from my “study” of Scripture, you are lost!”
“If you aren’t in a church that I approve of, you are lost!”
And, finally, said to the “unbeliever”: “we are here to defeat destroy you and uplift truth”!
It Is For Freedom You Have Been Set Free
When I let myself think about the bondage that they are setting up for people through their deft mishandling of the Word of God, it makes me really, really, sad. It makes me sad for the people who will fall for their mishandling. It makes me sad for the people who halfway listen to them and, hearing them quoting Scripture, think that they are somehow authoritative. It makes me sad because it is an attempt to turn the Gospel into something that it is not – a prison, when Christ came to set the prisoner free (Luke 4:18); to give us freedom (John 8:32).
(image from here)
The Word as Blunt Weapon
“But they make people go back to the Bible!” some would say. Yes, that is true, but do they make people go back and sit at the feet of the Master to grow closer to Him, or do they make people go back so that they can also learn to prooftext the Word and fight with it like some sort of blunt weapon?
(Image from here.)
An Answering Voice
And I was suddenly glad that I had started this blog, so that there would be an answering voice out there. JR likes to ridicule us, that we may only have five (or so) people commenting here each day, but my blog status report tells me that we have hundreds of people visiting and reading each day.
It’s my prayer that some of them might be people who are looking for a way out of the bondage of this way of thinking, and that somehow we might help them to see that Christ exists outside of their assembly, regardless of what they might hear from the pulpit on Sunday morning.
My Prayer
And to any of those folks who might have stopped in here today, I share Paul’s prayer from Ephesians 3:
“I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge – that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.
Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.”
(image from here)
Answering the Church of Christ 
Amen!
“According to their message, the Jesus that died on the cross for me and for so many others was insufficient. His death was insufficient. His defeat of hell and the grave was insufficient. The blood that he gave as an atoning sacrifice for our sins was insufficient.”
If this is what you’re getting out of the message , you’re just not listening
“There are none so blind, as those who refuse to see.”
The sad thing about this is that not only this church but there are other churches out there with the same mindset as these guys that there church is the right way and everybody else is going to hell. People with this kind of mindset put up stumbling blocks to those who desperately need to come to Christ. Knowing this tells me that we need to reach out more and teach people how much God loves them and that what Jesus did He did because He wants to save us, not that God is out to condemn us into hell. There are people out there tnat need to know that they are okay to come to Christ.
nathan.
have you read the email i sent?
“If this is what you’re getting out of the message , you’re just not listening”
No, I have been listening for quite some time. But I’m not surprised you would blame the listener rather than think about double-checking the message. I appreciate your consistency.
have you read the email i sent?
I have, lee.
Amen, Nathan-AMEN!!
I did finally get something out of Mr. Paden-he admits that he mocks, though he will not admit that he blatantly gossips and slanders. Even after I quoted these scriptures:
Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.~Psalm 1:1-2
How long will you simple ones love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?~Proverbs 1:22
He mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble. The wise inherit honor, but fools he holds up to shame.~Proverbs 3:34-35
He who guards his mouth and his tongue keeps himself from calamity. The proud and arrogant man-“Mocker” is his name; he behaves with overweening pride.~Proverbs 21:23-24
I thought these two fit perfectly with those we are dealing with here, too:
Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult; whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse. Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you. Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still; teach a righteous man and he will add to his learning.~Proverbs 9:7-9
Drive out the mocker, and out goes strife; quarrels and insults are ended. He who loves a pure heart and whose speech is gracious will have the king for his friend.~Proverbs 22:10-11
Answering, or should I say questioning, I have checked. I watched for some time before obeying . I spent 20 years in the baptist church and saw preacer after preacher try and fail at answering them. Or they would just not even go to defend like your friend Rick on here
Chris I would say that you are the blindest of all
Was Elijah a mocker? You all need to study so bad
faithful,
If you are being drawn closer to God through your association with these men, then I can only say that God is indeed gracious.
To paraphrase a famous singer/songwriter, if God can use Balaam’s donkey, a baby hidden in the rushes, old blind Sampson, and Rahab the whore, (even Pontious Pilate played a part… ) then “you never know who God is gonna use, a princess or a baby, or maybe even you or me.”
Or even possibly JR, JO or NF. But that just proves God’s goodness and graciousness. No one else’s.
But I stand by my statement. What I hear when these men teach is that the Jesus that I follow is insufficient. And Jesus is more than sufficient.
“And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.” 2 Corinthians 12:9
i thought i was the blindest oops most dishonest of all.
you cant award prizes and then take them away faithless,
god be merciful to me a sinner………tell john i want my money.
lee
Nathan,
The other day I was telling a friend about all this. And he said something that on the surface seems so minor, but when you think about it, it really does scream volumes about how wrong these people are…
“Do they talk more about being baptized than they do about one person’s salvation?” he asked me.
“Yeah, definitely. It seems to be ALL they talk about,” I told him.
“Well there you have it. They’re not just a denomination. They are a cult.”
Here’s the point my friend was making: Robertson and his gang have plenty enough scripture that they love to harp on that they think proves they are right, but their #1 priority is to see people baptized into their “church” so that it glorifies themselves, not for the glory of God. Not even for others salvation. In fact I can’t ever remember any of them talking about repentance for repentance’s sake. It’s always repentance leading up to the ultimate act of commitment in their twisted little creed: baptism, the way they demand it, into their “Church of Christ” cult.
Like I said, they can produce scripture that looks to back up their stance from now ’til the cows come home, but without grace and love, which they have none at all, their preaching is only to glorify themselves before other men and not to glorify God.
My friend agreed with me: Robertson, Oldfield and Fields don’t have an iota of care at all about whether an individual is saved.
That’s why they can only see “denominations” and try to bring them down. An individual believer in Christ is something they not only can not understand, but it’s something that goes against their expectations and demands. And so Robertson will crow about Baptists, Pentecostals, Mormons etc.
Johnny Robertson doesn’t want people baptized into Christ. In his heart he wants people baptized into Johnny Robertson.
And Johnny Robertson will “defeat destroy you” if you try to show others what he is really doing.
(By the way, has Robertson ever bothered to explain what he meant exactly when he said that he would “defeat destroy” those who disagreed with him?)
Had another great performance of our musical last night. It was also a bigger audience. Lots of people shook hands with me and told me that we did a wonderful job. Not one person has yet to tell me that Johnny Robertson and the “Church of Christ” has hurt me or that they have “turned the community” against me. As a matter of fact some of the most well-known leaders of this community told me that I’ve been terrific. So far one person has said that Johnny Robertson was a “nutcase” and that I was “a hero” for taking him on.
Just wanted to make a note of that 😉
By the way, I went to Robertson’s website and couldn’t help but chuckle at this…
“The church of Christ is the intellectual center in this region. No one else will take on the issues.”
Funny: I never realized that Martinsville Church of Christ was a subsidiary of the RAND Corporation.
As for “no one else will take on the issues”, as has been demonstrated recently lots of people take on the issue of Robertson and his cult… but he runs away.
The whole website is Robertson bragging and gloating about himself!
Heck, I don’t even take myself that seriously on my own blog. Lots of people say that’s why they like it so much 😛
And he has the consistently worst spelling of any “preacher” that I’ve ever seen. How does Johnny Robertson expect anyone to take him seriously as either an “intellectual” or as a minister of the inviolate Word of God if he can’t spell his own words right?
classified ads
wanted:one or more saved, sanctified, filled with the holy ghost {with evidence of speaking in tongues} pentacostal to join with other brethren{denomanations}in the work of helps. must have a thick skin and quick wit.
work will entail mundane tasks such as correcting possible candidates for christian service. also involved will be the difficult task of separation of these people from their cowboy leader. please apply in person
an equal oppertunity employer.
lee
Lee do
I look like your errend boy. You have his phone number , the question is are you man enough to call it
Chris I thought you said you done with all this? Were you lying?
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=EA847385DF71D430
On June 22, 2008 at 9:33 am faithful2 Said:
faithful, let me ask you a question. prior to them being baptized in acts 2:38 they had faith in christ seeing they were pricked in their hearts. was this a living faith? or was this a dead faith? keep in mind you teach one is dead until baptized. Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. i do see that faithful. you also teach repentance is a work. is repentance prior to baptism? does repentance come from a dead faith or living faith? on no, i see a problem here faithful. if james is correct a dead man cant have living faith, so wonder what made their faith alive prior to baptism in acts 2:38? how could a dead stoney heart have living faith to repent? do you not see something here faithful? let me ask again, did the spiritual dead men prior to acts 2:38 have living faith ? seems they had a living faith how else could they obey. i guess paul knew what he was talking about when he said one is jusified upon faith in christ.”know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ”
faithful,
I said that I didn’t care what Johnny Robertson did to me.
Eager for me to go away, eh? Can’t answer me, either?
Six years ago, somebody else deluded with grandeur boasted that they would “utterly destroy” me. Said that they had succeeded in ruining my reputation completely. And for a time, in the court of opinion, it look as if that person had succeeded, too.
I didn’t care for what they tried to do to me, either.
Today that person is a completely ruined individual, bankrupted of money and morals. This person is, for all intents and purposes, utterly destroyed.
And by the grace of God, I am still here. And doing better than ever.
So it will be with Johnny Robertson.
I am content to let Robertson boast and brag and swagger, and have his glorious time under his tent and on live television (on the only station that seems desperate enough to sell him the airtime). He can do whatever it is he wishes to me.
But in the end, God will let me laugh at him, too.
And Johnny Robertson will be left with nothing.
It has happened before. It will happen again.
It’s but one of many blessings, of having such a long-term perspective.
Johnny Robertson is a ruined man. He just doesn’t know it yet.
He could let go of his lust for power. It’s his choice. Too bad he won’t come to see the musical that we are doing, because much of it is about free will.
(Incidentally, one nice lady told me today that I was doing the right thing in confronting Robertson with “the love of Christ” and that my television appearance the other week was “what being a real Christian is all about”. That’s two people who’ve come forward to tell me that Robertson is wrong, and nobody has told me yet that the “community has turned against me” as Robertson has boasted. I trust regular people like that more than I do Robertson’s cultists.)
Like I said, it’s Robertson’s choice. So long as God lets him breathe, he’s got that.
But my own experience tells me that it’s not likely that he’ll take it. He will continue to be king of his own little kingdom, not realizing that for all his bravura, he is more a slave than any man was before our Civil War.
It’s his choice. Let him live with it.
What if a person is baptized into the “Church of Christ In Name Only” and then leaves for a Baptist or Methodist or Presbyterian or some non-denominational church? I personally know of two examples of this happening.
Does that make their baptism invalid, and mean that they are damned for Hell all over again?
What if a person is baptized into that same self-styled Church of Christ cult, and is then RE-baptized in a Baptist church or something after leaving the CoC cult? Is that second baptism now a mortal sin?
What if the only water readily available for baptism is a city sewage treatment plant?
What is the preferable pH level of water for baptism according to the hyper-conservative “Church of Christ”?
If water is not available, will molasses or motor oil or corn mash suffice?
Questions, questions…
Chris , it’s called falling away. Don’t worry you can’t fall away yet because you have not obeyed,. What you’re living is once damned always damned unless you repent and obey
Chris, Pr 26:4 ¶ Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pr 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
(KJV)
“Chris , it’s called falling away. Don’t worry you can’t fall away yet because you have not obeyed,. What you’re living is once damned always damned unless you repent and obey”
faithful, I’ve heard what you are saying more times than you can possibly imagine, and it’s always one variation or another of the same basic idea…
“Obey or die.”
Let me ask you something, faithful: who gave someone like Johnny Robertson, James Oldfield, Norm Fields, or you for that matter, any authority whatsoever to determine who is saved and who is lost?
Why should we BELIEVE that anyone like those men or you have any spiritual understanding at all, much less enough to condemn someone?
Who in the Hell sent someone like Johnny Robertson into this community?
Don’t take that to mean that I “used profanity”, because I literally mean what I ask with that question.
faithful, if I were to “obey” someone like Robertson, that would be disobedience to God. It would mean that I have chosen to take sides with the enemy of everything that God has established.
But since I was already saved a long time ago, that’s not going to happen anyway.
“Obey” someone like Johnny Robertson?
Now that would be damning myself to the pit.
“Chris, it’s called falling away.”
Falling away from what? YOUR version of the church? From Johnny? From what?!
Katherine,
They’re a cult. I happened to listen to Robertson for a short while this evening and he’s now saying that it’s a sin for a church to have a car wash or bake sale, presumably because they are not mentioned in the Bible.
The dude’s gone full-tilt loony-tunes.
No I am not sorry for saying that!
I was wondering if when Christ told us that if we loved him that we should keep his sayings, and I don’t have the verse, that he was really setting up this system in Acts where there was a gun held to your head in case you didn’t do it.
When you Agape someone you make a choice to do for them at the expense of yourself at times. How is it Jesus teaches about and shows Agape while at the same time his real kingdom is all about do it or I will kill you?
Does anyone else see a disconnect? We go from rules, rules, rules with people in charge covering their rears by enforcing the rules to the max, then Jesus comes, breaking those rules asking for Mercy to be show, and doing so himself, only to go back to the regular scheduled programming, of laws and do it or else you will be crushed like a bug!
Talk about a bait and switch! Yes follow Jesus because he loves you, oh and once you do, you better watch out cause he will kill you if you don’t do it! Now that’s a sick version of love! I’d love to meet the founder of this sect to see how his father was since that is the first place we get a sense of God the Father from! He must have been a kind loving man, when he wasn’t beating his children for a small infraction that is!
Based on what I have read so far, someone needs to replace love with fear in all of the 4 gospels because it would seem Jesus was not really telling us the truth about his Kingdom.
No wonder Islam is making in roads!
I know Chris, they have missed the ENTIRE point of what the CHURCH is really supposed to be and the real reasons why Jesus came and died on a cruel cross for the WHOLE world…and even though they have been shown the truth and people can see them for exactly what they are-they live in denial and deceive their own selves. However, God WILL hold them accountable someday-as He will all of us, and I certainly would not want to be found in that camp when the time comes.
On June 22, 2008 at 5:59 am faithful Said:
“Answering, or should I say questioning, I have checked. I watched for some time before obeying . I spent 20 years in the baptist church and saw preacer after preacher try and fail at answering them. Or they would just not even go to defend like your friend Rick on here”
Why is he always pickin on me? 🙂 I must schedule a pity party this week for sure! Why don’t you come also faithful and bring the black ballons.
Katherine,
I listened to Robertson rant for about ten minutes, got bored because he wasn’t making a bloody lick o’ sense, and started playing BioShock on Xbox 360 instead.
There is more profound wisdom in that video game than there is on three live television broadcasts done by the “Church of Christ In Name Only” cult leaders.
Sad, but true.
i guess yall havent noticed but i have posted this three times and faithful hasnt addressed it yet so lets try again
faithful, let me ask you a question. prior to them being baptized in acts 2:38 they had faith in christ seeing they were pricked in their hearts. was this a living faith? or was this a dead faith? keep in mind you teach one is dead until baptized. Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. i do see that faithful. you also teach repentance is a work. is repentance prior to baptism? does repentance come from a dead faith or living faith? on no, i see a problem here faithful. if james is correct a dead man cant have living faith, so wonder what made their faith alive prior to baptism in acts 2:38? how could a dead stoney heart have living faith to repent? do you not see something here faithful? let me ask again, did the spiritual dead men prior to acts 2:38 have living faith ? seems they had a living faith how else could they obey. i guess paul knew what he was talking about when he said one is jusified upon faith in christ.”know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ”
Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Jas 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
(KJV)
If the there has been no work it would be dead faith and then when they did some work the faith would be live faith.So thier faith came alive in thier works. Why do you copy my name? ARe you trying to decieve folks into to them thinking You are me? We know that trick has already been tryed once.
Rick we will hold your party at the tent. Hope to see you there
faithful,
Spam is spam, even if you spam with Scripture. Don’t do that again.
Mr. Answer
To explain to those who missed it, “faithful” threw up three posts that repeated three different Scripture verses over and over and over again. That qualifies as spam, and I’ve suspended people from commenting for such immature behavior before.
faithful, yall teach a man is justified upon baptism, making him alive at that point, so explain how a dead man can have living faith prior to baptism. Seems his faith was “made alive” upon trusting Christ as his savior and Paul even states this to be so. Paul says upon faith in Christ one is justified. Now faithful when did they have faith in Christ , its easy, they had faith in Christ prior to baptism seeing they confessed, repented…why would someone repent if they lacked faith….again remember Pauls words “justified upon faith in Christ”….you have a justified man, with living faith “prior to baptism”…..please do explain
Nathan,
I would point out that there are countless Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons and Muslims who have had such experiences and feelings as you had. If they told you as much you would subject their feelings to Biblical scrutiny. Is it wrong for someone to do the same to you? Are your feelings more authoritative than God’s word? Benny Hinn “feels” that God wants him to have a private jet and suits literally stitched with gold. These feelings come from God according to him. Shall I accept them because he claims allegiance to Jesus or do I have the biblical right to scrutinize such claims in the light of scripture?
This is the problem I see with people who “know they’re saved because they’ve felt the presence of the Holy Spirit” or because they “felt God with them in times of trial and tribulation”. These feelings must be compared to God’s word. Is that using the word as a “blunt weapon” or allowing it to be the sword it is described as being?
Do you not know that all of us, who have been immersed or baptized into Christ Jesus, stop at that point. This is a verse ( Rom 6 ) with no water in it folks. This is a dry verse. It’s not talking about water baptism, it’s using the word baptism metaphorically. It uses it in the way that we often use it. We might say when we went through a very difficult trying experience that we had a baptism of fire. We don’t literally mean we were burned, we simply mean we were immersed in a fiery trial of difficulty. We’re not talking about an actual experience in water. And neither is Paul here, Roman 6 doesn’t have any water in it. He is saying all of us believers have literally been immersed into Christ Jesus. We have been placed into Christ Jesus. That’s the idea. Placed into him. United with him, joined to him. How so? Paul says it is upon faith that one is justified. Now with that it mind, Acts 2:38 points back to our faith in Christ and we confess, repent, and are baptized in water, because we have been declared righteous by God upon our faith in Christ. The verse could read repent and be baptized everyone of you because you have been forgiven, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Keep in mind Jesus died and his blood forgives our depts. And we are saved by His Life. When one confesses, repents, and get baptized, they are looking back to the time Jesus forgave sin and they place their trust in this past event to save them presently and in the future. The saying “one contacts the blood at baptism” is not biblical and makes it sound like Christ sheds his blood over and over, when he shed his blood once and for all. You obtain forgiveness of sins by placing total trust in the sacrifice of Christ , having faith in Him, you then could ask “what shall we do” and the answer, repent and be baptized everyone of you, because of the forgiveness of your sins by Christ sacrifice and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. I know the (eis) arguments already, so please include each time the word is used, like “unto, for, at”….and notice that its not always something “for the purpose of” . The context of Acts 2:38 clearly shows them having living faith “prior to baptism”. As James could say, a dead man cant walk, but these men in Acts 2 were alive and proved their faith by their obedience, they acted in faith, a faith that was alive.
So, we repent because our sins have been forgiven? Jesus accepts those who haven’t turned from their sinful ways?
Not a SINGLE reliable translator has ever translated Acts 2:38 “because of” for a reason – because that isn’t what it means.
King James Version – “for the remission of sins.
American Standard Version – “unto the remission of sins.
New King James Version – “for the remission of sins.”
New International Version – “for the forgiveness of your sins.”
Revised Standard Version – “for the forgiveness of your sins.”
New Revised Standard Version – “so that your sins may be forgiven.”
New American Standard Bible – ” for the forgiveness of your sins.”
World English Bible – “for the forgiveness of sins.”
Bible in Basic English – “for the forgiveness of your sins.”
Contemporary English Version – “so that your sins will be forgiven.”
Good News Bible – “so that your sins will be forgiven.”
God’s Word – “so that your sins will be forgiven.”
Young’s Literal Translation – “to remission of sins.”
Modern King James Version – “to remission of sins.”
International Standard Version – “for the forgiveness of your sins.”
English Standard Version – “for the forgiveness of your sins.”
Literal Translation of the Holy Bible – “to remission of sins.”
New English Translation – “for the forgiveness of your sins.”
New Living Translation – “for the forgiveness of your sins.”
Today’s English Version – “so that your sins will be forgiven.”
The Douay-Rheims Bible – “for the remission of your sins.”
Hebrew Names Version – “for the forgiveness of sins.”
The Webster Bible – “for the remission of sins.”
Wesley’s New Testament – “to the remission of sins.”
Third Millennium Bible – “for the remission of sins.”
The Darby Translation – “for the remission of sins.”
J. B. Philips Translation – “so that you may have your sins forgiven.”
New American Bible – “for the forgiveness of your sins.”
Amplified Bible – “for the forgiveness of and release from your sins.”
Worldwide English Bible – “Your wrong ways will be forgiven you.”
Weymouth Bible – “with a view to the remission of your sins.”
Revised King James New Testament – “for the remission of sins.”
Modern Literal Version – “for the forgiveness of your sins.”
Common Version New Testament – “for the forgiveness of your sins.”
Interlinear Greek New Testament – “for remission of sins.”
Living Oracles – “in order to the remission of sins.”
Montgomery New Testament – “for the remission of your sins.”
The Emphasized Bible – “into the remission of your sins.”
Covenant Edition New Testament – “to cancel your sins.”
Christian Standard Bible – “for the forgiveness of your sins.”
This whole idea of the Christian faith is a union with Christ. It has many facets and rich, rich concepts. The first point in his logic is we have all been immersed by one Spirit into Christ.( not into water ) That’s why repeatedly you’ll hear Paul say in Christ, in Christ, in Christ, in Christ. That’s what it means to be a Christian. It’s a Spiritual event, not water, that places one in Christ. Second step in his logic if we are all immersed into Christ, we are immersed into his death and resurrection. That’s the next in the sequence. If we are immersed into Christ, we are immersed into his death and resurrection.
We have been immersed into his death. Therefore, we have been buried with him through baptism or through that immersion that union into death in order that as Christ was raised from the dead to the glory of the father, so we too might walk in newness of life. Or if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death,( note here that water baptism isn’t a picture or likeness of Christ death. Christ was not “buried” in the ground but placed inside a tomb, water baptism doesn’t fit that at all ) certainly we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. There’s the point. We are identified with Christ, point one and the logical sequence to that is if we are in union with Christ, we have to be then in union with his death and resurrection.
The meaning of eis (“for”) as indicating purpose, but understands the phrase “for the remission of sins” to be connected with the command for repentance and not directly related to the command to be baptized, which is seen as a parenthetical comment. Thus, this interpretation would translate Acts 2:38 as follows: “Repent (and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ) for the remission of sins.”
The passages Matt 3:11; 10:41; 12:41; Rom 1:16; 4:20; 11:32. To use just one of these parallels, Matt 12:41 states that the people of Nineveh repented because of (eis) Jonah’s preaching. To say that they repented “for,” or “in order to,” the preaching of Jonah is impossible. They heard his message and then repented.
On June 23, 2008 at 9:22 am coreydavis Said:
“So, we repent because our sins have been forgiven? Jesus accepts those who haven’t turned from their sinful ways?”
– yes, we repent because our sins have been forgiven, paid in full by Christ. Upon hearing the message about Christ and His risen power, we repent, knowing he paid the price for sins, we dont repent to earn forgiveness, but becuase we trust in what Christ already done, we then turn from ourselves to Him, the one who shed His blood on the cross, that we might be forgiven. Great Point !
So, faithful2, are we to be baptized in water today?
In Luke 3:3 and 24:47, and in Acts 3:19 and 5:31, repentance and the remission of sins are directly linked and baptism is either not mentioned or subordinated. In Acts 10:43 the remission of sins is linked directly to faith alone. This is used to argue that baptism is not directly related to the remission of sins. In fact, in light of Luke 3:3 (“a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins”), it could be argued that baptism is the outward symbol of repentance, but that it is repentance and not the outward symbol that brings remission of sins.
On June 23, 2008 at 11:32 am coreydavis Said:
So, faithful2, are we to be baptized in water today?
Yes. Now you will ask WHY
You ask is baptism for today,now let me ask you some even deeper hermeneutical questions, what if Christ had not died for sins, paying the sin dept in full, would water baptism save you then? Could one repent and be saved/forgiven apart from the blood of Christ? When Christ forgave sin while he lived on earth, was he forgiving sin based upon His future sacrifice? ( without the shedding of blood there in no reemission of sins ). After Christ departed unto the Father, did he give up the rights He had on earth? Does Christ forgive people based upon faith in Him? What if Christ were not risen, would the water save you then? Are we saved by His life? Prior to the cross Jesus was looking forward and forgave those who desired forgiveness and mercy, now we look back at the cross, does Christ still forgive those who desire mercy and forgiveness….is He the way, the Truth, and the Life, or is baptism?
Why oh why do many well meaning folks run through hoops and theological spinning in order to deny the role of baptism?
im not running but you guys attach a prior understanding that we dont believe you need. obedience is what is required from a servant, not understanding.
you are not going in yourself and you hinder those who are entering in. amen.
lee
obedience is what is required from a servant, not understanding.
Then explain the re-immersion of the Ephesians in Acts 19. They were trying to be obedient, but didn’t have an understanding. Paul baptized them again. Was he in the wrong?
were they disobedient and therefore sinners before they met peter? seeing they obeyed the gospel as they heard it? they had faith and believed,strongs says the word means to entrust ones spiritual wellbeing to christ in this use.
lee
sorry paul
I have been watching this conversation more than participating-but wanted to jump in for a moment. I would never want to downplay or diminish the role of baptism or the beautiful meaning behind it, or the fact that we should do it-so please hear that.
I have to agree with Lee that my only problem is two fold: 1) When we require perfect understanding for the baptism to be valid, which ties into 2) When we boil it down to what we do instead of what God does.
Of course, if you have been taught of the importance and choose to deny it-that is one thing. But, having incomplete knowledge at the moment you are baptized is not going to make any part of your response invalid-because HE is the one doing it. It is the heart that God looks at. We are responding to His call and example. It is only part of the journey-albeit an important part, but the task of living as a disciple of Jesus continues after-it does not end there.
