Cost of Salvation Compared to a Debt of a Lifetime
Posted by James Lynch (+204) 11 years ago
The Cost of salvation Compared to the Debt of a Lifetime !

As the costliest of our annual holidays is in full swing, stories of God's love and His scheme of redemption still filter their way to ears besieged by the wars of commercialism's final assault of the year.
Yards filled with nativity scenes and traveling bands of young people singing old fashioned Christmas carols are still a welcome sight to many because they represent the most agreeable of all Bible doctrines, "For God so loved the world." (John 3:16). The timeless truths concerning His birth are a blessed respite to the stories of war, treachery, and misery that daily assault the ears of people who yet believe in God. Nevertheless, beyond His virgin birth, very little of the old redemption story finds a welcome and receptive heart among those who give thanks that "Jesus is the reason for the season."

Among those elements of the old redemption story that are not so welcome is the inspired teaching concerning faith. More than one long established "church" stresses the goodness and the wholesomeness of faith beyond what the Bible will endorse. Such examples include:

1. "Faith is the only response essential for salvation." This quote comes under the heading - Faith and Good Works - and is part of the "Doctrinal Standards" of the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church (p. 47, 1988 ed.)

2. "Justification.is bestowed.solely through faith in the Redeemer's blood." This quote comes from paragraph five of the chapter entitled, "The Declaration of Faith" in the "Church Manual": Designed for use of Baptist Churches (p. 48, 1946 ed.).

"Faith only" or "faith alone" is as welcome and comforting as "Silent Night." But the Bible's ONLY statement regarding "faith alone" is almost never received as warmly. James wrote, "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24).

The necessity of immersion for salvation is another part of the old redemption story that seldom stirs the hearts of those who believe in God. Nearly all Christian denominations teach and practice baptism, but what is taught and what is practiced varies widely among groups. Here are a couple of example:

1. "We believe that Christian baptism is the immersion in water of a believer.that it is a prerequisite to the privileges of a church relation; and to the Lord's Supper." (Church Manual, p. 56). In other words, having already been justified through faith alone, baptism is merely a requirement to belong to a church and to participate in the Lord's Supper.

2. "We hold that all children by virtue of the unconditional benefits of the atonement, are members of the family of God, and are therefore graciously entitled to Baptism. It shall be the duty of the Pastor of every charge earnestly to exhort parents and guardians within his constituency to dedicate their children to the Lord in Baptism, as early as practicable." (Judicial Council Decision 142 - see at www.umc/judicial/100/142.html). This statement overturned a proposal that would have postponed baptism "until the child accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior." (Ibid.)

What isn't as pleasing is the command to be baptized for "the remission of sins," (Acts 2:38). Or the fact that it is at the point of baptism that one is "clothed" in Christ, (Galatians 3:27). Though all agree that sins condemn the sinner, the plain teaching that sins are washed away at baptism (Acts 22:16) is seldom held in agreement. All agree that sinners need to be saved, but most reject that part of God's redemptive plan which says that by baptism, sinners are saved (1 Peter 3:21).

Perhaps you will have an opportunity this season to tell the old, old story soon. Jesus IS the reason for the season. So as you tell the story do not forget to include what Matthew wrote so many years ago, "Now the birth of Jesus is as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 1:18). But don't fail to also teach the "whole council of God" concerning the scheme of redemption. The debts incurred during this, our costliest season of the year, pales in comparison to the debt our Savior Jesus Christ paid on the cross. Nor is there parity between credit card debt and the awful cost of losing one's soul. May God bless you and your family during this summer season and beyond. God bless and keep working in the Word.

In His Service,
Jim Lynch, Evangelist
Miles City Church of Christ
Top
Posted by Cynthia A. (+194) 11 years ago
Jim ~ ty for stepping out and spelling salvation out so clearly...what a beautiful way to start out the Christmas Season!

blessings,
C
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 11 years ago
Correct me if I'm wrong... is it your position that the "work" refered to in James is baptism?
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6023) 11 years ago
The timeless truths concerning His birth are a blessed respite to the stories of war, treachery, and misery that daily assault the ears of people who yet believe in God.