I honestly do not know why anyone who has been taught about baptism would choose not to want to be baptized. It does not make any sense to me. It is so beautiful, and I am glad that we have something that as humans we can join in that portrays such a beautiful union with Jesus and what He has done for us.
It is only when we, as mere humans, start questioning someone’s baptism because the right words were not said, it was not in the right church, or they did not understand EVERYthing-when I have a huge problem…because it then places the burden of knowledge on us and what fallible humans do-instead of what our perfect God does because of our obedience and love for Him. We are united with Him in a new way and it is awesome.
were they disobedient and therefore sinners before they met peter? seeing they obeyed the gospel as they heard it? they had faith and believed,strongs says the word means to entrust ones spiritual wellbeing to christ in this use.
Well, there was obviously a problem with it since Paul insisted they be immersed a second time. This flies in the face of what Katherine just posted. If all that matters is your heart and not doing it as Jesus commanded then Paul was wrong in what he did.
you may have skirted my points there.
lee
Turnabout is fair play. You never addressed my point which is – why do it again if all that mattered was their heart and their intentions the first time? The one thing that is clear is that there was something wrong with their original baptism and it needed to be corrected.
jesus said be baptized in his name. thats good enough for me. now how bout my question.
lee
“Well, there was obviously a problem with it since Paul insisted they be immersed a second time. This flies in the face of what Katherine just posted. If all that matters is your heart and not doing it as Jesus commanded then Paul was wrong in what he did.”
I did not say that ALL that matters is your heart-but what do you think that Jesus is looking at? Your heart tuned to following Him or that you understand everything perfectly? What I am saying is that if you have been baptized and did not know everything perfectly at that exact moment (I surely did not!) that certainly does not negate what GOD is doing because God is God. It is a constant journey of learning and understanding. Nowhere in the Bible do I see God saying we must have perfect knowledge and understanding in order for our baptism to be valid, therefore I will not accept that point. The important thing is that we obey and understand that we are in need of a Savior.
Again, we cannot make it about what we know or do, but what God does and is doing. Can you not understand that point, Corey?
On June 23, 2008 at 4:04 pm lee Said:
“jesus said be baptized in his name. thats good enough for me. now how bout my question.
lee”
And tell us what “in his name” means?
Katherine hit the nail on the head it is not about what we do it is about what God is doing.
The Jews fully understood that acceptance by God was brought about by true repentance and was followed by a public testimony or show to this having happened. Peter was not telling them that they were to be baptized in order to have their sins removed, but rather they were to submit to baptism as a testimony they had believed and God had already remitted their sins. Peter’s message had a twofold invitation. One to believe and thereby repent and have their sins remitted. Secondly, Peter was presenting Jesus to the Jews as their Messiah and stating to them God’s offer of the promised kingdom.
John preached that all the Jews should repent and afterwards he baptized them in this outward show that true repentance had occurred. This is verified by Matthew’s account of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to the River Jordan seeking baptism. Matthew records, “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance? (Matthew 3:7-8). There can be no doubt that true repentance and change of heart had to occur before John’s baptism to be legitimate. Only those who were already converted were accepted by John for baptism. They had already repented and had a change of heart. They were now looking for the Messiah.
John not only preached repentance in preparation of the coming kingdom, but he baptized those that repented and presented themselves. Jewish baptism or immersion began long before John the Baptist. The ritual involved the use of a Mikvah (or mikveh) which is a specially constructed pool of water used for total immersion in a purification ceremony within Judaism. Prior to John the Baptist the only people who were baptized were Gentile proselytes to Judaism and the ceremony is called a “tevillah.” Throughout Israel’s history ceremonial washings by immersion was done by the High Priest before he entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. This ceremonial washing was also practiced by those participated in the Temple worship. Pilgrims and worshipers would enter a Mikveh and dip themselves before entering the Temple. Immersion in the mikveh would show the convert’s transition between his old identity and his new identity as a Jew. In other words immersion in water symbolized birth as a Jew. 7 There were many mikvahs around the Temple in Jerusalem in Jesus’ day which were used for this purpose. Josephus wrote that the laws of the rite of immersion were strictly followed in Temple worship. I bet the cofC preacher “forgot” to tell you guys this 🙂
One must understand the statement as a Jerusalem Jew would understand it. Peter said to these Jews , “Repent ye and be baptized everyone of you in the name of name of Jesus Christ.” We must look back into the events of Jesus’ ministry to properly understand Peter’s statement. Here lies the key to understanding this statement. When John the Baptist appeared on the scene some three years earlier he announced and declared that Jesus was the Christ the Son of God. He proclaimed that Jesus was the “Lamb of God that taken away the sins of the world.” (John 1:29) John the Baptist preached “Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand.”6 Those that repented turned from their sins and submitted to baptism in anticipation of coming of the promise Kingdom. They were identifying themselves with the coming promised Messiah and His kingdom. Their submitting to baptism was an outward testimony that they had repented in their hearts and were looking for their Messiah. They were not baptized to be saved or to enter into the promised Kingdom. Baptism therefore was a sign of their belief and faith in God. Baptism did not change them spiritually, but demonstrated their belief.
Therefore, Peter’s statement to the Jews, fits perfectly the message they heard from John the Baptist and that Jesus Himself preached at Matthew 4:8. These Jews fully understood that acceptance by God was brought about by true repentance and was followed by a public testimony or show to this having happened. Peter was not telling them that they were to be baptized in order to have their sins removed, but rather they were to submit to baptism as a testimony they had believed and God had already remitted their sins. Peter’s message had a twofold invitation. One to believe and thereby repent and have their sins remitted. Secondly, Peter was presenting Jesus to the Jews as their Messiah and stating to them God’s offer of the promised kingdom.
The Grammatical Structure of Acts 2:38 does not
Teach Baptism is Necessary for Salvation.
The grammatical the structure of words in the sentence plainly do not support the idea that Peter was teaching that baptism was necessary for repentance of sin. Greek scholar A. T. Robertson makes the following statement:
“. . . This first. And be baptized every one of you (kai baptisthêtô hekastos hûmôn). Rather, “And let each one of you be baptized.” Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed “in the name of Jesus Christ” (en tôi onomati Iêsou Christou).
Grammatically Robertson shows that the use of the preposition “eis” can be equally understood as meaning either that baptism was for the remission of sin or that baptism followed true repentance and did not cause the remission of sins. Therefore as Robertson plainly says, one must decide on which is true based on what other passage say about the subject. In other words, if one accept that baptism remits sin, then that must be attested to by the analogy of the faith. It must be supported by the preponderance of the teaching in the rest of the New Testament.
Peter makes an important statement in Acts 2:41 that affirms what he meant in verse 38. “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” (Acts 2:41) Peter say that those who believed and gladly received his word were baptized. Clearly, these who were baptized had believed and repented of their sins and on this basis they were baptized. Baptism is not stated as being the basis of salvation
Going back to Acts 2:36-37, it says that these Jews were “pricked in their hearts.” They were under deep conviction and were asking what should they now do. It seems clear they had already experienced conversion and proved it so with works of faith. Peter, following in the footsteps of John the Baptist and Jesus Himself told them to “repent and be baptized.”
Jesus said undoubtedly what remitted sins. He said, “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28). Jesus shed blood was the means of remitting sins and of His suffering and sacrifice man has no part. Remission of sin is totally the work of God.
The End 🙂
one more: Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God” (Romans 3:24-25) Paul says that the payment for sins (a propitiation) is set forth by God to be received by faith in Jesus’ blood and that his is the basis for the remission of sins
Now, the end 🙂
On June 23, 2008 at 4:24 pm faithful Said:
On June 23, 2008 at 4:04 pm lee Said:
“jesus said be baptized in his name. thats good enough for me. now how bout my question.
lee”
And tell us what “in his name” means?
– It means by His pproval and authority.
Now, you go back up and read everything above faithful and address what I wrote to you in regards to baptism. It’s a bit much to read, but I know you dont mind.
“It’s a bit much to read, but I know you dont mind.”
Maybe I will in 2 weeks , after the tent meeting is over. I’ll have more time then.
still waitin corey
lee
Faithful, I didn’t know yall had the tent meetings all day, maybe you mean you will seek advise before you can answer or reply. It took me less than 2 minutes to read it, so maybe you just aren’t sure how to address everything written.
jesus said be baptized in his name. thats good enough for me.
But that isn’t all that is said about baptism. No matter how many times I point people to Acts 19 I still get the “God only cares about the heart” line. That completely contradicts the account of the Ephesians in Acts 19. You said:
were they disobedient and therefore sinners before they met peter? seeing they obeyed the gospel as they heard it? they had faith and believed,strongs says the word means to entrust ones spiritual wellbeing to christ in this use.
They were trying to be obedient, but that doesn’t mean they were right. This is similar to Apollos who was teaching most things correct concerning the Lord, but teaching the wrong baptism. Just like the Ephesians, Apollos had to be corrected on baptism. Both of these examples show that there is a “right” form of baptism. If not, both should have been left alone because all that really mattered was their sincerity.
If it wasn’t wrong, or sinful, then why the correction? I have to conclude that it was wrong & sinful or they would have been left alone. The thing that is so important to note is that when these people were corrected or had baptism explained to them more fully they simply obeyed / changed. They didn’t fight it. They didn’t say, “well, all that matters is my heart”. That is what I wish people today would do – just accept and obey and stop trying to fight it and make excuses.
“That is what I wish people today would do – just accept and obey and stop trying to fight it and make excuses.”
Accept and obey who? What if the person has read Scripture and come to a different conclusion than you?
This is what has happened, and yet you (and others who agree with you doctrinally) try to impose your interpretation on others by insisting that they are lost without it.
It’s actually rather egotistical for hyperconservative “churches of Christ” to insist that when everything shakes out that they are on the side with Peter/Paul, and everyone else is on the side with Apollos.
Accept and obey who?
God.
What if the person has read Scripture and come to a different conclusion than you?
I am not so arrogant as to think that every issue is black and white and that there will never be areas of disagreement. However, when it comes to an issue like baptism I don’t see anything mysterious in the scriptures. This is a subject we should be able to understand alike. I truly believe (because I’ve been there) that most of the problems on this issue come from the fact that so many already believe baptism is not essential and is to take place after salvation before they begin studying the scriptures. If people could put aside their previously held beliefs and just let the Bible say what it says on this issue we could have unity in understanding.
Is every conclusion correct? Just because someone disagrees with the truth, does it negate the truth? This is one of our big problems – the notion that just because someone has a differing opinion that all opinions must be correct and held in the same esteem.
“Accept and obey who?
God.”
This tells everything, Corey. This means that we will never be on the same page in this issue. I have been a Christian for over 20 years, and in my study of Scripture, I have come to a different conclusion than you as to the role of baptism in a person’s salvation story.
When you write that I am disobeying God in this issue because I disagree with you on this issue, it tells me that you have put your interpretation on the level with God. It is certainly your right to do this, but I believe that you are wrong.
You said that you don’t see anything mysterious in the Scriptures. Really? I think that Scripture is full of mystery, and I’m frankly fine with the fact that it is. I wouldn’t want God to be lacking in mystery, because if He was, then what would be the point of worhipping Him?
Don’t you think that there is the possibility that if this issue weren’t so mysterious, then more Christians would be on the same page?
Col 2:2
The church of Christ teaches one is saved, granted remission of sins upon baptism , but also teaches one can become lost and become a sinner again. The odd thing is that once you lose salvation with God, they pull out the 1 John 1:9 card and say well, since you was once a brother, you now contact the blood thru repentance, but to gain initial access you must be baptized to have remission…..does anyone see the contradiction here? Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God” (Romans 3:24-25) Paul says that the payment for sins (a propitiation) is set forth by God to be received by faith in Jesus’ blood and that his is the basis for the remission of sins. Paul didnt say there are two ways to be forgiven, one by baptsim where you contact the blood and then if you backslide, you can just have faith in the blood and repent.
You said that you don’t see anything mysterious in the Scriptures. Really? I think that Scripture is full of mystery, and I’m frankly fine with the fact that it is.
You misunderstand. I said there is nothing mysterious about baptism. There are plenty of other areas that are mysterious and I too am fine with that as “the secret things belong to the Lord”. That doesn’t mean that everything is a mystery and open to personal interpretation.
When you write that I am disobeying God in this issue because I disagree with you on this issue, it tells me that you have put your interpretation on the level with God.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Every belief I hold on baptism can be backed up with book, chapter and verse. I accept all of the teachings on baptism, rather than accepting some and trying to explain others away. I am not just trying to put my “personal interpretation” on the level of God.
Don’t you think that there is the possibility that if this issue weren’t so mysterious, then more Christians would be on the same page?
On this single issue I believe that all of the problems boil down to the teachings of men becoming so ingrained that people refuse to see the word of God. If you had never heard of the concept of “faith only salvation” you would be hard-pressed to come to that conclusion simply reading your Bible as the only time such a phrase exists in scripture it is in the negative sense.
The Jews understood what Peter was saying and they knew that it was by faith in Christ and baptism was a sign of what they believed John not only preached repentance in preparation of the coming kingdom, but he baptized those that repented and presented themselves. Jewish baptism or immersion began long before John the Baptist. The ritual involved the use of a Mikvah (or mikveh) which is a specially constructed pool of water used for total immersion in a purification ceremony within Judaism. Prior to John the Baptist the only people who were baptized were Gentile proselytes to Judaism and the ceremony is called a “tevillah.” Throughout Israel’s history ceremonial washings by immersion was done by the High Priest before he entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. This ceremonial washing was also practiced by those participated in the Temple worship. Pilgrims and worshipers would enter a Mikveh and dip themselves before entering the Temple. Immersion in the mikveh would show the convert’s transition between his old identity and his new identity as a Jew. In other words immersion in water symbolized birth as a Jew. There were many mikvahs around the Temple in Jerusalem in Jesus’ day which were used for this purpose. Josephus wrote that the laws of the rite of immersion were strictly followed in Temple worship. I bet the cofC preachers “forgot” to tell you guys this.
faithful2,
You’ve already posted that, so why don’t you stop spamming the board? Do you want an answer to that?
You’re trying to tell us what the Jews understood when Peter preached. Were you there? Did you ask them what they believed? All we know is what Peter said and the fact they obeyed it. You are really reaching to try and apply the baptism commanded by God for Christians to a Jewish ceremony that was never mentioned by Peter. We can see that John’s baptism is different from the one preached by the apostles (Acts 19), so there are clearly different types of baptism.
Your argument is just grasping at straws to deny the New Testament teachings on baptism.
1. Sorry about the re-post, but the comments seemed to go untouched. I could ask you were you there too, or do you place your interpretation upon the scriptures and we must see them as you? What I presented was facts of the Jewish history and how they viewed “washings” and it’s clear that they seen baptism totally opposite than that of the church of Christ. They seen Christ has a means to forgive them and were pricked in their hearts and then ask what shall we do….do about what??? About the living faith they just put in Christ. Now that they had faith and believed, they were told they needed to repent and be baptized because of the forgiveness of sins, because of the Christ crucified, they were to repent and be baptized, because of the once and for all shedding of His blood, they were to repent and be baptized….. In Luke 3:3 and 24:47, and in Acts 3:19 and 5:31, repentance and the remission of sins are directly linked and baptism is either not mentioned or subordinated. In Acts 10:43 the remission of sins is linked directly to faith alone. In fact, in light of Luke 3:3 (”a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins”), it could be argued that baptism is the outward symbol of repentance, but that it is repentance and not the outward symbol that brings remission of sins. Matt 12:41 states that the people of Nineveh repented because of (eis) Jonah’s preaching. To say that they repented “for,” or “in order to,” the preaching of Jonah is impossible. They heard his message and then repented.
faithful2,
I’d agree with Corey. Your posts are informative, but they are also becoming spam-like.
Comments here are typically more short and to the point, not taking several comments at a time. You have important issues to discuss with Corey (since JR and the other hyperconservatives seem to have abandoned us – thank God for small miracles), so I would encourage you to discuss, not simply hit with comments.
Thanks,
Mr. Answer
moderator
They seen Christ has a means to forgive them and were pricked in their hearts and then ask what shall we do….do about what??? About the living faith they just put in Christ.
In its context, they are asking what they should do about the fact that they had crucified the Messiah. I do not dispute that they were putting their faith in Christ at that point, but that isn’t all they were talking about.
In Luke 3:3 and 24:47, and in Acts 3:19 and 5:31, repentance and the remission of sins are directly linked and baptism is either not mentioned or subordinated.
Actually baptism is mentioned in Luke 3:3, and it is John’s baptism, which you seem to have trouble separating from Jesus’ baptism (read Acts 19).
To say that repentance and remission of sins are linked is correct. There will be no remission of sins without repentance. This completely conflicts your previous post that baptism was “because” sins had already been forgiven. However, the other verses you posted do not mention confession, but other verses do. This is the problem – that you want to accept some verses while neglecting others. There is not a single verse that mentions all that we are to do in obedience.
To say that they repented “for,” or “in order to,” the preaching of Jonah is impossible. They heard his message and then repented.
Read:
Since eis is found some 1,750 times in the New Testament, and the standard meaning is well-recognized, one must proceed with extreme caution before announcing that he has found an “exception” to the rule. He must have an overwhelmingly compelling case before thrusting aside hundreds of precedents that suggest a norm. It is interesting that The New American Commentary on Matthew, authored by Craig Blomberg (and published by Broadman, a Baptist firm) makes no comment at all with reference to a causal use of eis in this text.
Before one can argue, therefore, that Matthew 12:41 contains this alleged exception, he must be absolutely positive there is no interpretation that can be placed upon the text in which eis carries its general, forward-looking thrust.
It is not an honest approach to the Scriptures to take an isolated text, and twist it into conformity with an interpretation that one seeks to defend due to a theological predisposition, e.g., the dogma of salvation by faith alone.
Professor Daniel Wallace is associated with the Dallas Theological Seminary in Texas. From a personal theological perspective, he does not believe that baptism is required as a condition for the remission of sins. This is important to keep in mind. Dr. Wallace is the author of the highly acclaimed work, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Therein he has a discussion of the so-called causal use of eis. He contends that studies have shown that “the linguistic evidence for a causal eis” falls short of proof. He stingingly calls this misguided twisting of the preposition an “ingenious solution” that “lacks conviction” (1996, 370-371).
The celebrated Baptist scholar, H.B. Hackett, rendered the Greek phrase, eis aphesin hamartion in Acts 2:38, as “in order to the forgiveness of sins,” and referenced Matthew 26:28 and Luke 3:3 as parallel texts (1879, 54).
The question now engaging our attention is this: is there any reasonable view of Matthew 12:41 that allows the careful student to assign eis its normal, forward-pointing meaning? The answer is yes; clearly there is.
Here are the facts of the case. The people of Nineveh were in rebellion against God. Because of his concern for the souls of these pagans, Jehovah dispatched his prophet, Jonah, to preach a message of repentance to them. That message was designed to bring them into a penitent state, a reformed life, which would be reflected in turning away from their sins. This is precisely what happened (Jonah 3:10).
By means of a common figure of speech called metonymy—a form of which states a cause, which, in actuality, stands for an effect. Here is an example. When Job said: “My arrow is incurable” (34:6), he referred to an affliction (allegedly rendered by God). The term “arrow,” however, is a form of metonymy, the cause standing for the effect (Terry 1890, 160-161; cf. Dungan n.d., 271-276).
Similarly, as a result of Jonah’s proclamation, the citizens of Nineveh turned, transforming minds and deeds into a reformed state of life demanded by his message. The internationally recognized scholar, J.W. McGarvey, carefully explained the matter in his commentary on Matthew.
The preposition here rendered “at” is eis, which usually means “into.” Some writers have contended that it here means “because of,” or “in consequence of,” a meaning quite foreign to the word. It is true, as a matter of fact, that the Ninevites repented in consequence of the preaching of Jonah; but had it been the purpose of the writer to express this thought, he would have used the preposition dia instead of eis. The thought of the passage is quite distinct from this. They repented into the preaching of Jonah. This is not idiomatic English, but it conveys the exact thought a Greek would derive from the original. The term “preaching” is put for the course of life required by the preaching, and it is asserted that they repented into this. Their repentance, in other words, brought them into the course of life required by the preaching, and it is asserted that they repented into this (1875, 113).
This is a perfectly reasonable explanation of the passage, quite in harmony with the use of the preposition elsewhere in the New Testament. This is a far more responsible exercise of exegetical skills than that which has been proffered by some biased scholars of a bygone era.
From here:
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1152-the-use-of-the-preposition-eis-in-matthew-12-41
Under Johns baptism, what was its purpose? Was their baptism to remit sins? They clearly knew that repentance brought about forgiveness, and refusing to repent, the Lawyers and Pharisees also rejected baptism….they wasn’t rejecting baptism as a means to obtain reemission, but had no desire to repent, thus rejecting the counsel of God.
Under Johns baptism, what was its purpose?
It was unto repentance for the forgiveness of sins. It was to prepare them for the Christ who was at hand.
They clearly knew that repentance brought about forgiveness
Again, it was to prepare them for the time when forgiveness would be available. There was no forgiveness at this time as Christ had not paid the price for those sins! Repentance, at the time of John and before it, could only prepare you for forgiveness.
When you get to Acts 2:38, when all has been fulfilled and the kingdom (church) comes into existence, the purpose has changed – repent AND be baptized for the remission of sins. Repenting and baptism are shown to be different acts, not one being a sign of the other as with John. Furthermore, at this point (Pentecost) people are told that their sins are going to be forgiven – this is possible by the blood of Christ, which provides that remission.
Seems we changed threads and I didn’t get the memo LOL, here is a repost from the other thread:
421.
John 3 seems to be misunderstood and is the grounds for being Baptized and Jesus is speaking of it, but lets look at this passage by passage and ask some questions.
John 3
The New Birth
1Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews;
(We know he is a teacher and follower of the law of Moses, that means he is do dummy)
2this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”
(He is smart enough to know the signs he sees point to Jesus as a man of God at the very least)
3Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
(Jesus tells him he must be born again, here is where the paths split, Jesus is talking about being born into the Spirit, receiving the Holy Spirit, Nicodemus is focused on the physical birthing process as we will see)
4Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?”
(A logical question to ask, if you are focusing on the physical birth of a woman, and not the spirit, and also a foolish question to ask of the conversation is about baptism in water)
5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
(Here Jesus appears to be speaking of water, thus we assume he is talking about born by water submersion or baptism, but lets follow along and see what else he calls this water process, and he is also talking about being born of the spirit.)
6″That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
(Jesus is now talking about a fleshly birth and a Spirit birth, thus he us attempting to clarify things to Nicodemus who is still stuck on a physical birth.)
7″Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’
(Jesus is again talking about a Spirit Birth, the physical one has already happened since he exists, but the Spiritual one is still to come, other wise sense the first birth is a physical birth it would be you have to be born again twice, with water birth and spirit birth, but he does not, each is a single event, thus the physical birth has already taken place!)
8″The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
(And now we see Jesus totally focused on the Spiritual end of it, again attempting to be more clear. he has not said anything more about the physical/water part because that is not the focus of his teaching, Nicodemus is so tied up with the physical end of it that he appears confused and my guess is that he has so focused on the physical rebirth the thinks Jesus is telling him about that he can’t hear the Spiritual part of the rebirth message)
Jesus is talking about a man being born of a woman and of the Spirit, he is not talking about baptism by water or he would have called it such in verse 6, instead of moving to the term physical. Thus you are born by a woman and then you are born into the Spirit. That is the rebirth he is talking about!
Corey do you follow this? Or anyone who sees this as him talking about water baptism? If you can let go of assuming its water and really read the physical and finally the ending focus you can get to the true meaning of the interchange.
do dummy = no dummy (yeah should have fixed the spelling)
Corey, was John preaching repent, for the kingdom is at hand, or was he preaching be baptized , for the kingdom is at hand?? Did Johns baptism validate their repentance or were they forgiven upon entry into the water ? Did Johns baptism picture the death of Christ, what blood did they contact in Johns baptism, seeing Christ had not died yet?? “without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins”
John’s baptism validated their repentance, both done because the kingdom was at hand.
It didn’t picture the death of Christ (as Jesus’ baptism does). In fact, many didn’t understand that the Christ was going to die for the sins of mankind. They contacted no blood at that time as there was no blood to contact. This is what I’m trying to show you – that John’s baptism and Jesus’ baptism are not the same!
I know I will get slammed for this by those who hate Baptists, but once again as a Baptist I have believed in my heart that Jesus Christ is Lord, confessed my sins, repented, confessed Christ as Savior and BEEN BAPTIZED by immerson. As a resul, I believe that Jesus and only Jesus has saved me by His redeeming blood. In the WHOLE of Scripture it is the blood (of the Lamb) that brings the remission of sins. So once again, why do the coCers say that I am eternally lost? answer: because I haven’t confessed that baptism saves me.
walkinlove,
When Nicodemus said “He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?”
Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
So neither of these things had to do with the rebirth! The water has nothing to do with a physical birth.
If the birth of water is the physical birth, then why would Jesus say that we MUST be born of water? You acknowledge that Nicodemus is no dummy. Obviously he had been born, so why teach him that it was a requirement? That is redundant to say the least.
I understand the difference between the baptism Jesus commanded and Johns baptism, but are they both not from heaven? And does not remission come by blood only? So, what blood did they contact in Johns baptism, or did they receive remission based upon “repentance” without the shedding of blood??
Rick, per the Church of Christ teaching, even though you say you are saved by baptism, they will still say you are lost, if you continue in the Baptist Faith.
but are they both not from heaven?
Yes. Just as the Law of Moses was from heaven as well.
And does not remission come by blood only?
Yes.
So, what blood did they contact in Johns baptism
As I’ve already said, they didn’t contact any blood at that time.
or did they receive remission based upon “repentance” without the shedding of blood??
No. There was no remission until the shedding of Jesus’ blood. Just as Jesus blood rolled back to save those that had faithfully kept the old law, it saved those who had obeyed John’s baptism before and during Christ’s life on Earth. As Acts 19 shows us, John’s baptism had no power and was obsolete after the resurrection of Jesus.
Faithful2 That’s interesting. So are you saying that if as a Baptist if I were to begin preaching and teaching salvation by baptism and did not switch from the Baptist body of believers to the Church of Christ body of believers I would still be lost?
NO ONE IS SAYING THAT YOU’RE SAVED BY BAPTISM!
Rick, do you teach that it is a prayer that saves you? No. I don’t think you teach that. Surely you can see that I don’t teach that it is water that saves you.
You may not teach it outright but that is what is implied when you insist that salvation is sealed by water baptism.
And would you mind making your reply a little larger and bolder so I can see it.
Corey,
JR and company do teach that you are saved by baptism. Local folks, am I wrong in this comment?
Rick, the Church of Christ doesn’t teach “water salvation” but teach you are saved at the point of Baptism. Some say, you “contact the blood at baptism”. They teach salvation by Jesus Christ, but one must be baptized to get ‘IN HIM” and receive remission of sins. And if you believed this and still attended the Baptist faith, they would not see you as their brother. You would also have to give up your views of “once saved, always saved” and many other teachings they consider to be false. In others words, you must not have your own opinion and understand things a bit different, but you must either believe everything as they or at least pretend you do…because there is no room for another view within the Church of Christ. Its either understand their way, or be lost.
You may not teach it outright but that is what is implied when you insist that salvation is sealed by water baptism.
So, when you go to scripture and insist upon repentance, confession and faith prior to salvation you’re saying that it is those actions that save, right? Or are they simply acts of obedience that the Bible says we must do? Just because I also include water baptism (because the word includes it), doesn’t mean that I teach any of those actions save. It is Jesus’ blood that saves us, through the grace of God.
JR and company do teach that you are saved by baptism.
Well, you can ask them. I don’t know of a single person in the churches of Christ that thinks it is the act of water baptism that saves. We know that, per Galatians 3:27, that baptism puts us INTO Christ, where salvation is found.
Oh, even on things like “end time teachings” you have to hold their view to be with them, or you might be kicked out. Rick, if you believe in the rapture and Jesus coming back for 1000 years, you better not tell nobody in the Church of Christ, or you might be ask to leave for holding views they consider to be false.
faithful2,
Could you at least acknowledge that you are talking about the congregations of those who inspired this blog?
You’re painting with an awfully wide brush.
Actually, JR and all Churches of Christ do not teach “saved by water”. They might quote Peter and say “ baptism now also save us” but they don’t mean the water saves you, they mean at the point of baptism “one contacts the blood”, which isn’t even in scripture, but a phrase coined by the Church of Christ. Nobody contacts the blood , its was shed once and for all and upon faith in His blood one is justified, that’s Pauls words.
Galatians 3:26 says reads, “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus”. So do you become a child of God by faith first or by baptism?
I think that baptim is the first and immediate evidence of faith.
Maybe I am painting with a wide brush, and often the picture is abstract, but the fact remains that many sects are over issues such as these and not isolated to the men of VA. If you can bend on one part of the Church of Christ teachings, where do you stop? I bet you will break out the find paint brush when I ask about the Lords Supper, but lets not go there yet. I think Rick has made some valid points that need addressed.
Galatians 3:26 says reads, “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus”. So do you become a child of God by faith first or by baptism?
I think that baptim is the first and immediate evidence of faith.
Never is faith mere mental assent. We know this because we know that the demons also believe. We know there were those who believed in Jesus, but for fear of the Pharisees would not confess Him.
You can’t say that it is faith or baptism “first” that makes us a child of God. Both, along with repentance and confession, allow us to become children of God.
Baptism is an evidence of faith. So is repentance and confession. It must begin with faith (actually it begins with hearing if you want to get technical). Every great example of one who had great faith was one who believed and then acted upon that faith. As James said, without works, our faith is dead. None of these works merit our salvation – the gift is too great to think that something like belief or baptism would earn the gift of Jesus. Paul is clear – no work will merit our salvation. It is because of grace that God accepts these paltry acts of obedience.
Rick, they might ask you why you didnt include verse 27 🙂
On June 24, 2008 at 10:38 am Rick Said:
Galatians 3:26 says reads, “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus”. So do you become a child of God by faith first or by baptism?
– Paul seems to make it clear that it’s by faith in the blood/Christ. But, again they will say you “cantact the blood at the point of baptism” as if Christ sheds his blood each time one enters into baptism, or like baptism is the door. I guess faith takes back seat until you come up from the water.
John 12:42
Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue;
Did the faith of those rulers save them? Were they children of God upon their belief?
Corey, prove one contacts the blood at baptism. Also, how does being baptized picture Jesus in the tomb? Jesus was not buried/planted in the ground.
You answer my question above and I’ll answer yours. I’m a little tired of answering every question and having all of mine ignored.
On June 24, 2008 at 11:10 am coreydavis Said:
John 12:42
Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue;
Did the faith of those rulers save them? Were they children of God upon their belief?
– did they have dead faith? or living? Even the devils believe…
I think you made it clear that simple belief isnt enough – I agree. They had a dead faith.
Jump in here anytime Rick 🙂
somebody help me lol
Corey, prove one contacts the blood at baptism. Also, how does being baptized picture Jesus in the tomb? Jesus was not buried/planted in the ground.
Galatians 3:27 and Romans 6:3 tell us that we are baptized into Christ. I can’t show you a verse that says that it is in baptism that we “contact the blood”, but I ask you – can you contact His blood outside of Him?
Jesus “descended” to Hades and was “raised” to resurrection. That is what baptism pictures, not actually going underground, which you’ve pointed out, He did not.
did they have dead faith? or living? Even the devils believe…
So you’re saying that faith must be backed up with more that just mentally believing in Him?
somebody help me lol
No one is helping me. Why do you need Rick to jump in if you’re confident of your beliefs?
“So you’re saying that faith must be backed up with more that just mentally believing in Him?”
– yes, how else could one be saved. Saving faith will work…but the works are not the root, but the fruit. I confess becuase I trust Christ and what he done, I repent and get baptized for the same reasons…but my doing so does not save me.
I was wondering: does the water used in baptism retain any special powers following baptism? I mean if it saves one’s soul from eternal damnation, then that must be some pretty potent stuff!
Maybe the local “Church of Christ” cult could bottle it and sell it and make enough money to buy airtime on a better television station 😛
Saving faith will work…but the works are not the root, but the fruit. I confess becuase I trust Christ and what he done, I repent and get baptized for the same reasons…but my doing so does not save me.
I completely agree with that.
“but I ask you – can you contact His blood outside of Him?”
– The scriptures never speak of “contacting the blood of Christ” but Paul did say to have faith in the blood…God places one in Christ, not water baptism
Sorry..was away from pc. will “jump in” again after lunch.. let’s go feed on the Word folks!
On June 24, 2008 at 11:21 am coreydavis Said:
somebody help me lol
No one is helping me. Why do you need Rick to jump in if you’re confident of your beliefs?
– I was joking around, because I see your alone in this. I have to go for a while, see ya.
one more thing, I am somewhere in the middle of you and Rick…later
Someone above stated many comments are going untouched. That is true. Now, the validity of baptism in the life of the Church is found in more places then Sacred Scripture. We see it in the early councils, creeds, and writings of the church fathers. Why are they being ignored. Why do we think we have come to a new understanding of baptism.
Nathan,
You said “This tells everything, Corey. This means that we will never be on the same page in this issue. I have been a Christian for over 20 years, and in my study of Scripture, I have come to a different conclusion than you as to the role of baptism in a person’s salvation story. ”
The only way to arrive at such a conclusion, respectfully, is if you approach scripture with preconceived notions (which every single one of us do) on the idea of faith alone. Baptism is not compatible with such a doctrine. The bible is as clear as day that baptism starts the christian journey and intiates one in the life of the church.
…also this “fighting” over baptism is exactly why private interpretations causes schism and seperation from the Catholic Church.
On June 24, 2008 at 11:51 am JP Manzi Said:
…also this “fighting” over baptism is exactly why private interpretations causes schism and seperation from the Catholic Church.
– so the Catholic Church was born when ??
“Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.””
Um corey I guess you are not old enough to be married and have kids. The first thing you are told by your wife once it is time is “my water has broken”
Again Corey if you follow along with how Jesus transitions into purely spirit he is focusing on a rebirth by the spirit.
Otherwise you would have to be reborn twice, one by water and once by spirit since we have seen they are not one in the same! Otherwise those who received the spirit before baptism would not have existed or would have been shown to be falsely claiming the signs of the spirits existence in them.
Corey are you so set to PROOOOOOOOOVE the teachings that have been forced into you that you can’t even admit when you have misread something?
jp,
if you will. show me where jesus said that you need to understand that baptism is for the remission of sin.
we see that you must be obedient, but nothing further than that. if a man read all of the teachings in the gospels would jesus have provided sufficient information on salvation?
lee
You haven’t answered my question:
If the birth of water is the physical birth, then why would Jesus say that we MUST be born of water? You acknowledge that Nicodemus is no dummy. Obviously he had been born, so why teach him that it was a requirement? That is redundant to say the least.
The same goes for anyone else who reads Nicodemus and Jesus as talking about Baptism by water and Spirit.
It is not what is taking place, otherwise Jesus would have said you have to be reborn twice, once by water and once by Spirit, he did not and he tried to clear things up for Nicodemus, but he was so rattled by thinking about rebirth by a woman that he could not hear what Jesus was saying. And that is you must be reborn of the Spirit!
Is your inability to see anything different then what was drummed into you as a fear that your salvation could be lost? When is the last time you actually worked out your own salvation?
I am curious who has been taught this is about baptism, is it only CoC or others also?
Thanks!
nathan,
has anyone said{que music}taaaakeee onnnnn meeeee?
if not, id like to be first.
its a 80s ref faithless.
lee
The point that screams out is he does then Jesus is talking about a physical rebirth, but he is talking about a Spiritual rebirth after the physical birth.
Otherwise Jesus would not have slowly moved away from the physical/water line of speaking and end only with the Spiritual comments.
Man is born of water and if we belongs to Christ, also a Spiritual rebirth!
Corey you are born by your mother’s womb, it has a water like quality, you are then born of the Spirit, thus you are reborn!
If you were reborn of water, you would have to be reborn of a woman.
Nicodemus is aware of baptism, John was already doing them, he was connected and would have known the details of what John was doing.
there is another ref about water in the new testament that wasnt talking about water at all. when the spear was placed in his side water and blood came forth.
probably plasma. so would amneotic fluid be a stretch?
just asking.
lee
This is what Jesus was saying, according to you (walkinlove):
“Nicodemus, you HAVE to be born of your mother and then later you HAVE to be born of the Spirit of God”.
What sense does this make? Why would Jesus give an instruction (a MUST) that we have nothing to do with (our physical birth)? This is like me saying, “you MUST breathe and later you MUST go to the store”. Why would I instruct you in something you really have no part in? You breathe naturally and without an conscious effort – why would you need such a redundant instruction?
So what was Christ referring to when He said that we must be born of water?
There is no need to speculate, no need to guess, God gives us the answer quite
clearly within the same passage of Scripture.
Christ was speaking with Nicodemus, a Jewish religious leader who was still in
his sins. He was not born again, nor could he be born again until after Christ
arose from the dead, and had sealed the New Covenant with His Blood.
Nicodemus approached Jesus covertly looking for pointers on how to please God,
and get to Heaven. Jesus knew his real motive and told him bluntly, ‘You must be
born again.’ Nicodemus was thinking in natural terms, and showed it by replying,
How can a man be born when he is old? Surely he cannot enter a second time into
his mother’s womb to be born!
Now stop and answer this question: What process was Nicodemus speaking of?
It’s plain enough. He was referring to childbirth wasn’t he? He’s talking about
parturition, when a human baby first comes into the world.
Then Christ responds with, I tell you the truth, no-one can enter the kingdom of
God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
So it is clear from Christ’s response that being born of water is different from
being born of the Spirit, and they surely are!
If this is all He had said we might have some room to speculate what He meant.
But His next sentence clarifies precisely His meaning, leaving no room for doubt
or discussion.
He continued, Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
pretty good.
i like the way you put that.
lee
“jp,
if you will. show me where jesus said that you need to understand that baptism is for the remission of sin.”
I never said that nor do I believe it. The power of baptism is not contingent on our understanding. As one who holds on to the historic christian view of infant baptism, I do not expect an infant to understand what is happening.
“we see that you must be obedient, but nothing further than that. if a man read all of the teachings in the gospels would jesus have provided sufficient information on salvation?”
Yes, of course we must be obedient. Concerning your last question, if you are relying soley on the written Word of God, you are missing a huge chunk of the Faith, the faith was also verbally passed on. Scripture is clear that not everything concerning the faith took written form. The Church came before the complete bible. Its the Church that gave us the bible.
That which is born of flesh is flesh….easy as pie to see what Jesus meant by water, he was replying back to the question “How can a man be born when he is old? Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” We need to allow scripture to make it clear without us interjecting our doctrinal views. The context clearly states “That which is born of flesh is flesh” and just why would Jesus say that if he was referring to baptism. Jesus could have said No, I’m not talking about being born of flesh, but I mean by water, that you must be baptized.
Another point too, Jesus hadn’t even died yet, so just what would baptism even had meant in that context??
“Nicodemus, you HAVE to be born of your mother and then later you HAVE to be born of the Spirit of God”.
I’d say you hit the nail on the head because if you are not born into this world you can’t be born of the Spirit.
Unfortunately you are so fixated on what you were taught you can’t even consider it can you? Truthfully you can’t, why is that?
It’s funny because I once did consider this to be about baptism until I started looking at it deeper and asking why Nicodemus would have even asking about being reborn of a woman, and why Jesus did not completely correct him and say baptism, he could have done so, it’s because Jesus IS talking about physical birth, and he says that in verse 6, and a Spiritual rebirth.
8″The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Why does it not include water now? He went from water, to physical, no now only spirit! He is not talking about baptism!
John 19:34Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.
Surely John 19:34 is talking about baptism, hey maybe the ground was baptized? Water does not mean baptism!
Corey what was the last thing you learned in the bible that involved you and God only? I’m curious and what was the truth you discovered?
no now = to now
You’re not addressing my point about the redundancy of commanding something that had already happened and that Nicodemus had no control over.
Let me put it another way – why not just say “you must be born of the Spirit” if water plays no part in the spiritual birth? Nicodemus had already fulfilled this supposed command of the Lord to be physically born, so why state it again? Why add to the confusion?
You state JP that one doesn’t need to understand baptism to make it valid, you know this fly’s in the face of most all Church of Christ teaching. I, think too, your Catholic Church would be considered the cause of all of the division and be labeled as the ones who caused the “great apostasy”.
I’d say you hit the nail on the head because if you are not born into this world you can’t be born of the Spirit.
Well, duh. How absurd. Who would this NOT apply to? The unborn?
Put yourself in Nicodemus shoes . Tell ya what, tell a child that they must be born again and see what they say, they might say, what !!! I was already born once, how can I be born again. Then you could say, you must be born of water and Spirit , I tell you the truth, you must be born again….”AGAIN” seems to be the key word here…..meaning two births
I know being born again could be mean “ born from above” which still proves two births….flesh birth and one of Spirit
We all know Jesus is speaking of two births. I contend that there is the fleshly birth (which isn’t commanded, as we have no control over) and the second birth, “of water and the Spirit” which is a spiritual birth. This harmonizes perfectly with Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38. The water is baptism, which is part of the spiritual birth (which is evident in the verses I stated).
What you have Jesus saying is this:
“Nicodemus, you MUST be born of your mother! No exceptions! All you unborn spirits floating around out there…are you listening? You must be born of your mother first! Later you must be born of the Spirit of God. Even though I, and my apostles are going to connect water baptism to that second birth, overlook that.”
you say water and Spirit means Spiritual birth, that would read, you must be born of Spirit and Spirit if they both mean Spirit…come on now
Jesus hadn’t even died yet, so just what would baptism even had meant in that context??
The same meaning that John’s baptism and the baptism Jesus’ disciples were performing prior to His death – to prepare them in anticipation of the sacrifice that was near.
and Nicodemus understood that? if you say so.
“You state JP that one doesn’t need to understand baptism to make it valid, you know this fly’s in the face of most all Church of Christ teaching.”
One denomination amongst thousands. Can not please them all! Who speaks for the Church of Christ? Is there a source I can go to to confirm this teaching that one must KNOW what is happening in baptism. Something besides another fallible humans interpretation.
I, think too, your Catholic Church would be considered the cause of all of the division and be labeled as the ones who caused the “great apostasy”.
You obviously have not done your homework. Try again.
Here many views: http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx212.htm
Not siding with the Church of Christ, but I have yet to see them lose a debate against a Catholic is regards to “the Church”. You guys even brought music into the Church.
I think the early church fathers can handle themselves in a debate with a denomination started in the late 19th century,
I agree, far as the Church of Christ as we know it today being started in the 19th century, but I also believe they are much closer to what the bible teaches as well. I don’t see Popes and “fathers” in the “early Church” and Peter was for certain not a pope. There is much that could be said , but Im sure you have heard it all…
Btw JP, before you think I am slamming on the Catholics, as if I can be their Judge, I’m not ! I think saved people are in about every denomination …so, don’t think I am slamming on you…..k
Born – gennaw,v {ghen-nah’-o}
1) of men who fathered children 1a) to be born 1b) to be begotten 1b1) of women giving birth to children 2) metaph. 2a) to engender, cause to arise, excite 2b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone 2c) of God making Christ his son 2d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ’s work
The term used for born has to do with a woman giving birth, the reason Nicodemus sees it as having to climb back into the womb is Christ’s choice of this word. The water he would consider being the after birth or birth fluid.
Again, though you can’t hear me, in the hopes others will and not be confused before others become indoctrinated, Jesus focus turns away from the physical side of it at the end and focuses on only the Spirit. You have to be born of the Spirit, you have been born of a woman.
HE COULD HAVE SAID BAPTISM AND DID NOT! Did he suddenly lose the memory of what it was called? And water is used for things other then water as we saw with Jesus and the spear.
“We all know Jesus is speaking of two births. I contend that there is the fleshly birth (which isn’t commanded, as we have no control over) and the second birth, “of water and the Spirit” which is a spiritual birth.”
This is wrong, people had the spirit of God without water! It is shown in the Bible and I have quoted it, remember in acts? Secondly:
“5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
Then it should say “5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born (OF WOMAN,) of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Water is the birth of woman, not in addition to, that is why he slides away at the end and only talks about the spirit!
3Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
This is of the Spirit!
8″The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
This should say according to you “who is born of water and the Spirit and HE DOES NOT SAY WATER!
I’m using caps cause I am not sure about bold, I am not yelling though, I hope that is ok!
If Spirit and water are the same birth, then Acts 10:45-47 is an abortion of sorts since there has been no water baptism, thus you make Jesus a liar in John according to your view of the passage!
Acts 10:45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues[a] and praising God.
Then Peter said, 47″Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”
If they are the same, this can’t be. Are you having fun in the corner your traditions have placed you? Because we both know, if you give on this then you can’t be considered right about your beliefs and you then become one of the rest of us who see only partially! Pride is stopping you from seeing the truth!
“Btw JP, before you think I am slamming on the Catholics, as if I can be their Judge, I’m not ! I think saved people are in about every denomination …so, don’t think I am slamming on you…..k”
Even though they obey different plans of salvation?
“There are not a hundred people who hate the Catholic Church but their are millions of people who hate what they think is the Catholic Church.”
Bishop Fulton Sheen
I am not going to debate the Catholic Church but will welcome discussions on certain topics like baptism.
“Even though they obey different plans of salvation?”
Is this the plan that started in the late 19th century by Campbell and Stone?
Faithful, choose your battles wisely.
faithful, I think JP gave you some sound advice, so heed his advise and choose your battles wisely.
“Even though they obey different plans of salvation?”
As JP stated faithful, is this the plan that started in the late 19th century by Campbell and Stone, the 5 step formula? Oh, and with some ultra-cons views inserted.
“As JP stated faithful, is this the plan that started in the late 19th century by Campbell and Stone, the 5 step formula? Oh, and with some ultra-cons views inserted.”
Yup.
The Three Stasi (that’s what a friend calls ’em) are insisting that their interpretation of a “church” just over a hundred years old is the one true body of Christ and that between the time of Paul and the late 1800s, it didn’t exist at all.
Heck, I’m not Catholic, but Catholicism is MUCH more in the spirit of Christ than what The Three Stasi preach.
Didn’t the term Catholic start around 70 ad?
Catholic comes from the Greek katholikos, the combination of two words, kata (concerning), and holos (whole). The word catholic comes from a Greek word meaning “regarding the whole,” or, more simply, “universal” or “general.” The word church comes from the Greek ecclesia, which means “those called out,” as in those summoned out of the world at large to form a distinct society. So the Catholic Church is made up of those called out and gathered into the universal society founded by Christ.
“Catholic” in the most literal sense means “universal”, as in the entire body of believers in Christ throughout the history of the church from circa 33 A.D. From what I understand the term began to be used around 100 A.D. But “Catholic” these days is usually understood to mean Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholics date the church back to Peter (considered to be the first pope) but those outside Catholicism have never agreed as to precisely when it began. It is agreed though that when the bishop of the church in Rome began having considerable influence (helped by the fact that both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome) that this was the start of what is still considered to be the modern papacy.
Anyone wanting to hear some good Church of Christ debates, check out this site. The best way to defend your position is to know theirs 🙂
http://www.padfield.com/debates/index.html
Great conversations, folks! I appreciate the civility and thoughtful approaches on people on all the different sides of this issue. Now, I’m waiting for You Know Who to show up and rile everyone up…
Corey,
You have helped me understand a lot about your doctrine with this discussion on being born of water and the spirit. However, I think that faithful2 (and others) has done a superb job proving that in the context of the encounter with Nicodemus, that Jesus was helping him to understand rebirth.
Jesus said you have to be born again, Nicodemus questions how a man can re-enter the womb, Jesus says – no, the first time you are born of water (a pregnant woman’s “water breaks, doesn’t it? I know when my children were born it looked like a little puddle of water on the floor), the second time you are born of the Spirit.
The real stretch (in my obviously biased mind) is lumping “water and spirit” into the same saving act.
But again, great discussion all around. Let’s all meet at Starbucks and Lattes are on me. 😉
I just want to let it be known, without saying too much or tipping my hand, that God has been very good to me lately and He’s shown me how He’s blessed me throughout my life, in spite of how crazy or even downright horrible some moments have been. I have to give Him all the praise and glory for that.
In fact, I can’t help but feel like the happiest guy in the world, knowing what riches He has let me have. Not “material” things like money or whatever, but the things that matter most.
And I couldn’t care a pimple on a baby’s behind if anyone dares to say that a bit of this isn’t a good thing from God and that I still have to “obey” or some other mega-legalist hyper-conservative man-mandated doctrinal crap.
To Johnny Robertson, James Oldfield, Norm Fields, “faithful”, and the rest of your cult:
I have won that which is most important.
And you will never touch it.
You will never take it away.
You have lost.
I think God will forgive me, for telling you that much.
Chris you have shamed yourself in front of the whole area
I have looked at the John 3:5 and the only one could even think Jesus meant baptism for remission of sins would be to hold that view from the start. Its clear what Nicodemus was asking and its clear what Jesus answered. Nicodemus was confused, wondering how in the world could he be born again and he was thinking on the physical level, and Jesus told him it not just physical but Spiritual, you must be born of water( 1st birth ) and of Spirit ( 2nd birth ) and this wasn’t a command but a statement of facts. But the real kicker is why would Jesus talk to Nicodemus about baptism , seeing He hadn’t even died yet. Nicodemus still would have been lost as to what baptism represented.. There are other passage too that one could read baptism into, such as Titus 3:5 – they will say this is baptism too
“We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.”
The Nicene Creed
“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ A.D 151
Justin Martyr
“It is not possible to receive forgiveness of sins without baptism”
Origen
“There are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptism, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance; yet God does not forgive sins except to the baptized”
Augustine
To those who deny the role of baptism, why do you deny what those closer to Jesus had to say? What the early creeds say? What the Scriptures say? Can you please show me one Church Father (again, those closer to the time of Christ) who denies baptism and teaches a faith only doctrine?
Good Points JP
“As JP stated faithful, is this the plan that started in the late 19th century by Campbell and Stone, the 5 step formula? Oh, and with some ultra-cons views inserted.’
So are you saying the verses were added? I thought they were there the whole time.
1. Hear the gospel of Jesus Christ preached. ( Romans 10:17 )
2. Believe . (John 8:24 )
3. Confess Jesus Christ is the Son of God ( Romans 10:9-10 )
4. Repent of your sins . ( Luke 13:3 )
5. Be baptized for the remission of sins. ( Acts 2:38 )
then….
6 Remain faithfull ( Rev 2:10)
This matches up with the conversion accounts in acts. I can’t find one where they used the sinners prayer that you all use
One of the interesting things about this is, we are assuming that every time baptism is spoken that a physical event is taking place and not a spirit event. I have to wonder, since the Philippine jailer was told to believe, he was not told to be baptized of water to be saved, why Paul lied to him?
Acts 16:31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”
And yeah I know they were baptized but of what? And again Paul and Silas have lied in verse 31, they should have said what Peter said.
And lets think about Peter, Mr. showmanship himself, the only disciple called Satan for trying to do his own will against the father. Could it be that old flesh once again wanting the center stage instead of an anointed word from the Lord. Thus the old flesh rearing it’s head again. Conversly we have Paul, Mr. legalism himself, preaching a message of belief. Who was more like their old nature, Peter or Paul?
After all there are times when they were clearly not guided by the Spirit. Paul gives a couple of examples in his fight with Barnabas and also his sudden inability to remember how many people he baptized.
Water Baptism was an easy bridge to use back to the old traditions, and perhaps it made it easier to reach the Jewish followers because of John’s baptism.
Speaking of John, where the people Baptized required to be baptized again once the Holy Spirit had come? Or was that water baptism ok?
““As JP stated faithful, is this the plan that started in the late 19th century by Campbell and Stone, the 5 step formula? Oh, and with some ultra-cons views inserted.’
So are you saying the verses were added? I thought they were there the whole time.