:sniggering:
Top
Posted by James Lynch (+204) 11 years ago
No the "works" in James is not in referrence to baptism...baptism is an act of obedience required by God where one is clothed with Christ (Gal 3:27) not to be confused as a work to show ones appreciation for the salvation God offers through Christ...
Top
Posted by Jon Bonine (+168) 11 years ago
Then James, what must I do to be saved?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 11 years ago
So what happens if I don't get baptized? And do infant baptisms count?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1902) 11 years ago
Ask your brother, Jon. He's the local expert on this sort of thing.
Top
Posted by James Lynch (+204) 11 years ago
Bridgier,
You and I have been down this road several months ago when I posted the article about Joel and at that point we agreed to disagree. My invitation to you for us to meet face to face and study God's Word still stands at any point you would like to discuss the Gospel in its fullness.

As to the answer to your question?? Take a look at 2 Thess 1:8 and let the scripture teach us who will be saved and who will be lost.

As to the infant baptisms from our other friend...show me in scripture where the Bible ever authorized an infant to be baptised. One must be able to hear (understand) and believe (conscience acceptance) the gospel before one can be accountable to it. So basically infant baptism is of no effect. That is simply basic logic when rightly deviding the Word of truth.

Have a good evening as I must go so I can teach our mid week Bible class.

Don't forget to check out our web page at: www.milescitychurch.community.officelive.com

God Bless, Jim
Top
Posted by RA (+645) 11 years ago
Great post, Jim. Thank you for a most thought provoking message.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14936) 11 years ago
Really... I am trying to stay away from these kind of threads but I am really struggling to let this pass:

As to the infant baptisms from our other friend...show me in scripture where the Bible ever authorized an infant to be baptised. One must be able to hear (understand) and believe (conscience acceptance) the gospel before one can be accountable to it. So basically infant baptism is of no effect. That is simply basic logic when rightly deviding the Word of truth.


Please show me in Scripture where baptizing infants is prohibited. Consider the following from Acts 16:22-34:

"22 The crowd joined in attacking them, and the magistrates tore the garments off them and gave orders to beat them with rods. 23And when they had inflicted many blows upon them, they threw them into prison, ordering the jailer to keep them safely. 24 Having received this order, he put them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks. 25 About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them, 26 and suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken. And immediately all the doors were opened, and everyone's bonds were unfastened. 27 When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. 28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, "Do not harm yourself, for we are all here." 29 And the jailer[a] called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. 30 Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. 34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God."

Doesn't "and your household", "all his family", and "his entire household" indicate that children were likely included? I will grant that the text doesn't explicitly state that there were any infants in the house, but clearly infants were not prohibited.

Further, using "simply basic logic when rightly "deviding" the Word of truth" if infant baptism is of no effect, wouldn't we also have to conclude that circumcision of infants (such as Jesus) on the the eighth day is of no effect? Obviously, the infant isn't at the "age of accountability" to decide that they wanted to be part of the old covenant.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17125) 11 years ago
Shouldn't you just STFU and drink a Guinness, Richard?

If you need a second opinion, please print this thread, show it to your wife, and ask her, "Should I just STFU?"

If my suspicion about what her response is, is incorrect, then please continue to post in this thread.

Just trying to help us all move along, here.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14936) 11 years ago
You're probably right... I should go back to designing my digital SWARD stick.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6023) 11 years ago
Only if Joanna Krupa's there.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 11 years ago
Top
Posted by AJS (+217) 11 years ago
"In the past GOD spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his SON, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe." Hebrews 1:1-2

Then Jesus declared, " I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty." John 6:35

Faith is: "Not believing that GOD can, but that HE will.

AJS
Top
Posted by AJS (+217) 11 years ago
When the outlook is poor, try the uplook.