1. Hear the gospel of Jesus Christ preached. ( Romans 10:17 )
2. Believe . (John 8:24 )
3. Confess Jesus Christ is the Son of God ( Romans 10:9-10 )
4. Repent of your sins . ( Luke 13:3 )
5. Be baptized for the remission of sins. ( Acts 2:38 )
then….
6 Remain faithfull ( Rev 2:10)
This matches up with the conversion accounts in acts. I can’t find one where they used the sinners prayer that you all use”
You left out be baptized for the dead, after all it is in the Bible and nobody corrected the practice as I can tell! 😉
Ah, be careful, walkinlove.
faithful probably won’t like being told the things that they don’t do that are in Scripture.
Holy kiss, anyone?
“faithful” said:
“I can’t find one where they used the sinners prayer that you all use”
Ummm…who is “you all”? You (along with Johnny and the gang) are the only ones who keep bringing up the “sinners prayer” like everyone is preaching it or doing it-when I don’t believe anyone has even acknowledged that they do. Just because you throw around stuff that you think people believe or do does not make it true.
You seem to be so hung up in your agenda and the efforts to “defeat and destroy” that you don’t even pay attention when people speak the truth or It just has to be “your way” or the highway. It just doesn’t work like that…and I don’t really understand why you would WANT it to. This is NOT about us-it is ALL about God!! Truth remains truth-whether we choose to accept it or not. I would much rather accept it than fight it-that just has to be exhausting.
Fithful says: So are you saying the verses were added? I thought they were there the whole time
-When I stated you add your own ultra-hyper con views, I was saying you add things like “one must understand baptism before it’s valid” and you mean one must understand it per your views.
Katherine,
That is true. Not one person here has brought up this sinners prayer. What is that anyway? Inviting Jesus into your heart? What is that? Mentally agreeing on certain facts about Jesus?
“-When I stated you add your own ultra-hyper con views, I was saying you add things like “one must understand baptism before it’s valid” and you mean one must understand it per your views.”
So true, that is an abiblical concept that makes no sense but puts the power of baptism not in Gods hands but the mind of us sinners.
Absurd.
Aaaaamen. 🙂
“Chris you have shamed yourself in front of the whole area”
faithful,
The people of this whole area are telling me lately that you and Johnny Robertson are full of bat guano.
(And the stuff they’ve been telling me about Charles Roark is nigh unprintable! But I digress…)
You got nothin’. Except slavish devotion to the cult of a few men. If you aren’t one of those very men already.
And if I may be so bold: the people who are calling into Robertson’s and Oldfield’s and Field’s shows are, for the most part, the same people! Members of their cult? I’ll leave that as an exercise for the viewer. But I certainly do hear much the same voices on a regular basis.
The “Church of Christ” cult is like a local version of Scientology. The true believers going to all lengths of chicanery to make it look as if they are the “one true” religion.
My activities put me in contact with a lot of people across a very wide cross-section of the area. Not one person that I’ve met has expressed any opinion of Robertson, Oldfield and Fields other than that they preach hate, division (not unity!) and are generally “nuts”.
Nobody that I know of is taking them seriously. In fact, everyone is pretty much laughing at them. The thing that Robertson said this week about bake sales and car washes not being biblical, was especially hilarious!
Chris you have to understand this method they seem to be using and how it would play on the weaker Christians.
You tell someone they are still going to hell because you can quote scripture, never mind you actually understand the scripture itself ie. John 3 for example. Secondly you find what ever fault you can with the leader of the Church itself, like fancy car etc. and you play on the fairness of it since you have less and you have the perfect mix for rebellion against the leader. Now I would go into how David and others deal with leaders but I am sure it would not apply cause its a King or something else, never mind that God said all was by his hand like Romans 13:1 so if you are teaching others to rebel are you guilty of their sin of rebellion also, and do you get to wear a millstone for causing them to stumble into the sin of rebellion?
The funny thing is, last time I looked God did not need any help in bringing down leaders if he needed to. I almost think this is a trust issue with God actually that would drive them to disobey respecting authority by sowing rebellion.
hi faithless,
now if your going to bring it up i will have to ask you
to at least give me credit for telling you where that prayer is found.
lee
On June 25, 2008 at 8:48 am Katherine Said:
Aaaaamen. 🙂
—————–
I got that LOL 🙂
faithful, why are you so stuck on the sinners prayer? Show one time we have even threw that up? But, since you want to go there, show me where the “invitation song” is that almost all Church of Christ churches sing when they want someone to come and get baptized. I will give you 1000 dollars to show me where Peter used the “invitation song”. You cant, because you guys made this up and have stuck with it forever…its man-made faithful…so much for speak where the bible speaks…
faithful2, I will answer the following statement for you
“But, since you want to go there, show me where the “invitation song” is that almost all Church of Christ churches sing when they want someone to come and get baptized. I will give you 1000 dollars to show me where Peter used the “invitation song”. You cant, because you guys made this up and have stuck with it forever…its man-made faithful…so much for speak where the bible speaks…”
Ready?????
They will say it’s an expedient.
walkinlove,
The past week or so, I realized that instead of taking these people seriously…
…that we need to start laughing at them.
That is what completely takes away their power.
They really are the most ridiculous thing that I’ve seen in local history. And that’s saying something!
Faithful2 , if you scroll up you will see that I was asked about the other gospel or man made gospel that I refered to . We are told to sing , it doesn’t say when.
Ready?????
They will say it’s an expedient.
– I know JP. They bend the rules and say its matters of juddgement-an expedient, but we dare not do the same, we would be sinning.
“We are told to sing , it doesn’t say when.”
– Faithful, you guys added the “invitation song” to the message, and not once can you find that even hinted at in the bible, its much like “the alter call”. Faithful, as you guys so often say “I will give you 1000 dollars to show me the invitation song”. Peter preached and forgot the song, I guess. You want to go around this, but the fact is you guys made this up APART from the bible. Nowhere in the NT did they have the “invitation song”. So much for CENI !
It says sing , we are singing.
“We are told to sing , it doesn’t say when.”
That is a robotic response that condradicts half of what you have said in the past.
– Where else can we use our own intuition in substitute of a direct command? Example: there are multiple verses describing baptism, none of them give direct guidelines for proper form, age, mental awareness etc. How can we come to identical personal scripture interpretations while analyzing books written by different authors with different writing styles presented in narrative, ancient apocalyptic, or personal letter format? Does anyone feel like that the whole argument is insane?
Faithful,
What exactly is an “expedient”? Where does the Bible define what an expedient is and what qualifies as one? Please provide BCV.
nathan,
come on, take on me.
that wasnt bad. maybe a little something for the effort.
lee
a little levity levens the whole lump
i made that up.
lee
“faithful”:
Why do you continue to ignore the questions? I have asked several that have gone unanswered.
whats wrong with a sinners prayer?
god be merciful to me a sinner.
or maybe this sounds more familiar to some here…….
i thank god that i am not like these publicans…….
who went away justified?
go get my money faithless.
lee
Luke 18:13
Sounds like a sinner’s prayer to me.
Can’t say that isn’t in the Bible!
Is John-“Boi” Robertson still offering money for that? LOL!
THANK YOUUUUUUUU.
mr knight
I’m sure you guys know what will be answered in regards to Lee’s “sinners prayer”? It was prior to the cross and it wasnt what Peter told the men in Acts 2:38. Upon their faith in Christ, they ask “what shall we do”…I think you know the rest and it wasnt a “sinners pray”. But, I dont see anything at all with a sinner falling to his knees beggging God to have mercy on him, but the question he should ask is the same question they ask Peter, and what would you tell him ?? I would say repent and be baptized unto the forgiveness of sins…would you?
not my prayer…….jesus told that story.
lee
Does the “Church of Christ” as represented by Johnny Robertson, James Oldfield, Norm Fields, “faithful” and a number of others… believe that masturbation is a sin?
And if so, why exactly do they believe that masturbation is a sin?
If they declare that it is a sin then they must cite scripture proving why.
If masturbation is not mentioned as a sin in the Bible then per their “Church of Christ” hyper-literalist doctrine it must not be a sin at all, and this means that instead of condemning it that their “Church of Christ” advocates masturbation.
Robertson, Oldfield, Fields and “faithful”: why are you promoting masturbation with your doctrine?
oh geezzz Chris! mercy mercy mercy
Yes, I am a follower of Christ. However for good or ill I also wound up a student of the greatest teachers in the fine art of absurdity 😛
I believe it.
Ahem, drum roll please……………..
Now its time for another AHA moment.
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19″Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
20teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
Why are all the disciples going to hell? None of them appear to have followed baptism in the name of the father and the son and Holy Spirit! While this may be picking nits, still Mathew states plainly what to do.
Now since it was not followed, are not they and all they baptized not saved?
For future reference: absurdity doesn’t play well with legalists. They just don’t get it. I’ll come back to that in a moment.
Imagining one of the three men, on their TV program, discussing the fact that Chris brought this up could be a lot like “The Contest” episode of Seinfeld. Lots of “master of your domain” kind of ways to express this subject without actually saying the “M” word. That idea makes me chuckle.
Now, to all of those folks who were offended by Chris’s comment, forget for a moment that he referenced a term for something sexual. (Even though God created us as sexual, we still freeze like deer in the headlights when something dealing with the subject is brought up.) Look deeper, to the reason why he would have made such a reference. This is what absurdity does – it takes an argument or perspective to absurd lengths to help us recognize the problems with the argument.
Chris, is that a fair description of what you were doing with that comment?
“Now, to all of those folks who were offended by Chris’s comment, forget for a moment that he referenced a term for something sexual. (Even though God created us as sexual, we still freeze like deer in the headlights when something dealing with the subject is brought up.) Look deeper, to the reason why he would have made such a reference. This is what absurdity does – it takes an argument or perspective to absurd lengths to help us recognize the problems with the argument.
Chris, is that a fair description of what you were doing with that comment?”
Nathan,
Yep!
I would never refer to something so vulgar, unless it was to make an altogether very serious point.
(And you’ve no idea how much this makes me restricted on matter of principle from writing fiction that many other people would have no problem with doing at all.)
The logical extreme of the arguments from these people is that if it’s not explicitly stated in the Bible, then it is either absolutely a sin or absolutely not a sin.
This is what Paul’s instruction about the conscience, especially what he wrote in Romans and 1st Corinthians, pertains to. That a believer has all liberty in Christ but that liberty is limited not by the rule of law but by good conscience. This, then, is what separates “liberty” from “freedom”. Liberty is free choice but freedom is liberty wisely constrained by said conscience, and become something far more enjoyable and edifying than liberty in and of itself.
At the polar opposite of this is legalism, which inevitably becomes a form of bondage and slavery.
Regarding “that” example which I cited: if a believer’s conscience convicts him or her that it is keeping them in bondage, then it is, and he or she has the freedom to take it to God. Just as anything else that figures in the life of a person may or may not come between them and God. It could be sex, or alcohol, or food, or many other things. But we aren’t obligated by law anymore to make penance for those. Instead it is, again, good conscience as led by the Holy Spirit.
The same holds true for a fellowship of believers. If it is not proscribed against according to scripture, then it is not forbidden or a sin. If a group of believers is led to hold that musical instruments are no hindrance to worship and their consciences have nothing against instruments, then it is not wrong. And if a group of believers does hold that worship does not need instruments, then there is nothing wrong with that either. It does become a problem that hurts our testimony as Christians if some demand that all the rest of us follow their own doctrine about such a thing when there is nothing scriptural about it at all… and worse, when that one group of “Christians” refuses to acknowledge the rights of the rest of us to seek God and follow Him as best as we can understand Him.
What gall do these other “Christians” have to assume that they understand Him better than anyone else, anyway!?
And so it is, also, with baptism. From my study of scripture, I have come to conclude that baptism is an action of good conscience, and that all believers in Christ should want baptism. That alone demonstrates that there is the Holy Spirit at work in the life of an individual believer, and that he or she is already saved. The act alone does nothing, it certainly can not save. There is nothing powerful or mystical about the waters of baptism. It’s why a person chooses to be baptized that matters. If it is out of love and adoration of the Lord who saved us, then it is a token of gratitude toward Him. But if it is something that we feel obligated to do because without it we are damned forever, as if He is not strong enough to save us or that His work on the cross alone was not sufficient… then baptism completely loses all meaning.
If a believer wants to be baptized – and I believe that he or she should – then he or she should be led by conscience to be baptized. And if a believer’s conscience for whatever reason asks him or her to wait for baptism, then there is nothing wrong with that either. I was saved for two years before my baptism. Why? Those reasons are between me and God, but when it happened it really was one of the most beautiful moments of my life. Had I been baptized earlier, I don’t know if it would have had as much meaning for me. If anyone has a problem with that, I don’t care. They don’t really know or care about me anyway…
Nor do I believe that any one church can call itself the “one true church”. These “Church of Christ” loons like to corner people and make them try to find where the Baptist church is in the Bible, or the Methodist or Presbyterian, or whatever. Robertson, Oldfield (BTW someone sent me the video of him at Westside Baptist Church and it’s pretty ridiculous), Fields, “faithful” and others of their kind should see how many fingers are pointed back at them… because they cannot find the “Church of Christ” as they define it in the Bible, either. Any foolish person can call himself the “Church of Christ” and claim that it’s “biblical”. But that’s just establishing one’s self as a denomination: something that the local hyper-legalists claim that they are not!
Again, it is a matter of conscience. If a person believes that the Holy Spirit is leading his or her conscience to fellowship with a group calling themselves “Baptist”, then so long as that group is devoted to worshiping Christ alone and giving Him the glory, then it doesn’t matter if they call themselves “Baptist”. So it is also with the Methodists or Catholics, or what have you (and I know very many Catholics who are far more humble and understanding of God’s grace than most “Protestants” and especially more than the local “Church of Christ” cult!). God doesn’t care what “denomination” we are in. He doesn’t even care if someone does consider himself a member of a “Church of Christ”… but when that person begins setting up stumbling blocks in the spiritual walk of others who are seeking Christ, again there becomes a major problem.
God gave us a conscience for a reason, folks. He never expected that other people act as our conscience instead. And He certainly never wanted us to let people like Robertson, Oldfield, Fields, and “faithful” to be that conscience. They have not the right, the authority, or the understanding to act in such a capacity.
And if it takes going to a wild extreme to point out the absurdity of their hypocrisy… then I’ve no problem with doing that 🙂
I done the same thing once with James O. to see what he would say, but I took it to another level, I ask about oral sex, and he said the bible speaks nothing wrong with it, nor refers to it as sin between husband and wife, but he did go on to say it could be unclean it the act itself…
“This is what absurdity does – it takes an argument or perspective to absurd lengths to help us recognize the problems with the argument.”
-I happen to like the way Chris uses absurdity to make a point…I have done this too with them and others.
Oh come on, nobody has a reply to my post LOL? I am serious when I ask. There is a difference in what was asked in Matthew and what was actually done as far as how it was said. Does that not qualify as an offense to the command and thus cause them to go to hell for it under CoC teachings?
I am curious, how many Church divisions listed baptism methods as one of the reasons? Does anyone know?
On June 26, 2008 at 9:45 am walkinlove Said:
I am curious, how many Church divisions listed baptism methods as one of the reasons? Does anyone know?
– You have quite a few;
Jesus Only people teach one must say the words “in Jesus name” to make baptism valid, and some of them teach you also suppose to have the evidence of speaking in tounges with baptism
Some teach baptism by “sprikling”
Some teach by baptism by “dipping” after one is saved
Some teach baptism is the point of salvation/forgiveness
Some teach baptism is the point of salvation/forgiveness and demand you understand this before the baptism can be valid
Some teach baptism of the dead
There may be more too….
Johnny and crew like to show on TV how other people get angry and they say they have done nothing to them. When you watch when Johnny or one of his followers go up to someone or talk to someone, they want to try to make the other person mad so that maybe it will make them look like they are right in the end. Johnny and crew feed off making other people mad, you can see it in their faces and hear it in their voices how righteous it mkes them feel, NOT very christian. What they do is like when you see two kids and Johnny and crew are like the one who puts their finger in the other ones face saying I’m not touching them knowing they are trying to make them angry.
I have a baited question: Must one understand that Christ’s death was “for remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28) in order to be forgiven?
Okay, must there be an understanding of the purpose of baptism, if such is to be valid? On the day of Pentecost, Peter declared that baptism is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38; cf. 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21).
If a comprehension of this aspect of baptism is nonessential, as some allege, why was it included in the divine admonition? Must one understand that Christ’s death was “for remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28)? The identical phrase is employed.
Some contend that the minimum requirement is simply this: One must be baptized to “obey God.” Is there anyone who submits to immersion who does not feel that he or she is “obeying” God in the act? The logical conclusion of this argument would be this—all people who have been immersed are children of God, irrespective of their level of understanding. Few indeed are willing to adopt or defend a consistent position grounded in this premise.
I’m not saying I agree totally with this, but I am open to what others have to say about this. JP, if you’re out there, I would like your input on the above.
James Oldfield comparing himself to Martin Luther…
For those who may not be able to see this: Oldfield is at the West Side Baptist Church in Madison, taping a flyer about the “Church of Christ” tent meeting to the church door, basically daring its pastor to come out and debate them.
It’s more than a little ridiculous, what Oldfield is doing in the video.
I’ve several problems with that church (I thought the antics they did recently so far as the alcohol referendum were pretty low) but in spite of that, what Oldfield and his cult are doing is a lot worse so far as glorifying Christ is concerned.
to be baptized “without understanding that being baptized in the name of Christ is an act of faith which is essential to salvation” is to have “obeyed a mere human doctrine and not the doctrine of Christ,” defies the very “logic” that is so enamored with. It is beyond me as to how not understanding the full significance of a divine command suddenly changes it from a divine command into a human command. Likewise, it is beyond this me as to how not understanding the full significance of a divine command makes it any less an act of obedience when, upon seeing the command, one seeks to obey it.
To answer the question raised, in spite of the fact that some did not understand at the time of their baptism that one does not “leave the state of being lost and…enter the state of being saved” until he is baptized, However, this is true. You see, it is likewise true of anyone who is baptized out of a desire to obey the divine command to be baptized, regardless of the particular denominational environment that it may have occurred in; and regardless of his understanding as to what point salvation comes in relation to the act of baptism. After all, in an express statement of Scripture, we have a record of where our Lord himself said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” He didnt say he that believeth and understands baptism perfectly shall be saved.
Chris, I’m not sure I can quite label them as a cult, but do label them as ultra-hyper-conservatives. For every 1 person they gain, they push away hundreds with their attitudes and cockiness. I don’t know why they find it so needful to act out as they do, but they seem to feed off of it, as if they enjoy making people mad. I don’t know why they can’t take the bible and preach it as they see it and understand it, but with a loving spirit.
Thanks, Chris, for pointing out Mitch’s new video. Watching it raised a very important question in my mind.
What is it with these guys and the cowboy hats? Is there some random New Testament passage of which I am not aware that commands all church of Christ preacher/teacher/evangelist/TV hosts (whatever) to where Texas attire? Or is that just from the book of Robertson?
My opinion is that they have a secret reward system (ala Scientology) for those who reach a certain level of Bible Knowledge©.
The Hyperconservative “church of Christ” Bible Knowledge© Texas Attire Reward System
Level 1 – a button-up shirt, and you receive this for debating a Jehovah’s Witness or Mormon
Level 2 – a pair of Wranger or Levi jeans, and you receive this for debating a moderate Lutheran or Presbyterian
Level 3 – a bolo tie, and you get this for debating a Pentecostal
Level 4 – a pair of boots, and you get this for debating a Baptist Layperson
Level 5 – the hat, and you get this for debating a Baptist Pastor or Professor
Level 6 – a horse, for single-handedly debating a moderate Lutheran, a Pentecostal, a Baptist layperson, and a Baptist pastor or professor, and succeeding in getting them all to be re-baptized, all with one hand tied behind your back.
I wonder if James realizes that Martin Luther’s views were changed towards you are saved by grace through faith when he did a thourough study in the book of Romans.
“I have a baited question: Must one understand that Christ’s death was “for remission of sins” (Matthew 26:2 8) in order to be forgiven?”
Actually if they do, then anyone who is suffering from a Mental handicap would go to hell! Since they would not have the ability to reasonably understand the word and thus obey it’s commands. That sounds like justice to me!
Ops left off, NOT!
“Chris, I’m not sure I can quite label them as a cult”
I am not only sure that they can be labeled a cult, but at this point I don’t know how they can not be considered a cult!
There is stuff that I’m currently sitting on, that hasn’t been published yet, that I didn’t even have to go looking for. It came to me instead. Suffice it to say I’ve been investigating *everything*, making sure all the documentation is in order, all the ducks are in a row.
It’s going to raise more than a few eyebrows if/when it’s published. There are two things in particular that I keep thinking about regarding Johnny Robertson and his “Church of Christ” cult: one is downright laughable (so much so that I actively hunted down other sources who also verified this) and another that is nothing short of outright blasphemy of the worst kind.
I would like to see some of your views on that Obama is from the church of Christ and from what we have heard his preacher say which were pretty outrageous, and that Obama said that his preacher was his mentor. Do you think that someones religious views would have an affect on the decisions they will make for our country.
Wrong church of Christ. Obama is “United church of Christ” (big “c” or little “c”? I don’t know). They are far to the left of the far to the right bunch we discuss here.
There’s a wide variety of beliefs even among the United Church of Christ. In general they are “toward the left” of many other denominations, but I have met some who are quite conservative in their leanings.
And I know of one Catholic priest who believes that if Mary was always a virgin, that “Joseph was the greatest saint who ever lived.”
Not to mention an independent Baptist minister friend whose church accepts ALL modes of baptism, not just immersion. So long as a person is baptized per act of individual conscience, it doesn’t matter to them.
Just some of many reasons why I think that to insist that one’s denomination defines one’s spiritual state is, well… dumb.
“for every one person they gain”
gain to what?
i am reminded of a scripture and since i dont have my ref source here maybe someone will help .
something about making your convert a twofold child of hell.
lee
Obama was part of the United Church of Christ denomination-which is very different from the Church of Christ denomination.
Lee, I believe this is the verse you were referring to:
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.” ~Matthew 23:15
right you are…….
thanks. lee
LOL I found a youtube about the why the thief on the cross could not happen now.
Now, I have heard a great deal of things, but the first defense against the thief is that you are not hanging next to Jesus on the cross and because of that you can’t talk to him. So reading between the lines, I have no ability to talk to God anymore now that Jesus has gone to Heaven?
So I must ask, do CoC people talk to God through prayer? And does God ever answer you through the Holy Spirit or is it a one way communication?
Secondly, that Jesus was covering him because he could forgive sins. Now the question is, could he forgive a sin that had not happened yet? The answer would be no, since it does not exist. Now anyone who wants to allow themselves to be nailed to a cross, we can break your legs and see if you have kind and gentle thoughts about those who were breaking your legs. Go hit your thumb with a nail and see if you think kind thoughts! Now take that and multiply it by 100 as they would have broke the bones with a club, thus very painfully to speed their death!
Third Hebrews 9:15-17 was used to prove is actually proving the opposite, Jesus was dead, thus he was covered! Its as plain as the nose on your face if you actually look at it! This is just amazing that he would try and use a passage that justifies the argument for the thief to oppose it LOL!
Also he has no idea how long the thief suffered with this legs broken, SUFFERED after Christ’s DEATH!!!
Fourth to say he was baptized is simply a lie, there is nothing to prove either way except to say he was a thief, not an upstanding citizen, and also we have no idea how long he was in jail before. Sense he was stealing, even if he had known about the baptism he would have shown up only to steal. He did not turn from his sins, the argument that he was one of the multitude is defeated simply by looking at the results of his life, on a cross dieing for stealing! This is a weak argument, had he been baptized he would have turned from his sin life to live differently! Or does baptism have no power? 😉 You are reaching for straws because you know this weakens your position greatly! Most importantly you are stepping away from the Bible and speculating to defend yourselves, that in itself is a cause for concern since we are talking about what the Bible says!
Fifth, the thief knows Jesus by watching how he was acting on the cross, that in itself would lead someone to know he was a Holy Man.
Interestingly I don’t see Lord in the original Greek translation I have that is used in Luke 23:47 so I have to wonder why the KJV added it!
You have to remember the thief was near Jesus during the process and most likely heard what they were taunting him about, and that he was OUT OF OPTIONS! It was a small chance with Jesus vs no chance in hell! He had nothing to lose! So I guess someone could say they will give you a grand if you can show were the thief was baptized!
I can’t find part 4 where he was getting ready to go into Matthew.
I have to say this was the most entertaining thing I have seen so far and the easiest to shoot holes in!
Sorry after watching 3 of the four I’d say you are defeating yourselves in your own arguments.
1) You can’t talk to Jesus, answer I can pray.
2) Jesus was dead, the Thief was having his legs broken AFTER Jesus statement thus he was most likely in sin from the pain!
3) Hebrews 9:15-17 confirms it as Jesus was dead, thanks for making it easy for me by using the scripture needed!
4) There is nothing to say he was or was not baptized, thus this is a pointless guess from both sides! Multitudes does not mean all or even most people!
Don’t have the rest to answer!
come on …..anyone……..that
was right on the money.
george costanza: “well the jerk store called”……
i give……lee
Just saw video of the flyer “nailing.” I have a couple of questions.
1. Where is the BCV Biblical authority for these tent meetings?
2. Why do these guys dress like Texas Rangers wherever they go?
Also, Chris wrote “I’ve several problems with that church (I thought the antics they did recently so far as the alcohol referendum were pretty low) but in spite of that, what Oldfield and his cult are doing is a lot worse so far as glorifying Christ is concerned.”
– What alcohol referendum? It has always dumbfounded me as to how people can believe that ANY alcohol consumption is a sin. This is in spite of the fact that people drank wine throughout the entire Bible. Again, I have no problem with people not wanting to drink alcohol for one reason or another, but this an issue that is just absurd. I have even heard a few people make the argument that the wine in the Bible was actually grape juice. Yes, grape juice. Has anyone else ever come across this?
“What alcohol referendum? It has always dumbfounded me as to how people can believe that ANY alcohol consumption is a sin.”
Mayodan had a mixed-drink referendum during last month’s election and West Side Baptist fought it with some pretty wacky/very underhanded antics. One of them was a flyer that the church was distributing throughout the community, making all kinds of ridiculous claims about alcohol.
In this case West Side Baptist was doing much like what the “Church of Christ” cult does on a regular basis: preaching against something, just for sake of preaching against something. It was very reactionary and did nothing to demonstrate Christian love or grace.
But whatever can be said about Paul Sisk and West Side Baptist, they’ve got NOTHING on Robertson, Oldfield and the other “Church of Christ” cultists.
katherine,
may need your help again.
while the bible may not say it is wrong to drink alcohol. it does have a few warnings. scripture says not to look on wine when it turns itself {fermantation}.
also it speaks of how a man finds himself bruised the next morning with no idea how it happened.
lee
Johnny and crew show more that they are like the Pharisees that tried to argue with and defeat and destroy the disciples and for preaching the gospel.
Lee,
I wholeheartedly agree that the Bible warns of excessive alcohol consumption in numerous places. Such consumption can lead to all types of “bruised mornings” for sure. (Just curious as to what verse you are referring to here?)
On the other hand, wine drinking and wine making was and still is a part of life in the Mediterranean. There are references to wine drinking throughout both testaments. Some are references in narrative form (such as the Jesus’ miracles, and traditional Jesus Passovers and Early Christian Lord’s Suppers. Some verses in the Old Testament reference wine drinking in a positive light.
Something else to note is that wine fermentation is a natural process. Stopping this process was not perfected until Dr. Welch was able accomplish this in the 19th cen. When he did, it caused a backlash among many Christian groups that he was changing the Lord’s Supper by adding non-alcoholic juice. Funny how things can come full circle sometimes.
The Pharisees didn’t like when the disciples were teaching the word of God to people, the disciples looked at the laws as God wanted not like the Pharisees wanted them to and the Pharisees did not like that. See Johnny and crew argue with people and want to defeat and destroy people just like the Pharisees did to the disciples. To be in that kind of mindset is not the way to be to show you are a follower of Christ.
Why do these guys dress like Texas Rangers wherever they go?
– James and Johnny are from Texas…thats why they sport the hats. But, do all people in Texas wear them hats?? Maybe they want to standout or something.
sorry no ref source here with me.
but its in there. help kat
– James and Johnny are from Texas…thats why they sport the hats. But, do all people in Texas wear them hats?? Maybe they want to standout or something.
– Ha, I didn’t know they were from Texas. That is my home state. I am sitting in Houston as we speak. Not everyone wears that kind of stuff all the time, but some do. At least they are not total imposters. I wonder where they are from?
I was in Texas not long ago, stayed with friends in Austin and wound up going all over San Antonio and then as far as Waco. I saw probably two people the entire time that dressed like that.
On June 26, 2008 at 1:20 pm DMH Said:
I have even heard a few people make the argument that the wine in the Bible was actually grape juice. Yes, grape juice. Has anyone else ever come across this?
Yes, I remember being taught that as a young teenager in the c of c. This myth must have circulated among c of c circles in the 1960’s. It is part of the mental gymnastics that one must go through to make everything fit into this narrow way of belief. You guys probably will not agree with this, but I do jump on my heritage a lot about this mindset, but I think some Baptists (as with the alcohol example) can be just as close-minded as the c of c. I believe its this fundamental, literal reading of the Bible that gets us into trouble because once you go down that path, it will be taken too far. Case in point is the one-cup c of c. They use one cup, because Jesus said take “this cup”, he didn’t say cups.
Close minded legalist are to be found in every denomination, non-denomination, unannounched denominations and in-denial denominations (did I cover everybody? :).
in regards to the cowboy hats..at least you will know its them coming when you see the hat..might give you a “heads up”!!
“I was in Texas not long ago, stayed with friends in Austin and wound up going all over San Antonio and then as far as Waco. I saw probably two people the entire time that dressed like that.”
Austin is probably my favorite city in the country. Fun place, good music, beautiful surrounding area. I doubt if you would see ANYONE dressed like that around there. Houston has a few like that from time to time, a lot during rodeo season. However, real cowboys in West Texas and other rural areas DO NOT wear any of the fancy stuff. Their hats and boots look like something that had been drug behind a truck for about two years.
BTW what were you doing in Austin? Did you like it?
“It is part of the mental gymnastics that one must go through to make everything fit into this narrow way of belief.”
Yep, once you start buying into stuff like that, everything else becomes pretty easy. Of course, like Rick said, the COC is far from the only denomination that has these types of issues.
Austin is a great place. You are so right, really good music. It is saying alot that Austin (in Texas) is a great town if you live in Norman (Ok) like me. You guys ever heard of the “Red River Wars”?
Regarding Johnny and co. cowboy hats, I hope they are white, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to distinguish them from the bad guys!!
What color hat would a wolf in sheep’s clothing wear? hmmmmmm.
PROVERBS23:29
thats it. now for me drinking is wrong.
if its not for you, ok with me.
hast thou faith? have it to thyself and before god.
amen?
lee
“However, real cowboys in West Texas and other rural areas DO NOT wear any of the fancy stuff.”
– Most people don’t know this, but Johnny isn’t into “the fancy stuff” I give him much credit where its due. He doesn’t waste his money on fine clothing. Matter of fact he buys his suits at the goodwill and pays around 12 bucks for them. He has given cars away to people, and he gave up the rich lifestyle long ago. Johnny had the BEAMER type of cars at one time, two of them, but gave them up to commit to a sacrificed life. He and his wife lived oversea for years, they even lived in a shipping container. I know we can see his attitude and be fast to judge his whole being, but the man has another side that most never see.
I was visiting Texas for the first time in my life, ‘cuz after trying for a number of years I finally got to attend Butt-Numb-A-Thon, the annual 24-hour long film festival at the Alamo Drafthouse in downtown Austin.
Here’s my report about it:
http://theknightshift.blogspot.com/2007/12/full-report-on-butt-numb-thon-9-first.html
Austin is a great town!! I want to go back there sometime. And San Antonio and Waco were pretty good too. In Waco I bought some of that local-style Dr. Pepper and had my brother-in-law smuggle it back to Georgia, where I picked it up during Christmas. Sorta like Smokey and the Bandit 😛
Butt-Numb-A-Thon…rofl..sounds like some services I have been in…not conducted mind you..been in attendance of…
“at the Alamo Drafthouse in downtown Austin.”
Been there too. Its awesome.
Faithful2
– I did not know that. I give him credit were credit is do too. Although, I do not think there is anything wrong with having nice stuff on its face. When I was referring to “fancy stuff” I meant the crisp type hats and bolo ties. Not price, more appearance. Real cowboys do not usually wear that kind of gear. Just wanted to clarify.
As a born and raised Texan, I have to chime in…
No, most people do not dress like that here-yes you will see cowboy boots, hats, etc here and there. I grew up in the metroplex and lived in west TX for 10 years, and even there-it is not that common. We don’t even all have accents! I wonder if Johnny and his crew were run out of TX 😉
Yes, Gail that is saying a LOT!! Hook ’em horns!! 😉
Chris, Dublin DP is the sweet nectar of Texas-oh so wonderful!
Thank you for sharing that, “faithful2”-I have seen him come on here seemingly bragging about all of that-but it is nice to hear that there is another side to him-I just wish he would show it to the rest of us sometime.
I agree, it’s nothing wrong with having nice things, but I think it paints a good picture when a preacher doesn’t live the “Hollywood” life, like Ken. Copeland and others, having jets and million dollar homes, while that money could help a bunch of poor people. I disagree with Johnny on points of doctrine, but I commend him for living a life that is sacrificial. I think we have really made things here ( on this blog ) into an “anti-Johnny” thing when our focus should be doctrine/bible. We don’t like Johnny jumping on the local preachers, but we sure seem to enjoy kicking on him a bit.
seen his front,not interested in seeing his backside.
lee
what happened? i thought i was on the anti johnny site.
my bad
Faithful2,
I agree completely.
“Chris, Dublin DP is the sweet nectar of Texas-oh so wonderful!”
Katherine, Dublin DP is just further proof that Texas is clearly God’s favorite state.
I am not “anti-Johnny”, but I AM against his behavior, how he treats and views people, especially when he tries to attach Jesus’ name on it-more than I disagree with his doctrine (though I disagree with it, too). There are many people I disagree with doctrinally, but I am not “against” them-it is when people act as Johnny does attacking and slandering “in the name of Jesus” that I cannot condone whatsoever and feel the need to speak against that behavior. He and his gang have revealed their agenda, and how they will stand against anyone who gets in their way or will not jump completely on board (even those who agree with them doctrinally but choose not to attack or judge others) and that is what I find despicable and wrong.
I commend anyone who lives a sacrificial life, but also think it should not be something to flaunt but lived out humbly.
“Katherine, Dublin DP is just further proof that Texas is clearly God’s favorite state.”
AMEN!! 😉
On June 26, 2008 at 3:09 pm lee Said:
what happened? i thought i was on the anti johnny site.
my bad
– maybe at times it has become that, but I don’t think Nathans goal was/is to be “anit-Johnny” or make a chat room for those who wish to slam on Johnny. I disagree with Johnny on doctrinal points, but far as he goes, I happen to like him, maybe not some of his ways, but that stuff has just sidetracked us from biblical issues.
I agree with you Katherine, trust me, I know far better than anyone here about being attacked by him and his crew, but I have to forgive and forget and not allow myself to become the same towards him
By Johnnys own actions he displays to most people I can’t help but wonder if these good deeds really come from good intentions. Or does he think that by doing these works is his ticket to heaven. Or maybe he does them to try to make himself look good. I hope he does them because it comes from his heart to. And he shouldn’t bash people who do have nice things, just because someone has nice things doesn’t mean they haven’t sacrificed something else in their life.
“By Johnnys own actions he displays to most people I can’t help but wonder if these good deeds really come from good intentions. Or does he think that by doing these works is his ticket to heaven. Or maybe he does them to try to make himself look good.”
Sadly, I have wondered the very same thing.
There was once a man, a long time ago, who went all over the town he was living in doing good things like helping people with the rent on their land, even giving cars to some. One day he bought brand-new pews for one of the most prominent churches in town.
And then not long afterward he murdered a man. He had already been thought guilty for killing three others. The fourth is what did him in. He died in the gas chamber. People couldn’t believe that “such a nice man” could have had such a thing in his heart.
There was also, once upon a time, an up-and-coming politician who visited a church. From his chest pocket he produced a small Bible, said he was a Christian and the nice church ladies that that “this wonderful Christian man deserves to be our leader and we’ll support him!”
The man? Adolf Hitler.
It’s not the outward things that justify us. But rather the heart on the inside, that the outward things will spring naturally from (I think this is the point of the Book of James).
Because in the end, God knows about our heart… and others will come to see it for what it really is, too.
I think John tipped his hand when he made excuses about a forum debate request that was made. 😉
id like to teach the world to sing……
since im in hugs and kisses dept,
i want to say that all of this respect for john
is making me light headed. i dont care what he gave up.
i only care what he is doing now. he dosent represent jesus.{read into that please.} and i dont fall for all this other side of the man bologna. wake up folks, hes against you, respect him or not. and btw i dont.
lee
anyone watching?
the southside two are on.
johnny apologized for his tone just now when i called.
the softer side of sears……….
lee
Yeah, Lee, I think that he has learned how to not be so snippy and snappy. Unfortunately, I think we inadvertently helped him by telling him to act more diplomatic. We should have told him that the whole belligerent thing was working, and that he should just get more and more belligerent!
What did you call in to say? Did you ask him for the $1000?
called back.
didnt want to apologize for saying that i couldnt prove my wife dosent cheat on me.
checkmate.
lee
He called you back? Or you called him back?
i just asked about the remission of sins.
he said old testament saints had their sins remitted.
i said they were only covered not remitted untill jesus death. back -forth .
as soon as the call was over he took a short break.
he said he talked to james and he felt he had used a poor tone with me. he apologised over and over and wanted me to call back.
after many well wishers called and told him how great he was for apologizing. i called back in and told him i wasnt offended, in fact compared to some of our other talks it was tame.
i then listened to him apologize again.
i then asked him if he would like to apologize for a remark he made off air months earlier.
i said that i would not say what the remark was because i didnt want to blindside him on air.
he said to go ahead anyway. i reminded him how he said i couldnt be sure my wife was faithful. this was in response to a question about division in the coc.
he refused to apologize.
it was amazing how both of their countanances went from stoeic humility to bewilderment. they ended the program on a down note. it was wonderful.
lee
I heard you lee. And I think Johnny may be using some of the things we say here too.
ok,
im fine with what ive said.
lee
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19″Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
20teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
Why are all the disciples going to hell? None of them appear to have followed baptism in the name of the father and the son and Holy Spirit! While this may be picking nits, still Mathew states plainly what to do.
Now since it was not followed, are not they and all they baptized not saved?
I reposted this for the CoC people to respond to, or anyone. Yes I am simply applying the literal treatment that others so easily do with other scripture. Based on the above statement Acts 2:38 should be considered not authorized since Christ did not say for remission of sins!
So did they really keep Jesus sayings? It appears that they did not!
How do you know that they were not baptized? It would seem they were, seeing Peter made the command to do so.
Lee , I’d be interested to know why you didn’t ask for the $1000 since you say you believe you have earned it?
well,
arent you going to get it for me?
seeing we are friends and all.
what do ya say faithless?
lee
“Katherine, Dublin DP is just further proof that Texas is clearly God’s favorite state.”
Well, it had to happen. I usually always agree with you Katherine, BUT, here I must correct you. Texas is NEXT DOOR to God’s favorite state. lol
last nite johnny used mark 1:5 to prove that the deciples had been baptized of john. although it dosent say the disciples were. now this is why he said they did not need to be baptized after jesus death.
if, for the sake of arguement that was true, then you would also have no choice but to conclude that ALL of judea and they of jerusalem were saved and baptized in johns baptism. since all means all there was no one in that area to preach the gospel to. they were already saved. so we now have maybe thousands of people who had no need to hear the gospel because of johns baptism.
dont think so………….
lee
I thought one of the arguments they make deals with the fact that Apollos was baptizing with John’s baptism, and that he was corrected by Pricilla and Aquila for that. Wouldn’t that nullify JR’s argument? Acts 18:18-28
Gail said:
“Well, it had to happen. I usually always agree with you Katherine, BUT, here I must correct you. Texas is NEXT DOOR to God’s favorite state. lol”
Oh…keep dreaming, Gail 😉
Actually, DMH is the one who originally said that-but of course I agree with him since I believe the truth 🙂
Lu 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.
“But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.”
It could be strongly argued that Luke means “baptized of HIM”, as in Christ. Meaning they have not been baptized by Christ, as opposed to physical baptism by water.
Just a thought 🙂
Could it be that NO ONE person has a complete understanding of all the Scripture’s teachings, symbolism and message? In the end, perhaps it all boils down to the question: what do you do with Jesus?
“Acts 15:6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them…..
I’m curious, this strikes me as strange, why would the council have to meet over this issue? Peter had stood up and answered the question on “What they must do” alone without council, why does he need to be in council now over this issue?
Strange, very strange, especially with the Holy Spirit being present to reveal all things! Any idea’s?
circumcision is the issue btw.
“Could it be that NO ONE person has a complete understanding of all the Scripture’s teachings, symbolism and message? In the end, perhaps it all boils down to the question: what do you do with Jesus?”
Absolutely, Rick.
In fact, I don’t WANT to understand everything about scripture! And I don’t believe that anyone can possibly claim to have total comprehension of scripture, either.
Jesus Christ is someone so infinite and wonderful, that John the Apostle even said that if all the things He had done filled all the books in the world, it would still not be enough.
You know what indicates to me more than most anything else why the local “Church of Christ” is not of Christ at all?
It’s that they are spiritually stagnant.
To follow Christ means a never-ending changing and transformation like unto Him, and that is not something that any of us can boast that we have done in this earthly life.
The “Church of Christ” as represented by Robertson, Oldfield, Fields, and others is a spiritual dead-end. There is no growth possible per their doctrine.
They fight tooth and nail to win converts to “their side” and then they have to fight equally hard to keep them under control. EVERYTHING they do runs absolutely against what it means to earnestly follow Christ.
They have placed themselves in the position of Christ and personal conscience.
In the end they are compelled by a very limited vision and not a limitless God.
Rick said:
“Could it be that NO ONE person has a complete understanding of all the Scripture’s teachings, symbolism and message? In the end, perhaps it all boils down to the question: what do you do with Jesus?”
Absolutely, Rick-that is the important thing. ANYONE who ever thinks they have “arrived” is deceiving themselves and has missed the purpose of being a disciple of Christ. We are to be Jesus TO people, not go tell everyone we have it all figured out and if they do not do exactly as we say based on our interpretation then they are doomed to hell. It is not even our job to condemn, and I certainly do not want it anyway-Jesus and the Bible are not weapons, they are gifts to be shared with His people.
Yes, there are things that are absolute and that we can KNOW, but much of the rest is where faith comes in. We continue to grow in our relationship with Christ, learning on this journey and seeking His will-looking for opportunities to serve and love His people.
Lee do you thnk the apostles were hypocrites?
faithless,
are you trying to be nice?
or are you trying to be crafty?
let me know so i can decide how to answer you.
your friend always,
lee
On June 27, 2008 at 1:32 pm walkinlove Said:
“Acts 15:6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them…..
I’m curious, this strikes me as strange, why would the council have to meet over this issue? Peter had stood up and answered the question on “What they must do” alone without council, why does he need to be in council now over this issue?
Strange, very strange, especially with the Holy Spirit being present to reveal all things! Any idea’s?
– I have noticed that “walkinginlove” has brought up several questions on this blog that seem to be overlooked, ignored, or maybe we just can’t answer the questions. He makes a good point above, seeing Peter had the Holy Spirit being present to reveal him all things! Faithful, maybe you would like to take at stab at walkinginlove’s questions…or at least address this one.
“On June 28, 2008 at 6:29 am lee Said:
faithless,
are you trying to be nice?
or are you trying to be crafty?
let me know so i can decide how to answer you.
your friend always,
lee
How about just answering truthfully what you think. You ask a bible question , I’m showing you the truth
“You ask a bible question , I’m showing you the truth”
faithful,
Do you believe that you have complete and total understanding of the Bible, and that there is nothing more for you to learn from it?
“faithful” you have to yet to answer a question I have asked many times.
Isn’t it funny how Johnny and those who choose to follow Johnny and his non-christian behavior, they don’t care to show or probably even look at the things in the bible that God tells us and Jesus spoke to us, maybe because they don’t think is important, or maybe because it can show that they just may be wrong.
Luke 18: 9.To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable:
10.”Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
11.The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men–robbers, evildoers, adulterers–or even like this tax collector.
12.I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13.”But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14.”I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Luke 18:13.”But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
Just curious..could that be a “sinner’s prayer”?
Seems to me that Johnny and crew don’t look at the parts in the bible that don’t suit them. Maybe they are okay with only parts of truth not the whole truth, and the parts of truth they look at they twist to suit themselves.
Rick,
Lee has brought that passage up many times, but of course they deny that it is a version of a “sinner’s prayer”.
But let’s break it down:
Is the tax collector a sinner? Check.
Is he praying? Check.
Is the essence of the popular “sinner’s prayer” asking God to have mercy on us because we recognize that we are sinners? Check.
WIll the hypercons live up to their word and give Lee $1000 for showing this? Nope.
guess ill have to eat beans and taters since i aint gitten no money or apology.
also the post about johns refusal to apologize must have
went over everyones head. he was dumbfounded and it was beautiful.
lee
Too bad you can’t read the challange any beter thaqn you can your bible . IT’s an alein sinner !
Jews were not alein sinners
It is obvious the cofC hypercons only show certain parts of the bible and leave other parts out. Wouldn’t you think that when someone is teaching Gods word they should be teaching all of Gods word. They say they teach what the bible says, but they try to avoid certain parts because it doesn’t fit into their agenda. I don’t think that is what God wants people to do with His word, we should want to learn all of the bible and want to show others all of the awesome things that are told to us in the bible.
I think you mean “alien”…
“faithful”, why is it you continue to avoid my question? It has been weeks now.
Amen, Truth-AMEN.
“alien sinner”?
Could you provide me with the BCV where the term “alien sinner” is found in Scripture?
Ephesians 2:12 says, “That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.” Do you see the words “alien sinner” in that passage?
And the implication of your comment is that Jewish people can say, “God, have mercy on me, a sinner” and it will save them, but not Gentiles. Can you provide the Scriptural evidence for such a comment?
Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
I quoted that passage to you, faithful. Again, my question was, do you see the words “alien sinners” in that passage?
Where in the NT do you find that term?
Yes, I know that Lee has brought up the publican sinner’s prayer several times. I was striving to see if another posting by someone else would get a different response.. but atlas…gee whiz.
Wasn’t trying to steal Lee’s $1000 reward..really hate to see him eating beans all the time!
“faithful” I am starting to think you are blatantly ignoring me…
Rick, are you going to trot that verse out out the sinners prayer that you teach? If you do you will be the first baptist preacher I’ve seen do it and not have to go back and retract thier statement
Answering , God expects us to use common scense. Sorry you are having trouble with that. Maybe Rick will help you all on this since he is the one actually telling people to say what’s not in the bible on aq regular basis
Common sense… great idea!
Like saying that since the Lord doesn’t command the observation of the Lord’s Supper each first day of the week, that common sense would mean that we are not sinning if we don’t observe it each first day of the week?
Or, saying that since musical instruments in worship were approved by God in the OT, and we are told that musical instruments will be used in worship in heaven, and since God never commanded that his followers stop using them, that we common sense would tell us that musical instruments in worship are fine for those living in the in-between time?
Great idea, faithful. Common sense. Whodathunkit?
Come’ on now Nathan, you now Jesus “specifically implied” that one must treat the Lords Supper as the Jews done the Sabbath and that we are to observe this each Sunday, or risk being sent to hell; and you know Jesus also implied that he hated music in the Church, seeing Paul said to sing… so we should assume now Jesus hates music in our church building………wait a minute, you’re right, Jesus never said this, nor implied this, we assumed it….can we bind laws upon people based upon assumptions and opinions?? nope !
Just for sake of full disclosure – that last comment was not made by JR. He always signs his name.
Question: Aren’t we all sinners? Whether a saved sinner or an unsaved sinner, aren’t we all sinners?
Thx for making that clear. But, for the record, I do hold to many of the teachings that JR and company proclaim. For instance, whats so wrong with confronting those we think to be teaching error. I see all of the time preachers selling anointed prayer cloths and even one lady selling gallons of Holy Water. Men like JR expose these types and make us look closer at scripture. The Benny Hinns, Charles Capps, Kenneth Copelands, and a host of countless others are all giving the Church a bad name and they should be called out. Can I ride my Harley inside of your church building?? I have seen Kenneth Copeland sport his in Church and come to think about it, didn’t Jackie Poe here do this as well. Just how far will we allow this sort of behavior to progress before we say something. If more people were like Johnny, some of this nonsense would stop. Am I pro-Johnny, on this YES ! Johnny isn’t the only person who does this. R.C Sproll ( Calvinist ), John Macarthur ( Grace to you Church ), Phil Arms ( Baptist TV Preacher ), and many others also call out people like this. I have watched debates and read books where they name these very men I just named, are they right and Johnny wrong?
Note: I may call out the men above, but in the end I am not their Judge. Man like Copeland, Capps, Hinn seem to be obsessed with money and seem to be preaching things not biblical and I will call them out on them things, but I will not be their judge, but I can be a fruit inspector and the fruit I see is rotten to the core.
And Rick, we are not sinners if we have Christ. We may sin, but we are not sinners of the devil, but Saints as Paul called us, Saints who slip sometimes, but God Forbid we live in sin
I don’t have a problem with exposing people who are dishonestly taking advantage of people for personal gain. Who was the guy who did the prayer handkerchiefs? Didn’t he get busted a few years ago? I didn’t shed a tear over that, because he was so obviously a shuckster.
However, our local hypercons don’t just expose people taking advantage of people, they have this mandate to “expose” denominations, to “expose” Christians for having a different doctrine (see James Oldfield’s video we linked to here a while back – where he is using his “up-the-nose-cam” to confront a pastor down in Greensboro for having musical instruments in worship).
As far as Jackie Poe goes, I don’t know the man, never watched him on TV, never visited his church. But I do approve of the motorcycle ministry, whatever they call it, because that is just a tool – or an aid (don’t hyperconservative churches of Christ approve of the “aids” in worship?) – in helping to lead bikers to Christ. What did Paul say in 1 Cor 9? “I become all things to all people”? Why not a biker?
If you sin doesn’t that make you a sinner?
Im not sure what a motorcycle ministry is, but my point was they road the bikes into the Church building, it is a sin, I dont think so, but once you open the doors for this, you only invite more. I like bikes, love bikers too. Its one thing to do as 1 Cor. 9 says and another to “show off”. Pride comes beofer the fall too. Anyways, nuff bout that.
True about pride, but anyone can struggle with that. Even the songleader at a church of Christ assembly with pitchpipe in hand. I think it’s one of those things that all Christians need to be on guard about.
On June 30, 2008 at 11:13 am Rick Said:
If you sin doesn’t that make you a sinner?
– Paul, when writting his letter, addressed them as Saints, not “sinners saved by grave” or as sinner. If sinning makes one a sinner, then all are sinners as you pointed out. But, surely you know the bible well enough to know one is declared a Saint due to faith in Christ. 1 John 1:9 tells the “Saint” or as John says brethern what to do when we sin, we confess our sins and He is faithful to forgive us. Calling ourselves sinners is an insult to the blood of Christ who covered our sins…took them away !
Very good. Passing grade today.
Let me ask you a question Rick: Did God free us from the law, and if so, in what regards? Are we free to sin, is there a lawless grace? The reason I ask is because I know people who think that they aren’t under law after they are saved, as if the law of God means nothing. The law was/is indeed the schoolmaster, showing us how we can not live up to its requirements to merit justification with God, but once we are saved, are we to abandon Gods laws or live after them? I know people who think once they are saved they can live like hell and go to heaven, as if God set them free in Christ to sin. I have heard sermons on Law vs. Grace as if they are at odds with each other, when Grace will strive to obey the law of God. This bring me to my point; what is the difference between a legalist and Child of God , who desires to obey Gods law??
Maybe a good sermon would be Antinomianism vs. legalism, something I plan to address in the future at whatdoesthebiblesay.wordpress.com ( hope Johnny doesn’t mind me stealing that title )
Well, his title should really be “What does Johnny say”. I think the title on your blog fits what you are saying more than it fits what he does-so carry on! 😉
When one calls a Church of Christ person a legalist, the Church of Christ person most always comes back and says you are Antinomian. What they fail to understand is that we are not saying they are legalist if they desire to obey God, but we call someone a legalist who takes their assumptions or inferences and binds them as law upon others, and that my friend is legalism. My biggest fear is that many Church of Christ leaders and members have done just as the Galatians, not trusting Christ, but taking their assumptions, opinions, and inferences, making them laws. And to disobey what they have deemed law from what they infer, is to them sin. I fear they have fallen from a Gospel of Grace to a Gospel of meritorious works. Okay, having said that, I also fear that the Antinomian has regarded Gods law as meaningless. After all, Christ fulfilled the law; now they assume, and infer, that they have freedom in Christ, to such a degree that they live a life as they wish, which is only reckless faith, and they too have fallen from the Gospel of Grace to a Gospel of lawlessness.
Jesus said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” Matthew 22. 37-40
Looks to me like God expects us to honor His law.
Grace isn’t a “skip jail” card that gives us license to sin without consequences.
Anyone who views my latest post at whatdoesthebiblesay.wordpress.com please have an open mind when viewing the picture. I mean no harm at all with the picture, but only am trying to make people think.
“On June 28, 2008 at 10:16 am faithful2 Said:
On June 27, 2008 at 1:32 pm walkinlove Said:
“Acts 15:6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them…..
I’m curious, this strikes me as strange, why would the council have to meet over this issue? Peter had stood up and answered the question on “What they must do” alone without council, why does he need to be in council now over this issue?
Strange, very strange, especially with the Holy Spirit being present to reveal all things! Any idea’s?
– I have noticed that “walkinginlove” has brought up several questions on this blog that seem to be overlooked, ignored, or maybe we just can’t answer the questions. He makes a good point above, seeing Peter had the Holy Spirit being present to reveal him all things! Faithful, maybe you would like to take at stab at walkinginlove’s questions…or at least address this one.”
As Eeyore would say, thanks for notice’n! And I assume that because nobody answered it, because there is no clear answer. Still it is curious as to how Acts 2:38 comes about compared to this decision.
Right-just read Romans!
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 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.
“What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?” ~Romans 6:1-4; 15-16
I love that phrase “By no means!” We cannot just live under grace expecting it to cover everything we do that is not within God’s will, but we also do not need to lean to the other extreme of thinking that following “law” will
There has to be a middle ground. Ultimately, what I see from the Bible as how we should live is this: We follow God and obey Him because we love Him and He loves us-not because we expect that it will save us. We still live in His grace, His mercy, His love, and freedom that is found in Him. We remain faithful to Him out of that same love-trying to do His will and love those around us-with a desire to share the Good News with the world because of the hope we find in God and His message.
Oops…this is an unfinished sentence
We cannot just live under grace expecting it to cover everything we do that is not within God’s will, but we also do not need to lean to the other extreme of thinking that following “law” will…save us or that the laws me make are commands from God when they are from men.
Well, “faithful” has continued to ignore my questions, and now has banned me from commenting on his video.
Am I getting too close to the truth? Now, TRY telling me you guys have no agenda OF YOUR OWN-you have already proved that you most definitely do.
“faithful”, let me try asking you again:
Who are you are more faithful to? God or Johnny?
To “studyjesus”, “faithful”, Mitch…or whatever your name is…if you are going to put a public video out there, you should be able to handle the comments and responses.
This really does prove that you have an agenda, and are not really trying to bring people to Christ. You shut down an atheist who was asking you questions, made fun of him, and would not even engage in a conversation. All you were about was trying to make yourself look better and smarter. He didn’t believe in God before-I bet he certainly does not believe in him now. Great job.
This is the kind of crap I get frustrated with-the hypocrisy, elitism, and egotism that comes with their “brand” of Christianity, that isn’t really Christianity at all…because it simply isn’t really about Christ-it is all about them.
Youre right Katherine, faithful dont have the answers without asking Johnny. He cant reply right now though, he is at their tent meeting for two weeks.
Here is something for faithful to chew on:
Acts 2:46a says:
Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. This is an explicitly stated example with apostolic approval. These Christians assembled every day in the temple courts. Yet few if any churches of Christ today consider this practice binding on the modern day church. Maybe I should infer that we do this and bind this as law on others…or maybe I should just pick and chose what I like…such as Acts 20:7…
Exactly Katherine, in their own righteousness they turn people away from Christ when christians are suppose to be trying to bring people to Christ. Johnny and his followers try to belittle other people, they boast in their own self righteousness, and certainly don’t show the love of Christ to other people. When others see people that behave like this and call themselves christians that’s what turns them away. Johnny and followers don’t show or do what it says in the bible. They show and do the things they have made up in their minds to be their truth not the truth the bible talks about. This is what this blog is about, it is to show other people that christians don’t act the way Johnny and followers do, that God tells us in the bible the way christians should live and treat others. People who are lost need to see the love and mercy of Jesus in us. The people Johnny and crew think are lost which is everyone but them, they think it’s better to try to embarrass them, to speak disrespectfully to them, and to try to defeat and destroy them. Actually when you look at it Johnny and followers are embarrassing themselves, and give a good example of how a christian should not be or treat others, and they certainly do not show themselves as people who have Christ living in them.
Johnny and his followers take joy in trying to destroy other peoples lives. Jesus told us to love one another, Johnny and his followers try to belittle and speak with disrespect to those that don’t agree with them. God told us to try to find common ground in order to be able to show the truth in His word. Johnny and his followers judge and condemn others, God told us not to condemn others that we should look at ourselves before judging others, and Jesus told us that those who have not sinned cast the first stone. Seems that’s all Johnny and his followers do is cast stones upon others to take pleasure in thinking it makes them righteous. I think Gods way is better than Johnnys.
No time for Katherine
Translation: no answer for Katherine, and don’t want to admit it.
And what’s this about Katherine being banned from commenting on a video?
I don’t know a great deal about them, but enough to know that they aren’t tight enough on the sin issue. Most of them in this movement shy away from questions about sin as did Osteen when interviewed by Barbara Walters. Why change the church? Why come up with ways to make it more appealing? Why not just preach the word as did Paul and others, and they sure as heck didn’t pussy-foot around the sin issues. I am very concerned about these types of movements; its like if I’m not satisfied with how church is, I will just spice it up my own way and/or water down the message – God forbid I hurt someone’s feelings. I understand that approach can be key to someone receiving the word, but at the same time, I also must be honest with the total message and call sin what it is…I totally disagree with Joel Osteen and men of his kind, who just preach the positive side….its a dang good way to sell books and have a huge congregation and sure will make the pockets fat too, but its an empty message if not preached from both sides. All they are doing is pulling in masses with easy believism and that to me is scary.
Dude, this stuff is just another road to Rome and New age. They had a prayer station created for use during the Emerging Church service at Capo Beach Calvary allowing the congregation to “feel” and “know with the heart and not with the brain.” The prayer station complete with candles, incense and icons featured an instruction sheet to assist church attendees in how to pray with an icon. The instructions stated:
• Draw in a slow deep breath. As you do pray, Holy Spirit surround me,
fill me, breathe life into me.
• Empty your mind of all anxiety.
• Empty your heart full of desire except for God.
• Focus on one icon and imagine what that person might say to you about God, yourself, and others
• Read the icons as if the person who painted it wanted to send a
message to you. Notice the details.
• The icon is there to remind you of God: to make you conscious of His
presence, all around you.
• Pray in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
(option) Cross yourself as you say these words.
Sin and how we deal with it and live without it has to be a want to and not a have to relationship. Make someone do something when they are resistant to it and they will eventually fail. Get them into a relationship with Christ where they see their debt and want to uphold the law and the walk becomes easier.
Secondly a babe in Christ has to be treated differently then a mature Christian. One can only handle milk the other should be able to handle the harder truth. Paul did not speak without wisdom as to what people could and could not handle.
By the book, a couple who attended service and were living together and not married would have to be given the boot. But give them enough time to see the truth of what God deems is best for them and let them build a relationship with Christ and they will marry because they see what is true and best. They have to be given the time and grace to grow enough to see that. Expecting a babe to run a marathon is a recipe for unneeded loss.
There has to be a balance between both the positive and the penalty for things. If you focus only on the penalty and a do it or else you are walking out of balance with Grace and Mercy, conversely if you walk only on Mercies side then people remain babes and of little good for the Kingdom.
Wisdom comes from knowing through the Holy Spirit when the best time to apply each to a situation. The danger is that you may be wrong or seen as wrong and that scares people. So it is easier to just pass judgment from on high and stay safe because as long as you are following the letter you have that to defend yourself with, but does it really follow the spirit? From what I have seen I would have to say NO!
“faithful” says: “No time for Katherine”
Nathan says:
sp”Translation: no answer for Katherine, and don’t want to admit it.
And what’s this about Katherine being banned from commenting on a video?”
Exactly, Nathan-the clone of Johnny strikes again-this was Johnny’s nice little “catch phrase” once when he came sweeping through…for the same reasons-they don’t want to answer me so they create this fun game/diversion to try and take us off their scent.
It just won’t work, and “faithful” since you did not answer, I am going to continue believing what I have believed all along: You are more “faithful” to Johnny than you are God. You are being led down a very bad road.
Oh, and here is the video:
I had commented several times, but amazingly all of my comments suddenly disappeared and the ones I sent yesterday never showed up? Hmmm…must’ve been hitting too close too home and the truth-they just couldn’t handle it?! 😉 Talk about control and agenda-there it is at its finest (ok, worst).
Comments like these you will find from “studyjesus” towards me from yesterday ALL because I don’t agree with Johnny and will not condemn others the same way:
I’ve been forgiven . You are the one living in sin.
You have departed from the faith and join in with doctrines of devils.
I think it’s because of people like you so there (when I said it is because of people like him that people are turned away from Christianity).
Did he guide you into being a sinner?
You don’t know either one (He apparentely thinks he has the right to tell me I don’t know God).
He has departed from the faith as have you…
Yes, now it looks like he is talking to himself 😉
It is a sick and twisted game you guys are playing, and God is no part of it.
I listened to the youtube video Katherine referred to above. You know the sad thing about those who call in and hear Johnny tell them that the Baptist Church is not in the Bible is that they seem to forget or mabye they just don’t know that EVERYONE who accepts Jesus as their Lord and Savior (including people who worship in a denominational church such as the churches of Christ and Baptist)are THE Church of Christ!! The Church of Christ Jesus are those who have been saved by the blood of the Lamb.
It is terribly deceiving of Johnny to imply that the churches of Christ are the only believers who make up the eternal spiritual Church of Christ.
I do not understand why those who call into Honnny’s show do not rebuke him for his deception.
lol.. in case you don’t know.. Honnny is the Latin for Johnny are something like that
A friend commented last night that the way Robertson and his ilk are treating it, that any thugs could swipe up the “Church of Christ” name and claim that THEY are the ones the Bible talks about. “It still doesn’t make them either a real church or of Christ”, my friend observed.
In that regard, Robertson and his cult are a lot like the Corleone Family in “The Godfather”: they hide behind their religion but they still do all these horrible things. Whatever their creed might be still doesn’t change their hearts.
Just so, it doesn’t matter what any group of believers call themselves, if they are seeking after Christ with a sincere desire for His sake, and not their own.
I’ve no doubt that Heaven will be populated by quite a few Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Presbyterians, and maybe even a few of the real Churches of Christ.
By that point, will anyone really care what denomination they were part of on Earth?
Will even the term “Christian” have any meaning, for that matter?
For all his pomp and pageantry, Johnny Robertson shows that he is a foolish man, who is far too limited to see the truth of things. He cannot see past the conceptions and definitions of this world. So it is that in having no vision of his own, he is in full sway to diminish the vision of others.
You are right Chris. I imagine that on judgement day God is not going to ask what church did you attend but rather What did you do with Jesus?
Matthew 25:31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
That’s a convicting passage of Scripture, walkinlove.
yes, those passages are convicting. I “infer” from those that we all must or should be doing those things.
Remember me for good Neh 13:31
Rick , He already knoews what church you are in and what you’ve done with Jesus.
We know too that he will say one of two things
Mt 25:21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
Mt 25:23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
(KJV)
or
Lu 13:27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.
I know you are not use to talking with folks that actually know the bible , but you need to get use to not feeding us anything but bible
“By that point, will anyone really care what denomination they were part of on Earth?”
No Chris they will be too busy trying to put the fire out
Modern day Pharisees are so iritating at times.
Rick, Since you are use to folks eatting up your poison with out thought I’m sure this would be frustrating. Have you found the verse to show us the baptist church or the comment backing up Lee on the sinners prayer?
Yes, Rick…yes they are!!
“faithful” follower of Johnny, have you found the verse that gives you a reason to act like you do?
You are going to reap what you sow one day.
Rick said:
“I listened to the youtube video Katherine referred to above. You know the sad thing about those who call in and hear Johnny tell them that the Baptist Church is not in the Bible is that they seem to forget or mabye they just don’t know that EVERYONE who accepts Jesus as their Lord and Savior (including people who worship in a denominational church such as the churches of Christ and Baptist)are THE Church of Christ!! The Church of Christ Jesus are those who have been saved by the blood of the Lamb.
It is terribly deceiving of Johnny to imply that the churches of Christ are the only believers who make up the eternal spiritual Church of Christ.
I do not understand why those who call into Honnny’s show do not rebuke him for his deception.”
and…
“I imagine that on judgement day God is not going to ask what church did you attend but rather What did you do with Jesus?”
Amen, Rick-you speak the truth!
No time for Katherine…
faithful, you are acting very trollish. That’s not very civil.
Why do you not have time for me? Because I am speaking TRUTH??!!
Right, Nathan-and not very Christian-like either.
You obviously have time to come on here and say “no time for Katherine”, why do you not have time to answer Biblical questions?
1 Peter 3:15
By the way, why was I banned from commenting on the video?
just got off the phone with norm and his guest coc preacher. i asked them about acts 19:3 and how the baptism of john wasnt valid. i then asked how it was that the first disciples were not baptized for the remission of sin after jesus death,wouldnt that have been a good example for them to have done? at the very least for the weaker brothers. i also asked if nicodemis was a rightous man and they said he became one. i asked well why did jesus tell him he needed to be born again.all these people died after christ right? you know …the death of the testator.
norm said it was all in the timing. all of judea and some of jerusalem did not need to be saved then because of johns baptism. if its good for the 12 it must have been suffecient for them. amen?
lee
NTFK on either site
I tried to send this message privately, but faithful logs into the blog with a fake email address, and so it was sent back to me. Here is the message I tried to email to you, faithful:
faithful,
I’m sending you this second warning privately. Cut out the trolling. If you aren’t going to answer Katherine’s question, just tell her that. You don’t need to be rude with the “no time for Katherine” nonsense. If you do it again, you will be banned from the blog for two weeks.
Consider yourself warned.
Thank you,
Mr. Answer
Thank you, Mr. Answer 🙂
What say you, “faithful”?
Answering , first of all it’s not a fake email . You are lying. I set it up with hotmail specifivcally for this site. And two I didn’t know what you meant by trolling. You can tell her yourself that I have no intention of discussing with her , giving her time in any way, or responding to her since her goal is to be one that is inside of the church as a mole to undermine the church.
Lee, you were didn’t mention the fact that you were recognized as a dishonest caller on the show either . WHy?
faithful, I’m not lying. I sent an email to the email address you entered here, and this is what I got back:
“Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address.
noneyabusiness@hotmail.com:
Remote host said: 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable [RCPT_TO]”
Maybe you did set up an email address “specifivcally” for this site, but that one doesn’t work. If the addy above is wrong, and you give me the correct email address, I’ll make sure to send there next time.
And I mean exactly what I said by trolling. Rather than tell her what you just said, you kept coming back with your rude “no time for Katherine” response. That boat don’t float around here.
And if your attitude is that you don’t give any time to people who differ than you, and if that is what you have been taught by your hypercon bosses, then that’s just pretty sad. Of course, avoiding conversation is probably more constructive than seeking to “defeat” and “destroy” a person with whom you disagree. So kudos to you on that.
And by the way, considering that most people who discuss issues with you here at this blog disagree with you in some pretty substantial ways, I am surprised you give this blog any of your time at all.
So, it probably goes deeper than your “mole” suggestion. I’m guessing maybe Katherine scares you a bit because she makes so much sense, speaks calmly, rationally, and biblically, and perhaps makes you uncomfortable because she makes you think outside of the limited box in which you have put yourself.
Come out of the box, faithful! The view of God’s grace from out here is spectacular.
” EVERYONE who accepts Jesus as their Lord and Savior (including people who worship in a denominational church such as the churches of Christ and Baptist)are THE Church of Christ!! ”
Rick it seems that you should be able to demonstrate that through the scriptures very easily if that’s true. If you can why not come out of the darkness and silence the church once and for all through the most watched medium in the area , tv?
well faithless you have answered your own question havent you? i must be dishonest.
and btw what does that garbage mean anyway? any time your leaders think someone dosent want to become enlightened by them, then the caller must be dishonest.
if we are going to bring up dishonesty then we woulld be remiss if we didnt talk about cowboy johns lying on air.
“i love brian edwards”
now go take him a blankie since he is spending nights at the tent. he must be cold.
lee
“faithful” said:
“You can tell her yourself that I have no intention of discussing with her , giving her time in any way, or responding to her since her goal is to be one that is inside of the church as a mole to undermine the church.”
Well, I can read for myself thank you…and that is only what you have convinced yourself of because that is certainly not my intention-ha, and I am far from a “mole”. The only thing I am trying to be is a faithful disciple of Christ. My only goal is to share the love and grace of Christ with people so that they will come into a relationship with Him. I believe what you, Johnny, and the gang are doing are putting major obstacles and stumbling blocks in that path and require something God does not. I believe you preach a message of condemnation instead of a message of love-which is why Jesus came to this earth to die for us and save our sins. THAT is why I speak out against what you are saying, and ask you the questions you do. YOU are the one who refuses to answer who you are are more faithful to or what your real intentions are.
I know you don’t “like” what I say and that is why you do not want me posting the truth on your video site, nor would you like me to continuing posting here, but it doesn’t work that way 😉 But, truth remains truth-whether you want to accept it or not; and you cannot stop me from preaching it. You can choose not to engage me, but it only makes you look more foolish-but that is your choice.
Do come out of the box and the reign of Johnny, “faithful”-the view of God’s grace really is amazing!! 🙂
As Nathan said:
“So, it probably goes deeper than your “mole” suggestion. I’m guessing maybe Katherine scares you a bit because she makes so much sense, speaks calmly, rationally, and biblically, and perhaps makes you uncomfortable because she makes you think outside of the limited box in which you have put yourself.”
Thank you very much, Nathan-and you are so right on all accounts 😉
“If you can why not come out of the darkness and silence the church once and for all through the most watched medium in the area , tv?”
Pride goeth before the fall…
I think the last time I checked, the local TV station airs in two states – isnt the net worldwide, making it the largest feed of information.
“I think the last time I checked, the local TV station airs in two states – isnt the net worldwide, making it the largest feed of information.”
Not even in two states.
BARELY in two counties.
My parents live not far from Reidsville and the signal hardly comes in.
And depending on weather conditions, the broadcast sometimes doesn’t happen at all.
Heck, I once worked at that station and watched James Oldfield do a live show during one particularly humid day. He did his thing for an hour and all that ever went out on the air and cable was static.
So much money down the drain…
Romans 10 9-13
9″that if you confess with your mouth theLord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For ” whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
I think that is as clear as it can get.
Sorry bout typing errors trying to type too fast.
There are true christians within the body of Christ. It’s the people who make up the body of Christ not the building. Those who tell you that you are lost and are going to hell if you don’t go to their church or tell you that you are too imperfect for God or that it all comes down to the works you do or that you can’t have a relationship with God or that you are not saved if you are not baptized in their church their way or tell you even if you are baptized but you don’t speak in tonges you are not saved and as these people teach the bible they try to avoid certain parts in the bible, these things are what you look for in a man made church. But I believe that even at these churches there are some people who are diligently seeking God. Every denomination which, the cofC is a denomination, they all have the ones who are unhealthy to christianity because they twist Gods word. And when people see these kinds of things going on they may think all christians are like that or whichever denomination they see doing these things they may think all of that denomination is like that. And this is what turns people off about going to church and trying to come closer to God. Christians are suppose to show Christ living in them not try to show how righteous they are or go around as if God loves them more than He does other people. God created all of us, God loves all of us.
Whew, that is one long sentence-but all so true. Amen, again-do you have a site? You should definitely be writing if you are already not!
Thank you Katherine. But no I don’t have a site. I just try to say what the Lord leads me to say.
I have had thoughts now and then about writing something though. Some people may be amazed that I have faith after some of the things I have been through. But I think because of those things I went through that is what has made me have more faith, because I know that it was God that got me through them. And you know sometimes you don’t realize it until later that it is God that gets us through these things in life. I must say how grateful I am to God.
start ya a blog “Truth”
just noticed your clock is off an hour. It’s 1am US time and 2pm Thursday our time…well my time
Most definitely, Truth. We learn through our experiences, and often learn to rely to trust on God during those times-I am really learning that now. We can also teach others through our experiences and testimonies, and that is important.
I hope you do start a blog, I would love to read more! 🙂
It is 1:15 am central time here in TX-so the clock is right on here! 😉
Where are you, wdtbs?
“On July 2, 2008 at 11:55 am Chris Knight Said:
“If you can why not come out of the darkness and silence the church once and for all through the most watched medium in the area , tv?”
Pride goeth before the fall…”
Chris how is that pride? You don’t know that people watch tv more than other mediums? I didn’t invent tv. So exaxctly how is saying tv is the watched medium a pridefull statement? I’d love to know
On July 3, 2008 at 1:16 am Katherine Said:
It is 1:15 am central time here in TX-so the clock is right on here!
Where are you, wdtbs
– Im here. USA!
I was just messing with Nathan – just an inside joke.
“faithful”,
You are boasting of, and taking pride in, your power.
Something that has never impressed me, regardless of who the boast is from or how much “power” they possess.
You aren’t the first, you won’t be the last. But the end result will be no different… and no better… than that of anyone else.
“On July 1, 2008 at 3:48 pm rick Said:
Modern day Pharisees are so iritating at times.”
rick please understand where this can hurt you and anyone else who is offended by their methods. Offense is the bait of Satan. By them using it, they are revealing themselves clearly!
Tempting a weaker brother, and we are all weak somewhere, to sin is a dangerous game they are playing. Like I have said before, they lack the ability to understand what they really are doing is attacking God himself. But attacking the authority that God has ALLOWED into power they are thus attacking him. Because we know that all authority comes from God alone.
Saul of Texas, I pray will one day wake up to that truth before God has to explain it in person!
1 John 4:1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
2 Peter 2:1But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
Last time I checked the Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Church of Christ, TV evangelists and even Shirley’s group who are way off base, have not denied the Lord as sovereign. They may be doing things that are not supported or missing parts of the truth but they do not fill the last and biggest requirement of a false prophet and that is to denied Jesus.
And the bottom line, the last time I looked, the creator of all the universe that is so large we can’t even see the end of it with all our technology, still knows how to take care of people who exploit people through religion. He may not do it on our schedule but he does have the power and has shown in the past he can do it without our help!
“Saul of Texas”… I love it. 😉
well i know saul/paul……………..
and hes no saul.
[political ref] faithful
lee
walkinlove, It does say that false prophets “will not acknowledge that Jesus comes from God.” And it also says that there will be some false teachers “many will follow their shameful ways will bring the way of truth into disrepute.” So there are some that will deny Jesus but there are also some who will say they are speaking the truth but twist the truth in the name of Jesus which these are blasphemers. It is sad that people are exploiting other people in the name of religion and God in knowing everything knows these people and God is the One they will have to stand in judgement to.
Truth but also love has to believe the best. I actually believe that the radical CoC believe they are speaking the complete truth. That they are not false teachers though I can find things they are not doing according to the Bible. The same is true of everyone who follows after Jesus.
And I do believe there are the %1 who do not believe in Jesus but see it as a way to control and extract from others. Evil will always seek to do those things.
Frankly the RCoC would be more productive going after non-believers who have no idea on their own what the Bible does say and would more easily come to their points of view. So what they are doing is of less value from the stand point of growth and reputation.
While I consider it wrong from an Authority stand point and weak in some of the passages because of the verb tenses and other contradictory passages to what they believe, I do think they are seeking the truth.
They are playing a dangerous game with God’s laws on sowing and reaping, and judgment, but they are seeking after God and while I know they consider me an non-believer by their standards, I do consider them as believers because they do profess that belief.
Thus they are not false prophets by the standards I would look for. Blinded by their own judgments perhaps, but not false teachers.
But only God can judge a man’s heart, not I or you or even the CoC. Only God knows the real truth, we see only in part!
Make no mistake I strongly disagree with their methods!
“On July 3, 2008 at 12:02 pm lee Said:
well i know saul/paul……………..
and hes no saul.
[political ref] faithful
lee”
Actually Lee I can see many of the same traits in him as was in Saul. Devout to the 9th degree in his study and following what he sees as the new law and passion in his crusade to rid the world of what he sees as wrong teachings.
I’ve read more Bible in the last month and studied more Greek to raise my understandings because of his pressure on others of the faith. So he is actually strengthening other Churches because they will pull away the weak branches before they can rebel and do greater harm down the road in that Church. I have read more Bible and Theology in the past month after seeing this and other things about them to raise my understanding to prove to myself if what they believe is correct. And I have to say that I fall in the camp of Paul. I may honor Baptism just as Paul did but I believed and thus I was saved. Otherwise the trinity becomes 4 with water being the forth!
walkinlove, I see your point, I can agree to a degree. I don’t believe Johnny and people like him are seeking the truth that God wants, they seek the truth they want in order to meet their agenda. People who dismiss other christians and dismiss much of Gods word and the truth in His word are teaching falsely to people and they are very destructive to other people. And it does concern me for the unbelievers out there who may never come to Christ because they see the way Johnny and people like him act, and the methods they use is the message they teach.
An example is I had always wondered if the Thief was under the old or new covenant. I’ve studied what CoC says and how Jesus had the power to forgive sin while he was alive and how they believe that the new covenant was in place on Pentecost, however I read where Jesus has died and the Thief has his legs broken afterwards. Thus he most likely had a sinful thought or word for the soldiers clubbing his legs and he was taking forgiven sin to the grave because of it. Yet I can not prove he did sin, but based on my contact with pain, I have sinned because of it and I have to think he was still very much in the flesh.
They also argue that the thief who was saved was most likely a follower of Christ and that is why he was hung on the Cross for payment because he went back to the people he stole from to repay and was placed in jail. However I would argue that the thief who did not go to paradise was in knowledge of Jesus being the Christ and I would argue that he may have been a believer but because this was happening to him for his belief he was taunting Jesus because he no longer believed and paid for his sins in full.
Acts 2:38 if you read the issues that scholars bring up about the verb tenses makes it a decidedly weak passage to pass judgment on others as to be saved. While it looks good at face value because of how it was translated to read in the English version, it still should not be given a huge amount of weight because of the way the sentence could alternatively read in the Greek and given the focus of Paul on belief. Also according to Acts 2:38 you are baptized and then you receive the Holy Spirit according to Peter. Yet later on in Acts the gentile group received the Holt Spirit before they were baptized! The fun part is imagining the open mouthed faces of Peter and the Jews at this event. Not only did it happen before they were baptized, it happened to a non-jew, they must have been deer in the headlights on that one!
Ephesians 1:13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.
To make their beliefs work they have to convert believed to baptize. The seal of him is the Holy Spirit, not water baptism. If that is not true then the Holy Spirit could not have fallen on the Gentiles. Ah but that only happened as a sign that they could be baptized. That totally misses the point that they have the mark of his seal, and they are saved. Yes it is a sign but is also his seal! And while you may protest and alter belief in your own mind. When you believe you think it first, you may later act on it later but you think it first!
Also to get a full picture of the text you have to research the great commission and church history of the manuscripts from my understanding in talking to one pastor, you have to do this when you are studying to preach/teach the word as a calling. It has some interesting issues to them. Also you need to consider the personality traits of Peter and Paul when judging this issue. Frankly my beliefs have changed even more from baptism being essential to the salvation process because of this research.
Anyone interested in some on the resources I used I will email them if you give your email address to me. Just do not type it so the internet spiders and spammers can pick it up!
“On July 3, 2008 at 3:03 pm Truth Said:
walkinlove, I see your point, I can agree to a degree. I don’t believe Johnny and people like him are seeking the truth that God wants, they seek the truth they want in order to meet their agenda.”
Then we still agree in my book! 😉 And I see your point and you have to consider what God says about sowing and reaping. Because of those laws, they are caught in a trap of sorts that does not allow them to openly seek the truth anymore. They have condemned denominations but their own actions make them more and more like a denomination that takes only part of the truth.
The best example of the law of sowing and judgment is again an alcoholic parent who’s child makes a judgment of I will never marry someone who is an alcoholic. They grow up and have sown judgment by judging the parent. Thus they reap that judgment in one of three ways, they become the alcoholic, they marry one, or the person they marry becomes one, because of the judgment.
Much like the sins of the father being visited on future generations, so sowing and reaping judgment can cause you to become what you judge.
Thus because of God’s law that has been violated, they can not see anything but their own version of the truth and are a denomination to the highest degree.
Do you get where I am coming from Truth?
Also John’s personality when not under the laws effects are radically different. I watched him ready to go and baptize someone in the middle of the night to make sure they were saved. It was interesting to note the sudden change in personality because he was no longer driven by the laws effects! While one could argue, he was nice because they agreed with him and you would be right on the surface. But add sowing and reaping and judgment to the fix and its not all face value anymore.
When you become uncorrectable, and unwilling to openly consider the truth from another, you are in effect no longer working out your salvation with fear and trembling. You are dead actually to any growth or it at least appears so.
But I will add I also see your points Truth and I agree with them, I only add what God says about judgment and reaping to the mix, otherwise I agree totally with your statement!
fix should be mix
walkinlove, I’m agreeable with that.
Walkinlove says: Ephesians 1:13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory
– guys you cant make a doctrine based upon once verse. This verse doesnt say once should repnet either, not does it say one should confess Christ, but if we examine the word as a whole unit, we find other verses stating confession, reoentance, and even baptism. The verse above is true but so are the others…so, maybe its best we use them all. Something else too, do you not realize that the Ephesians we baptized prior to Paul writting them. Please see the book of acts and you will see they were baptized into Christ.
On July 3, 2008 at 3:30 pm walkinlove Said:
“The best example of the law of sowing and judgment is again an alcoholic parent who’s child makes a judgment of I will never marry someone who is an alcoholic. They grow up and have sown judgment by judging the parent. Thus they reap that judgment in one of three ways, they become the alcoholic, they marry one, or the person they marry becomes one, because of the judgment.”
I am not so sure that I agree with you here that this is an example of judgment. I would consider alcoholism a sin of drunkenness. And a child who grows up in a home with a parent who constantly commits the sin of drunkenness (and the sins of abuse that often accompany it) and vows not to commit the same sin or marry a person who commits constantly such drunkenness is in my estimation not sowing unrighteous judgment but making a commitment of morality.
Did I misread this or misunderstand your point?
I can agree that it is possible for us to become the very things we are against if we are not careful. That is why God tells us we should give our burdens over to Him.
Rick you have to understand also that God clearly says that we are not to judge the heart of a person. When you make a judgment against the person as opposed to the action. Meaning I judge my parent to be less then I because of the addiction and because I am better I will not be like them, I am sitting on Gods throne. By taking that seat I open myself up to reaping that judgment.
You can say that alcohol abuse is not good for a person and that God is against it, but when you judge someone as less then you because of the action you are opening yourself up to reaping that Judgment.
For example I will not say that the RCoC are nonbelievers even though I strongly disagree with their actions. I am not the judge of their heart and motives only God can do that. Thus while I am tempted to say that they are not seeking God etc. and may have done so in previous posts in a weak moment, if so I apologize for it, and ask forgiveness of anyone who read it.
Judgment of an action is fine as long as you do not use that action to build up yourself and make another of God’s creations less. It seems little in difference but there is a difference. I will have to find some of the teachings on that subject and post them to get the full meaning across.
So if the child prayed for their parents so that God would heal and reach them and deliver them, that is not degrading them. They are not like the publican who is thankful he is not like the sinner and is not justified.
Do you see the difference? Asking God to help you avoid the trap of alcohol and pray for them is fine. But to say I will never be like my mother because she is married to the addicted person has opened judgment on me.
I have an example of a personal judgment I made as a 12 yo boy. I told my aunt who has an alcoholic and had brittle bones from it that I would never brake a bone. One hour later I had my only bone broken in my life in a bike accident. I did not know the reason behind it, but if totally fits the teaching. So when I heard the teaching I was blown away as I had lived it.
One of the biggest reasons we are asked to forgive those who offend us is to free us from that law of judgment. We can remain in chains to others who may not even care we exist over an offense that we carry against them. Not only does it give us over to the tormentors, it also potentially places our salvation in danger. yes I know that is against once saved always saved teaching, but the unmerciful servant is the most concerning passage I have read. I do not want to be held accountable for my debts to God, and others own me so little in comparison to what I did to Christ.
Like gravity is a physical law, judgment of a heart brings about judgment from God on those who judge.
Does that clear up what I am saying or make it worse?
others own me should be others owe me, there are other small spelling issues sorry.
See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled.
—Hebrews 12:15
Do not judge lest you be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it shall be measured to you.
—Matthew 7:1–2
Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever
a man sows, this he will also reap.
—Galatians 6:7
Those are some of the passages it is based on.
I think we are on the same page. I had in mind judgment of the action and I believe you are speaking of judgment of the person. If that is the case I understand and can agree. 🙂
what happen to the debate betwen you and Corey ?
if i may…..
the two thiefs on the cross being jesus followers.
i think that is a completely made up load of manure.
if that were true then the thieves already had been baptized with johns baptism. so they were already saved.
and on and on………..
from the top, jesus could forgive sins but he was not able to save men. you must be born again. if he could there would have been no need for his death. surely anyone can see that.
lee
Corey has disappeared from the blog, hasn’t he? We discussed debating, but then we both let it drop. I’m still interested if he is.
Excellent point Lee! Frankly the rules of salvation don’t appear to apply to the Thief at all. He was not baptized after Jesus death, he sins after Jesus death more then likely and he is still going to be with him. My observance was purely a counter to their teaching that he was under the old law and was covered after the forgiveness of sins. And frankly I believe that mercy was the only way he went. I don’t know Jewish history enough to know if a criminal was being killed if an atonement sacrifice was allowed for his sins. But even then there is no way a normal man can make it through the process of being crucified and not have a fleshly thought that would be sin! Except of course you be God also.
So the window between Jesus death and the Thief’s death has to be included even though there is no details of that part of the day. The Remission of Sins still had to be purchased and thus Christ still has to die for our future sins to come. And this may be the covering for the Thief and why I believe that Mercy along with his belief covered him in the new covenant!
Other interesting things to consider:
John 6:55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
John 15: 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
5″I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.
The interesting thing about these passages is Christ already appears to have that salvation relationship with his disciples! Notice the verbs appear to not point to a future time but that they are already in him. And they are already clean because of the word that was spoken to them? Could this indicate that maybe the foot washing was their baptism because they were only a little dirty according to Christ?
I don’t have a clear answer except to say that Acts 2:38 can’t be taken as a stand alone version that all events rest on. There are to many variables to that statement in the Bible that counter it’s apparent statement.
They are in Christ before his death, yet they are not baptized by the Holy Spirit, nor is there any proof that except for the foot washing they were baptized. For that matter John himself, I have not found anything about John the Baptist baptizing himself, he says that Christ needed to baptize him with what I assume is the Holy Spirit but he was not baptized as far as I have read. I may have missed it though.
On July 3, 2008 at 10:09 pm rick Said:
I think we are on the same page. I had in mind judgment of the action and I believe you are speaking of judgment of the person. If that is the case I understand and can agree. 🙂
Yep we are 100% on the same page! But the reasons I give are what are causing their behavior, and that it is totally involuntary at this point.
I’d be curious to know how the debate with the Muslim Sheik went last night. I caught only a part of it and saw where at least one caller was asking for Johnny to be called in because Norm was not making sense. Anyone see it?
“On July 3, 2008 at 9:48 am Chris Knight Said:
“faithful”,
You are boasting of, and taking pride in, your power.
Something that has never impressed me, regardless of who the boast is from or how much “power” they possess.
You aren’t the first, you won’t be the last. But the end result will be no different… and no better… than that of anyone else.”
So Chris you can’t read the blog any better than you do with the bible. I was saying that the TV IS THE MOST WATCHED MEDIUM. I didn’t invent tv nor do I own the station
“So Chris you can’t read the blog any better than you do with the bible. I was saying that the TV IS THE MOST WATCHED MEDIUM. I didn’t invent tv nor do I own the station”
You don’t keep up with current events very much, do you faithful?
More people are getting their information from the Internet than from television every day.
And the Internet has the advantage of being a medium that allows for PERMANENT display of that information.
Johnny Robertson can do all the talking that he wants on the TV station…
…but if he says that he is out to “defeat destroy you” here, it’s a permanent record that he can’t get rid of short of contrition and asking forgiveness.
And I doubt that’ll happen.
And from now ’til doomsday, people who look for the truth about the local “Church of Christ” cult will be able to see for themselves what they are really all about.
“Most-watched”?
You’re still boasting of having the power of television?
Big deal.
History… and not people who only know what they know from “television”… will decide which of us is right.
Chris do you think the the seniors in the area are online? The seniors are a HUGE part of the population here.
Why did you want to go on tv to answer Johnny then? If more people in the area are on line getting info why did you go on tv?
You are pathetic at making an argument
We had another person obey the gospel at the tent again tonight., I’m sure you all hate to hear that
So what you are saying faithful is in about 10 to 20 years you are out of an audience? That’s good planning! Although I will say that the ignorant would be weak enough to subscribe to your teaching without checking into in depth. Like reading the problems in the Greek translation verb tenses, thus you can make a simple statement that Acts 2:38 says what it says.
The reality is that it does not say exactly what it says because what it says makes no sense with the verb issues it has. And it is counter in many instances of the Bible, Holy Spirit arriving before baptism etc.
In other words, it is close to being a con game! What people here need to realize is that you can’t even see that at all, you are totally blind by your judgments against Denominations and are under the effects of Gods law of judgment and reaping what you sow.
I challenge you to take off your blinders and do a in depth study of the passages I posted about judgment and also how God deals with those who subvert his installed authority and then tell us how you actually are following the Bible and also avoiding the penalty of God’s law against Judgment!
It would be interesting to see if you can actually pull it off, considering the effects you are under for the judgment. And more importantly those who are not bound by the law of Judgment will see clearly why they need to avoid judgment against a person. And in your case a group of believers who are actually saved except by your teachings.
The Holy Spirit is his seal, you can’t be sealed without a relationship and you can’t have a relationship without baptism in your teaching of Acts 2:38. Thus you make the Bible itself a liar by using Acts 2:38 without weighing the Holy Spirits value in the equation.
And fortunately James was not caught in a misstatement in his debate with the Muslim, he said you do not need any other book to study and understand the Bible, that is not true. You need a Greek Concordance at the minimum to get a clear picture of what is really transpiring in the critical passages. Without knowledge of the Greek you miss huge parts of the text. You also need to view several translations and commentary to see what scholars have said about the passages. Then and ONLY then can you make a critical call on what a passage means.
Or is it you do not study the Greek in your Bible studies?
“We had another person obey the gospel at the tent again tonight., I’m sure you all hate to hear that”
What I hate to hear is that if said person only “obeyed the gospel” out of fear, instead of out of genuine love of Christ and desire to turn his/heart toward Him…
…then all you’re bragging about is that you’ve got one more wet sinner.
“So what you are saying faithful is in about 10 to 20 years you are out of an audience? That’s good planning!”
What it sounds like to me, too.
I mean, if the message cannot appeal to everyone, then how can it possibly be said that it is a valid, powerful, working message at all?
And although I’ve never seen one, I have to wonder just how joyous an event these “baptisms” are that the local “Church of Christ” cult performs. I mean, Robertson even admitted to me that his own baptism was practically a sullen, tragic affair. Almost like he didn’t want to be there.
I almost feel sorry for him, because my own baptism was quite different. I remember it so well it might as well have been yesterday. I was baptized to demonstrate that I had chosen Christ as my savior… because He already was my savior. It was a happy, jubilant event! Just about all of my friends from college came to watch. It’s a memory that I would never trade anything for.
A good preacher that I know wrote about baptism on his church’s blog this week. He talks about how seven children of families in the church chose to identify with Christ through baptism. Even these little ones knew that Christ had already saved them, that there was nothing more they could do to earn that grace and love. They wanted to be baptized to show that they were returning that love and that they belonged to Christ: just as a man wears a wedding ring to show that he belongs to his wife. I can imagine that among that congregation, it was an amazingly wonderful time of smiles and laughter.
Meanwhile under a tent next to the Wal-Mart in Madison, cold-hearted men pretending to have some measure of authority from God preach to a sullen-faced crowd and turn what is supposed to be a beautiful moment into an act of obedience bereft of all genuine love.
That is not of Christ. That is making others “twice a son of Hell” as Jesus described such men.
Their message comes down to this: “Get thoroughly wet or burn in Hell!”
faithful is but one slave that they have under their sway. No wonder he says he was at the tent tonight instead of out celebrating Independence Day…
…because faithful has no independence for himself.
He has none of the freedom that Christ came to give us.
How joyful are you, faithful? I mean, what exactly has YOUR “obedience” given you?
By the way, “faithful”…
Tomorrow I am going to a nearby church to witness the baptism of a dear friend of mine. She is a young lady who has known Christ as her savior for a long time and has consistently demonstrated her love for Him in so many ways with her life.
If she were to die between now and then, no one but the most cold-hearted would deny that she would be immediately ushered into the presence of her dear Lord, Who would welcome His dear daughter into His kingdom.
“I’m sure you all hate to hear that.”
Chris do you own a tv? Have you ever watched the programs?
Why is your friend getting baptized? I thought it wasn’t needed accourding to you.
faithful, do you not see you have dead men with dead faith somehow “obeying” God, when scripture plainly states a man in the flesh can not please God. So soemthing has to occur in his heart before he can, confess, repent and get baptized.
Question for you faithful: Can a dead man in his tresspasses and ungodly-fleshly state, have living faith, prior to being baptized? Per your doctrine, he is dead until baptized, so you have a man dead in his sins, a fleshy, natural man, some how having living faith to obey before he has a changed heart – do you not see the problem?? In Acts 2, they clearly had their hearts changed prior to being baptized, or as Paul states several times “justified upon faith” and then only can one have living faith, and then he can obey God and repent, confess, and get baptized. As “walkinglove” pointed out, you must have subject-verb agreement in Acts 2:38…
“Why is your friend getting baptized? I thought it wasn’t needed accourding to you.”
That settles it for me.
faithful, if you are not really Johnny Robertson, then you are practically a clone of him.
You’ve got his style of writing. You’ve got his penchant for misspelling. You’ve got how he likes to try to trap people verbally.
If you are not him, would you kindly tell Johnny this:
The good times haven’t even *begun*, considering what I’ve got about him already.
Parse that as you will.
By the way:
“A man chooses. A slave obeys.”
Are you a man or a slave, faithful?
To be baptized is to show that you have repented for your sins but being baptized does not save you. It is when you repent and asked Jesus to forgive you for your sins and you believe He died to save you from your sins that is what saves you. It is Gods grace through faith that saves you. I believe God has enough grace and mercy to save us, we can do and should do as many good works as possible as christians but we are still sinners and need Gods grace and mercy to save us. Jesus saves us not our works. We should try to do things and say things and treat others with love the way God tells us. God knows what is in our hearts and that is what justifies us. In our faith Christ living in us will show.
“To be baptized is to show that you have repented for your sins but being baptized does not save you. It is when you repent and asked Jesus to forgive you for your sins and you believe He died to save you from your sins that is what saves you”
Truth , none of this is in the bible.
Chris does a servant obey?
I don’t mind being a slave to Christ
whatdoesthebiblesay, Why is it when I type in your quote it says verse not found?
“justified upon faith”
Being dishonest on the quote?
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus the Messiah. Romans 5:1
faithful, you said: “I don’t mind being a slave to Christ”
Ahem…
Galatians 2, verses 3 through 5:
Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.
Just as some demanded circumcision as proof of “obedience” and “salvation” in the time of Paul, so as to make others slave to the law, so do you, “faithful”, seek to use baptism to enslave people today to the law.
The Apostle Paul had your number almost two thousand years ago.
In fact, he said even then that you are a “false brother” come to infiltrate our ranks (in the case of the local “Church of Christ” cult this is very literally so) and “spy on us” (what else is Oldfield and Fields doing with their video cameras going to other churches?) because you want to make slaves of those in Christ.
faithful, Johnny Robertson, James Oldfield, and Norm Fields: that is you that Paul is condemning.
In the parlance of my generation: “sucks to be you” 😛
The problem is, “faithful” is that you seem to be WAY more loyal and a slave to Johnny than you do to Christ.
I would imagine that you “don’t mind being a slave to Christ”-but you don’t seem to be completely following Him and Him alone.
A servant of Christ obeys Him, not men.
You beat me to that verse, Nathan-good job. It is like they completely skip OVER those clear verses!!
Wow, great points Chris-and so so true.
Romans 10:9 “That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
Romans 10:13 “For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Ephesians 2:8 “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves;it is the gift of God.”
Romans 1:16 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Gentile.”
Romans 10:10 “For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Luke 7:50 “Then He said to the women “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.”
John 3:15 “That whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
John 6:47 “Most assuredley, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.”
Romans 5:1 “Therefore we can conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of law.”
Acts 10:43 “To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will recieve remission of sins.”
Sraight from the Bible faithful.
Truth , I noticed you put this verse in with the confession verse
Romans 10:13 “For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Too bad you don’t know how to do that so I’ll show you.
Ac 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
(KJV)
Does any one here know what a synecdoche is?
“Does any one here know what a synecdoche is?”
An upcoming film starring Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Otherwise it is a figure of speech related to the metonym.
What is your point?
Romans 10:1-13 1 “Bretheren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.” 2 “For I bear in witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.3 “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.4 “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.5 “For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law,”The man who does those things shall live by them.”6 “But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, “Do not say in your heart ,’Who will ascend into heaven?'”(that is, to bring Christ down from above)7 or,”‘Who will descend into the abyss?'”(that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).8 “But what does it say?”The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”(that is the word of faith which we preach):9 “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”10 “For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”11 “For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”12 “For there is no distinction btween Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.”13 “For whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Faithful, here some you never seem to quote: and kep inmind the men in Acts 2 had this faith in Christ prior to being baptized…so you do the math ! And you havent yet explained how a dead man in his sins and fleshy nature can please God ( prior to being baptized ). The fact is that God has to chenge the stoney hard before man will desire to obey…looks like you have a problem here faithful, and one you havent yet addressed
Rom. 3:22, “even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction.”
Rom. 3:24, “being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;”
Rom. 3:26, “for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”
Rom. 3:28-30, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.”
Rom. 4:5, “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,”
Rom. 5:1, “therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,”
Rom. 5:9, “Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.”
Rom. 9:30, “What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith.”
Gal. 2:16, “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.”
Gal. 3:14, “in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”
Gal. 3:22, “But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.”
Gal. 3:24, “Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.”
Eph. 1:13, “In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise.”
Eph. 2:8, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.”
Phil. 3:9, “and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.”
Norm Fields is on in place of Johnny Robertson tonight (supposedly ‘cuz Robertson is off “preparing for a debate” with some guy)…
Fields is doing a horrible job!
He’s supposedly talking about how “the religious world” is wrong about the Second Coming or somesuch. But all Fields is doing is saying “confusion” over and over again, like a broken record. He’s not saying how everyone else is “confused” but how his strange little cult presumably has it “right”. Not coming across as confident at all.
Who the heck is going to be persuaded by this?
I think he’s doing a great job. It may be that you don’t like it it because you hate the truth coming out
What does the bibles say , the scriptures speak for them selves. You can’t prove the men were saved prior to baptism . I can show you a donkey who had the Holy Ghost , was it saved?
“I think he’s doing a great job. It may be that you don’t like it it because you hate the truth coming out”
Why would I not want “the truth” to come out faithful?
Care to speculate?
A synecdoche is using a part for the whole or the whole for a part. Example ” head of cattle” or instead od plate of food , ” I’ll take a plate home to my wife” . That’s what we see in verses like
1Ti 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
(KJV)
Believe is used as a synecdoche in that verse
“I can show you a donkey who had the Holy Ghost , was it saved?”
I see just as much evidence that this donkey was saved, as some have evidence that it is a sin that musical instruments be used in worship services.
Norm opened the phone lines, and it’s been a good twenty or so minutes. He got one call from a regular caller, who asked a question that had nothing to do with Norm’s teaching. But otherwise it looks like nobody really cares.
He’s trying hard to provoke a call. He is talking about Pentecostals pretty hard, talking hard about premillinealism, but so far nobody is taking the bait. I’m waiting for “the faithful” to call in and help him out.
I’d love to know the numbers of how many people really watch these guys. Tonight’s broadcast seems to indicate that folks have better things to do on Sunday evening. Good for the folks!
im watching,
nothing to call about.
lee
If they REALLY wanted to reach people, they would buy airtime on a station with a further broadcast reach.
They have the money. Believe you me: they have the money to do that.
But apparently there is only one station in the area that will sell them the airtime.
And that ain’t the half of it.
More soon.
A 76 year old caller named Hazel Carter just called to tell Norm how much she appreciated Norm “preaching his little heart out”. She is not church of Christ, and you can see Norm trying to figure out how to help her realize that she’s not really saved. He keeps trying to get her to let him come see her, but she’s wisely not having any of it.
Anyway…
Okay, faithful, I’ll bite.
“Believe is used as a synecdoche in that verse”
Is this just a personal interpretation?
Now it just got steamy.
A caller just told Norm that he is full of it for stating that you can’t be saved in a denomination.
Norm just equated telling him that he is full of it with telling God that He is full of it.
Norm, he is telling you that your interpretation is wrong. He wasn’t saying God was full of it – he said that you are full of it. But Norm says you can’t tell Norm that he is wrong without saying that God is wrong?
Norm’s interpretation does not equal God.
i got him.
he quoted that scripture out of context.
and he knew it. talk to me folks.
beautiful.
lee
I think denominations are good in that they are proof that none of us fully understand and comprehend the grace of God.
And it is arrogant pride to assume that anyone does fully understand, much less claim that one “church” has the market cornered on that understanding.
Who are people like Fields and Robertson and Oldfield, to claim that they know better than anyone else?
By what authority can they boast such a thing?
I haven’t heard that answered either…
I wondered if that was you, lee. Can you explain more of what you were saying?
Chris, some people have closed their minds so much that they think they have all the answers, even when you show them the bible and it shows different from what they are saying. Seems to me that when the bible isn’t fulfilling their agenda they are the ones who try to add to it or take away from it and in all twist the word of God.
By the way, I understand after watching tonight why it is such a waste of time to watch these men. They have some of the most Spiritless teaching, even if Mrs. Carter thinks otherwise (does she even realize that they don’t consider her saved?), and it only gets interesting when callers call in and insult.
I wish that they wouldn’t call in and insult. That only fires these men up. Just don’t call in!
Can you imagine if, week after week, they never got calls from “the opposition”?
I’m glad I watched tonight after not watching in a while, because it makes me realize that I’ve made the right decision by not watching in a while.
Chris, I was referring to the comments between you and faithful.
as i have always understood it only christians stand
before the bema seat of christ. you know our works will be judged weather of gold, wood, hay, stubble.
rewards then will be passed out.
he definitely was quoting that out of context.
just read who paul was talking to.
i got him and he knew it. norm couldnt possibly make a mistake. i love it.
lee
Okay – I understand. Here’s a website that talks about it…
http://www.eternalministries.org/articles/JudgmentSeatofChrist.htm
And here’s another quote:
Found at http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/comm_read.pl?book=2Cr&chapter=5&verse=10&Comm=Comm%2Fchuck_smith_c2000%2F2Cr%2F2Cr005.html%2319%26%7BChuck+Smith%26&Select.x=18&Select.y=9
So, Norm was saying that this verse applied to people he considers non-Christians, and you were showing him that this verse only applies to Christians.
Great point, lee! It shows how they are not above twisting verses to prove whatever error they want to prove.
Seems like there were denominations in the bible, since the Jewish christians had their differences with christian Gentiles but both being justified by God. And Norm said to show that God saves anyone in other denominations, as shown above God said “For WHOEVER calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” And the cofC is a denomination, they can say they’re not but that doesn’t mean they’re not.
Great points, Truth.
Not to mention that the cofC has so many different divisions based on their different interpretations. For example look here.
But of course, none of them are right except the one that they broadcast about on WGSR, because if you tell them that they are wrong, you are saying that God is wrong.
I can’t get over the massive amount of ego that would be involved in a person saying something like that.
“If they REALLY wanted to reach people, they would buy airtime on a station with a further broadcast reach.”
Why Chris? I thought tv was not a pwerful meduim?
On July 6, 2008 at 8:27 pm faithful Said:
What does the bibles say , the scriptures speak for them selves. You can’t prove the men were saved prior to baptism . I can show you a donkey who had the Holy Ghost , was it saved?
– boy, faithful, you took a wide left turn. You ignored everything I stated. You guys have natural man dead in his sins who cant please God because he is carnal…but you guys have him obeying God before his heart is changed per your view of baptism. You have dead unsaved men obeying God, when the bible clearly states that a carnal man in his flesh can not please God…try again Faithful…this time stay on the subject
“On July 6, 2008 at 8:27 pm faithful Said:
What does the bibles say , the scriptures speak for them selves. You can’t prove the men were saved prior to baptism . I can show you a donkey who had the Holy Ghost , was it saved?”
Numbers 22: 27 When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam, and he was angry and beat her with his staff. 28 Then the LORD opened the donkey’s mouth, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”
29 Balaam answered the donkey, “You have made a fool of me! If I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.”
If you are speaking of the above passage, the Holy Ghost has nothing to do with this, nor does it say anything about the Donkey being filled with the spirit only that the Lord opened his mouth!
Ephesians 1:13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.
synecdoche – An excuse to alter any passage to fix your interpretations of the Bible to condemn other believers who do not think the same about the passages and to subvert God’s authority by attacking those in leadership in other Church bodies to foment rebellion to grow your own body, is that what it means?
Cause that is what it is being used for!
And while we have this disagreement the real anti-christ is hard at work!
http://www.rationalresponders.com/
Hey Lee can I have your email address I want to ask you something off topic or more off topic then the topic is off already LOL!
Thanks!
On July 7, 2008 at 8:57 am walkinlove Said:
“synecdoche – An excuse to alter any passage to fix your interpretations of the Bible to condemn other believers who do not think the same about the passages and to subvert God’s authority by attacking those in leadership in other Church bodies to foment rebellion to grow your own body, is that what it means?”
Perfect! I love it!! Well said!
“Why Chris? I thought tv was not a pwerful meduim?”
For practically the same amount of money that is being used to transmit to portions of two or three counties, the “Church of Christ” cultists could be broadcasting their “message” to every home between Stokes County to the west, and the near side of Raleigh to the east.
They could also benefit from nicer studio facilities.
Seems like a better, way more efficient use of “the Lord’s money”. I mean, if I was in charge of the treasury of a ministry, I would certainly want to get the absolute most value out of ever precious dollar.
But we don’t see that happening with Robertson, Oldfield and Fields.
Instead they have chosen to confine their activities to WGSR.
If all those people out in the world who are not part of their “Church of Christ” are going to Hell because of it, then why are they NOT doing their darndest to REACH AS MANY PEOPLE AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN?!?”
You can’t answer that, faithful. You dare not answer that!
Because the fact is, Robertson and his cult are not wanted on any other station, except the only one so desperate as to sell them the airtime.
The one that it turns out is run by a multiple-convicted larcenist.
Your guys couldn’t get airtime anywhere else, so this is what you were stuck with.
Pretty funny, no?
“synecdoche – An excuse to alter any passage to fix your interpretations of the Bible to condemn other believers who do not think the same about the passages and to subvert God’s authority by attacking those in leadership in other Church bodies to foment rebellion to grow your own body, is that what it means?”
Ha, I was about to say the same thing, Rick-this is a perfect description, “walkinlove”!! Well done, indeed.
walkinlove,
give me your email and ill write.
lee
cwsgamer at comcast dot net
“For WHOEVER calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Truth you do realize the way you do that is through baptism?
Nobody has altered a passage. Liars are plentiful in here
“For WHOEVER calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Truth you do realize the way you do that is through baptism?
How exactly does one “call upon the name of the Lord” if one is being held down underwater?
faithul, do you know it is Gods grace that saves, or do you think you are so powerful you can save yourself.
Anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord to save them from their sins, even someone not baptized are saved.
Truth, in their minds they claim it is the grace of God. But in order to first have access to that grace, one must “obey” and follow “the law”…
…which in reality is not real grace at all. It’s putting a condition on that grace.
It just bends back in on itself and becomes legalism again, absent of any grace.
I thought that the idea of grace is that we don’t deserve mercy but God will give it to us anyway if we accept it without doing anything else on our part? Realizing that we are utterly powerless to do anything to merit grace.
Becoming wet all over cannot possibly make God look on us any more favorably.
When you think your salvation comes from any work, you are taking away grace. Once a person believes Jesus died for them and repents and ask God to forgive them for their sins it is the grace of God that saves them.
“On July 7, 2008 at 4:41 pm Chris Knight Said:
“For WHOEVER calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Truth you do realize the way you do that is through baptism?
How exactly does one “call upon the name of the Lord” if one is being held down underwater?”
Um Gargle? 😉
Ac 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
(KJV)
Don’t worry walkin’ you ‘ll probably get to heaven on a baby ticket.LOL
“Ac 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
So faithful, when you were baptized did you literally call on the name of the Lord? Because if you did not, then your baptism was phony and you weren’t really saved!
And if you did call on the name of the Lord…
…which name, pray tell, did you use?
Did you call him “Jesus”? Or did you use “Yeshua” from the original Aramaic?
Or did you call him “Jehovah”? In that case, which version did you intone?
Or could it be that you invoked the sacred Tetragrammaton?
C’mon faithful, which one? Assuming you even called on the name of the Lord at all which it literally commands us to do!
Will you sleep tonight, or will you lay awake wondering if your salvation is real because you didn’t follow the exact directions, and that you did not obey at all?
God sent Jesus to save us from our sins. And God tells when we believe this we are saved by His grace. “For whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” What is so hard to understand about that, if you accept Jesus, God accepts you.
Do you you need a basic english lesson?
No joke, Truth-these guys are trying to bind things on people that were never meant to be bound, and that Jesus Himself did not instruct.
It seems to me that they miss that idea that His commands are not burdensome or grevious (1 John 5:3), and he says:
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls”. ~Matthew 11:28-29
Instead, this is what they are like:
“They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.”
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are. ” Matthew 23:4; 13-15
God clearly wants ALL men to be saved, but it seems as if these guys do not want the same, though I don’t see why any true follower of Christ would not want that. I mean, look at Christ!! He told us to turn the other cheek, to love our enemies and pray for them…and after they spat on, mocked, beat, and killed Him-he still forgave and offered up His life for our sins.
Who are we to say who is getting into heaven and who is not? After what Jesus did on the cross, we should only want everyone to know the love and grace of Christ, too-which He has offered us freely as a gift through the cross. This kind of theology and egotism only makes a mockery of the cross and it is shameful.
It really is not hard to understand that if we accept Jesus, God accepts us. Of course, that is only the beginning of our journey-but we are to walk in together, not divide and conquer each other. We who are Christians are becoming a vast minority in America, I hate to say-and if people continue to have this attitude and outlook-the Good News of the Gospel will not spread. I, for one want everyone to come into a real relationship with Christ and know the love, grace, and mercy the He offers. We are foolish to think we can get in the way of God’s saving grace and love.
Who in the world are you talking to, “faithful”? You are one to talk about English lessons.
It is hard sometimes for people to understand that they don’t have to earn Gods love and that He has that much grace and mercy that He will forgive them and save them from their sins just by believeing that He will. That’s why we have faith. And in our faith we should want to do good works, but we do the works because of our love for God and what He has done for us, not because we think doing it will save us, we were already saved when we believed.
Exactly Katherine, people need to know how much God loves them and how much grace and mercy He has for them, not to have people step on them and lay burdens on them.
“Do you you need a basic english lesson?”
This, from a person who cannot spell some of the most basic words in the English language 😛
A friend observed tonight that if Johnny Robertson is “the intellectual center in this region” then how come his website has not been updated for over a year now?
LOL!!!
And he still has “polygamist” mis-spelled.
This is why Robertson and his bunch need to be run out of town on a rail: they’re making this whole area look dumb.
Do people speak the same way today as when the bible was written?
“On July 8, 2008 at 5:39 am faithful Said:
Do people speak the same way today as when the bible was written?”
Now that is a brilliant question considering that the language was Latin or Greek. So no people did not speak English the same way LOL!
And that is yet another reason to avoid basing judgment of a fellow believer on the variables of word meanings down through time.
So tell me faithful, what does God say about Authority as in ALL authority? And what does he say about how you deal with authority? Is David and Saul an example we should follow? Should Noah have been exposed or covered?
Please tell me, I’d love to hear how you honor God through submitting to his word over authority!
And you can explain how attacking others in public is submission to God’s word. BTW just to clue you in, Jesus examples are not valid defense for you, you are not God, so God’s ability to judge perfectly is not in you!
Oh and you can give the English lesson while you are at it! Or the roots of English lesson as it would be more valid a question.
“And you can explain how attacking others in public is submission to God’s word.”
And just to head off any sort of mileage that faithful or others might try and get from this statement, note that this blog is called “answering” not “attacking” the church of Christ. We are a response.
We do not exist to “defeat” and “destroy” you.
Actually sinse they meet the definition of a denomination they have to attack themselves and for that matter sinse others in CoC churches seem to believe some things differently, why have they not taken care of the alleged pebbles of the other CoC churches before going after the alleged logs of non CoC denominational churches?
But first things first, Authority, what are CoC teachings about God’s Authority?
Faithful wrote “Do you you need a basic english lesson?”
Um, “faithful”
Why did you write “you” twice in this sentence? Also, “english” should be capitalized.
This does not give good credence to your arguments. By the way, if anyone on here is need of an English lesson it is your pal Johnny. He actually writes in tongue. We are all a little dumber for reading his posts.
Hello DMH… long time no read.
Good to be back!
It has been awhile.
Busy at work. Hopefully, I will be able to join in more often. What have I been missing out on? Just more of the usual?
Oh, not much. It’s been pretty quiet since you know who have been having their tent meetings these last couple of weeks. It’s actually been nice not being threatened with defeat and destruction for a while.
So, we’ve been sprucing up the place a bit.
We’ve been enjoying learning about the different ways Biblical churches of Christ accept brothers and sisters from other Christian backgrounds; we’ve added a few Christian websites that we frequent and enjoy that are Scriptural and focus quite a bit on God’s grace; we’ve added a new section with links for church of Christ “change agents”.
Some nice updates, I think.
“We are all a little dumber for reading his posts.”
You all complained when we didn’t come here. You complain when we do come here. ….. blah blah blah . It seems that you all can’t decide what you want
“You all complained when we didn’t come here. You complain when we do come here. ….. blah blah blah . It seems that you all can’t decide what you want”
Why don’t you tell us what you want, faithful?
Seriously…
What do you want?
“On July 8, 2008 at 7:52 pm faithful Said:
“We are all a little dumber for reading his posts.”
You all complained when we didn’t come here. You complain when we do come here. ….. blah blah blah . It seems that you all can’t decide what you want”
yes I’ve decided I would like to see your study of God’s authority and how we should deal with it. Saul/David Noah and his nakedness, Moses etc.
Please awe us with you wisdom on this subject! And then explain how it fits with walking into churches and attacking God’s authority by undermining the leadership through Satan like tactics?
He after all roams about seeking whom he may destroy!
I’m a very patient man and your avoidance so far tells me volumes about your FULL Bible knowledge!
Or is it not simple covered in the CoC handbooks?
simple should be simply
“He after all roams about seeking whom he may destroy!”
Isn’t that Robertson, Oldfield and Fields???
They roam about all over the place going to other churches and whatnot, seeking to destroy too!!!
Maybe Robertson really is possessed of Satan, as some have suggested. Scriptural evidence would indicate as much…
“You all complained when we didn’t come here. You complain when we do come here. ….. blah blah blah . It seems that you all can’t decide what you want”
Actually, this blog isn’t about the three TV men anymore, faithful. Yes, we still talk about what they are doing, because they (and their acolytes) are public local examples of hyperconservative churches of Christ, but since they (and their acolytes) have rarely contributed anything constructive to the conversation when they’ve come (especially JR, whose comments rarely, if ever, made sense), it really is fine when they don’t.
We are averaging hundreds of hits each day from people primarily in the U.S., but a smaller number from all around the globe. People are clicking our links in the blogroll, including the change agents and grace-focused ministries.
That means the message of the Gospel of God’s grace that we wish to promote is getting out. And that’s much more important than bickering with you and your mentors.
So, you guys just go on about your business and don’t worry about our little blog. Taunt people, video tape people, debate people, do whatever it is you do. And while we’ll still be here to discuss it, we have expanded beyond the three TV men, and we’re fine without them.
I guess your lost!
On July 8, 2008 at 10:32 pm Rick Said:
I guess your lost!
Hmmm..either there is a “new” Rick on the blog or I have been sleep typing!! Maybe I should add a new identifer to my name like Vandola Rick or Baptist Rick… suggestions?
Yep, and explain to the other “Rick” that it is “you’re” and not your 😉 Who is he talking to anyway?
I go for Pastor Rick 🙂
Thanks Katherine..that’s the name I am most often called!
Thanks Katherine..Pastor Rick is the name I am most often called..sooooo
Hey Rick,
What church do you pastor?
Well, there ya go 😉
By the way, where is Katie? I miss her-tell her hello for me!
faithless,
did you watch james quote a scripture out of context
and then have the nerve to hang up on me when i called him on it? i know a man of your character wont stand for such ill treatment of your friend. please let me know when you have chastised him. thanks in advance.
your pal
lee
I’m still waiting faithful, anytime you are ready to give your word on What Does the Bible Say on God’s Authority I am all ears or eyes in this case.
So Faithful how does CoC pratices of showing up and undermining God’s authority defended by you? Or did you miss that section when you were helping to write the Synecdoche Bible? 😉
Lee , I saw you falsely accuse of him of taking verses out of context if that’s what you are refering to.
Chris, I am pastor at Vandola Baptist in Danville.
Katherine, thanks for asking about Katie. She’s fine. She has been busy with her youth group. They were in Bluefield, VA recently working with Impact Virginia, a ministry coordinated by Virginia Baptists that provide home repairs for the poor and elderly.
I’ll tell Katie you asked about her.
Lee, what passage was it?
Thanks, Rick-that sounds great!! I know how crazy summers can get in youth ministry. Hope she is having a great summer and being blessed!
Hey Rick, that’s a hop skip and a jump from where we live down here in Reidsville. We may have to come visit sometime.
(“We” being my lovely spousal overunit and I 🙂 )
New definition of Synecdoche:
Synecdoche – The ability to avoid a direct question to hide your disobedience to God’s Word in the matters of authority.
1 Samuel 15:23For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
I’m still waiting faithful!
Walkinin error, your definition is beter than you bible studies
Walkinin error, your definition is no better than you bible studies
Chris, as long as you come without a hidden microphone, hidden camera and hidden deceptive spirit! hahaha
“Chris, as long as you come without a hidden microphone, hidden camera and hidden deceptive spirit! hahaha”
The only time I did that with a hidden camera was when I was infiltrating neo-Nazis, pagan rallies, sub-standard hospitals and helping to bust a swindling operation.
(Y’all probably think that I’m kidding about all that, right?)
LOL! No, don’t worry bro. It sounds like a good church and I’d love to come just to worship with fellow believers 🙂
You’re welcome anytime Chris… 🙂
Pastor Rick
katherine,
2 cor 5:10
he said this means all people will stand when it clearly
is speaking of christians.
lee
“Walkinin error, your definition is beter than you bible studies”
…and you are offering a basic English lesson? Oh my…
You are avoiding his questions, just like you did mine, and Lee’s, and I imagine the list could go on…
The question I posed seemed to be a simple one: Who are you faithful to?”…but all I got back was “No time for Katherine”.
Hmmm…if one cannot even answer that question, it does make me wonder…
I just love what you contribute to these conversations, faithful.
Actually, looking back over your last several comments I am still trying to figure out just exactly what you do contribute. Pretty much just one-liners that make no sense.
We need to get Corey back. At least he attempted to help outsiders understand his position. Oh – but he was “librul”. (Sorry hypercons).
I am going to be posting a new discussion thread later to help give things some direction. I hope that folks will enjoy discussing. Stay tuned!
“On July 9, 2008 at 3:17 pm faithful Said:
Walkinin error, your definition is no better than you bible studies”
It’s a simple question faithful, one I am sure you can answer, so please do so. What biblical grounds do you defend fomenting rebellion?
Thanks!
Come on faithful, surely someone with the Bible knowledge as yourself can answer a simple question!
I am confused about which “church of christ” we are talkign about. I was in one for about 2 weeks in Athens, GA when I was in college back in the early 90s. They said they were the “church of Christ,” not the “Church of Christ.” I remeber the son of the head of the church was there. His name was Jonathon or something like that. They were definitley a cult in my opinion (I had joined the Unification Church (Moonies) earlier, so I was ripe for this kind of exploitation).
When I stopped showing up for service, some members, including Jonathon, showed up at my house. When I did not answer the door they broke in. When they discovered I was locked in my room they would not leave until I came out and they prayed and tried to get satan out of me.
So is it the same one? If you can help me find out who these people are today, I’d like to know. I’m a big grown up lawyer now with an axe to grind.
Like so many who oppose truth before you, so have you folllowed in their steps. You claim to have “the answer” to the church of Christ. I have looked at your material. Could you please show me once where you have answered anything from the Bible? To simply say, “Christ came to set the prisoner free (Luke 4:18); to give us freedom (John 8:32)” is to say nothing at all. Your complaint is that people you don’t want to be lost would likely be according to what the Bible says. You complain:
“If you don’t take the Lord’s Supper each first day of the week you are lost!”
First of all, most of these statements are unfair misrepresentations of faithful Christians.
Secondly, rather than criticize, simply answer the issues. How often (to the best of our knowledge/understanding)did the first-century church take the Lord’s supper? My Bible tells me they did so “on the first day of the week” That was their main purpose for coming together “to break bread” (Ac. 20:7).
“If you play a guitar in a church service, you are lost!”
Can you cite for me one instance in the New Testament when the New Testament church on earth worshipped with the instrument? Just one example or command will do. My Bible says they simply sang (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19) and the melody was in their heart, not on a stringed instrument.
“If you aren’t baptized exactly the way I say you should be according to my interpretation of Scripture, you are lost!”
I call foul on this one! I know of no one who has ever said this. If there is, then I disagree. What would be said is be baptized like the N.T. says to be: Full submersion (they “went down into the water” – Ac. 8:38); This is symbolic of the death of Christ (Rom. 6:3-5). Baptism is for the washing away of sins (Ac. 22:16) to add someone to the Lord’s body of saved believers – people who are saved are baptized (Ac. 2:47) baptism saves us (1 Pet. 3:20-21)it is where we meet the death of Christ (Rom. 6:3-5) need I go on? Can you be saved without encountering the death of Christ, having your sins washed away, being added to the saved body of believers, etc?
You aren’t arguing with me, you are arguing with the Holy Spirit, my friend.
“If you don’t follow the rules I have set up from my “study” of Scripture, you are lost!”
If a “rule” some man asks you to follow cannot be supported by scripture, share that truth with Him in a spirit of gentleness (Gal. 6:1-2) and by all means do not feel compelled to follow that rule! However if someone has a verse(s) to show we should be doing something, then by all means, do it! The only thing a faithful Christian should be teaching is obedience to the commands and examples the Lord has set before us.
“If you aren’t in a church that I approve of, you are lost!”
Who ever said that? Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12) and stop listening to whatever person is telling you these things!
And, finally, said to the “unbeliever”: “we are here to defeat destroy you and uplift truth”!”
Again, who are these people you say are members of the Church of Christ? Is this REALLY a direct quote, as you attempt to make it seem? I doubt it. You know, the end does not justify the means. You should not bear false witness against another, it is a sin.
I will be praying for you my friend. Sincerely. You have some anger problem that comes across in your writing. Calm down and thinkl about what you are saying. Unless you can PROVE WHAT YOU ARE TEACHING COMES FROM SCRIPTURE and not from man’s desire to set up his own religion, then you must admit you have been mistaken and are wrong.
For the life of me, I cannot relate to people who cannot prove what they are doing is clearly supported by SCRIPTURE and then argue that it is I who am legalistic and try to impose man-made laws upon others. I am afraid it is the other way around.
When you INSIST on having instruments in your service where there is no biblical example, you have created a tradition of man and bound others to it, not I.
When you say a man can be saved by saying a prayer to Jesus and that is all that is necessary, I say you have not studied your Bible carefully enough! Every conversion in the book of Acts involves baptism and Peter said it now saves us (1 Pet. 3:20-21).
When you complain about taking the Lord’s supper every first day of the week, which is to remind us of the love He had for us and the price that was paid for you, proclaiming His death (1 Cor. 11:26). If you are not coming together to remember the price paid for you by Christ and to bring glory to God for this, WHY DO YOU COME TOGETHER?
Answer your arguments with scripture…not an emotional plea. When you begin to do that, then you will truly be a New Testament Christian.
I was very firm with you, but you need to accept the truth from the Bible, as it is plainly stated. I do hope you submit to the Lord, before it is eternally too late, my friend.
Kindly,
Mike
Hi Mike,
Thanks for stopping in. I appreciate your comments, and your thoughts. I don’t have time to answer them all right now, but I do want to mention that all of these things you bring up DO exist in a trio (now a duo) of TV “evangelists” here. These comments you quote, they all came from our experiences with these men. BELIEVE ME – I wouldn’t have started using my precious time starting this blog if they did not.
Many of the things you bring up have been discussed here ad nauseum, but I’ll bring it up one thing in particular – the Lord’s Supper. Let me say this at the outset – I am not condemning the observation of the Lord’s Supper each first day of the week. I’ve attended churches in the past that have done this, and it was a great weekly reminder of Jesus’ sacrifice. However, there is no direct Scriptural instruction that we must do this (there is argument to be made that the “break bread” does not mean the Lord’s Supper, but just that – breaking bread). And moreso – there is no condemnation in Scripture of people who do not do this. And yet the men who we are attempting to provide an answer to claim that if you do not observe the Lord’s Supper each week, you are lost. They say this on TV!
As to your question about the “defeat destroy” comment – it is a direct quote. You can read this post to find out more about that incident: https://answeringchurchofchrist.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/what-does-johnny-robertson-say-part-ii/
Mike, I truly appreciate your prayers. Believe you me, I am happy to have Christians praying for me. I pray for our TV duo quite often! As to your suggestion that I have anger issues, I wouldn’t say that. I would say that I struggle with my flesh (just like all Christians do), and sometimes my flesh hits the “enter” button before the Spirit can stop him. But anyone who runs a blog has the potential for that happening. It’s one of the pratfalls of this sort of communication device, and it is something I am trying to do better with!
Anyway, thanks for stopping by, and please feel free to contribute more if you see fit.
Blessings,
Mr. Answer
Can you cite for me one instance in the New Testament when the New Testament church on earth worshipped with the instrument? Just one example or command will do. My Bible says they simply sang (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19) and the melody was in their heart, not on a stringed instrument.
The greek word has a meaning that involves plucking a instrument.
Eph 5:19Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord,
The word music or qallontev in the Greek has various meanings.
Definition: 1) to pluck off, pull out
2) to cause to vibrate by touching, to twang
2a) to touch or strike the chord, to twang the strings of a musical
instrument so that they gently vibrate
2b) to play on a stringed instrument, to play, the harp, etc.
2c) to sing to the music of the harp
2d) in the NT to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song
So with all those meanings and given the FACT that many in the early church were hunted people would they really want to strike up the band and cause as much sound as possible to bring down the wrath of the hunters?
No is the simple answer, I would forgo that to protect others and anyone else, but if the CoC would like to demonstrate how they can pluck their vocal chords or reach down their throats to play them then I would be all for seeing that demonstrated!
And more importantly in the time we have taken to argue over the use of musical instruments how many people have died in their sin and gone to hell?
10Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise from the end of the earth, ye that go down to the sea, and all that is therein; the isles, and the inhabitants thereof.
Psalm 96
1 Oh, sing to the LORD a new song! Sing to the LORD, all the earth.
Psalm 13
6 I will sing to the LORD, for he has been good to me
Wonder if they used mechanical instruments of music back then….or did they just “sing to the Lord” Pay very careful attention to the statement below ( Psalms 144:9 ) “On a harp of ten strings I will sing praises to You”
Maybe he should have said “On a harp of ten strings I will sing AND PLAY praises to You” I guess our hypercon friends will correct him when they get to heaven…
Psalm 144:9
9 I will sing a new song to You, O God;…………..On a harp of ten strings I will sing praises to You,