"For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to GOD. He was put to death in the body, but made alive by the spirit." - 1 Peter: 3:18

AJS

[This message has been edited by AJS (12/3/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 11 years ago
Didn't we just have a whole thread on the concept of question begging?

On a somewhat related note, the Conservative Bible Project seems to be moving forward nicely: http://www.conservapedia....le_Project - they've got several of the NT books completely translated. Personally, I've always felt that if the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for everyone else, but what do I know.

Also - happy holidays.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (12/3/2009)]
Top
Posted by James Lynch (+204) 11 years ago
"Doesn't "and your household", "all his family", and "his entire household" indicate that children were likely included? I will grant that the text doesn't explicitly state that there were any infants in the house, but clearly infants were not prohibited."

Not as a matter of fact, as you said...we can not justify doing infant baptisms without adding to scripture our own doctrine. Baptism as taught in scripture is for those who have the ability to uderstand the lost state in which they are in and to have the intelect to understand who Jesus is, what He has done, and be able to believe that truth. Therefore, this would leave no "need" for an infant to be baptized. I was baptized as a believer in Christ in 1985 many years prior to my children because they were not of the age to be able to understand what sin was much less their need for salvation from it. So at the time of my becoming a Christian did not make it neccessary for my "whole household" to be baptized...only those who qualified as needing to access the blood of Christ and be added to His Church.

"Further, using "simply basic logic when rightly "deviding" the Word of truth" if infant baptism is of no effect, wouldn't we also have to conclude that circumcision of infants (such as Jesus) on the the eighth day is of no effect? Obviously, the infant isn't at the "age of accountability" to decide that they wanted to be part of the old covenant."

Circumcision is of no effect in the Christian age. Jesus was circumsized as a Jew under the Law which was in effect at that time. But now Jesus has put all things into subjection under His Law of liberty. Therefore, as liberated Christians we live by the law of Christ, ie. the Gospel of Christ which Paul spells out plainly in Romans 6 as the death burial and resurrection of Christ. In the same chapter he tells us how to become "obediant from the heart" to that "form" (pattern) of doctrine which he just spoke of in vs. 3 ff. The pattern is tupos (gr): exact likeness. Therefore, Paul is either telling the reader to be crucified (morphe) or emmersed (tupos) as these are the only two Greek words he would have used in the text.

This makes Gal. 3:26-27 clear when Paul said..."For you are all sons of God through faith in jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ" It also clarifies how baptism becomes the qualification for those to be added to the Church. One cannot be a part of The Church without being "in" Christ and being in Christ takes place when one is baptized "into" Christ.

Notice Acts 2:41 - after the apostles had preached Jesus to the crowd and 3000 souls responded...vs. 41 tells us how they responded..."Then those who gladly recieved the Word were baptized; and that day about 3000 souls were added to them.

Then notice vs. 47b: "And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." They believed before they were baptized but were not added to the church until after they were baptized.

Well, here I go...allowing myself to be drawn into what I never intended. Just let me say this. My intent of posting the article is to encourage those readers who are honestly seeking to know and obey the Word to really give some thought to Jesus during this time of year and beyond. Not for those who would like to incite debate that they are not able or willing to defend in person. I would challenge those to have the boldness in their beliefs to contact me and defend such beliefs in person (bring only your Bible though, as I do not accept "creed" books that do not have scripture to back them).

Also, those on here who know me personally know well that my goal is to come to a better understanding of who God is and what He expects in this life and to share that with others to help them in their search for the truth. I will be the first to admit any wrong or false teaching if anyone is bold enough to teach me a more perfect way as did A&S when they taught Appollus.

We could go on and on here to no avail. So if you have truth and are willing to back it with scripture (in context and application) then by all means contact me and we will visit over a cup of coffee. My door is always open and you can contact me at anytime. Yes thats bold, but also with love, judgement before God is serious enough to require boldness in teaching the truth about Christ.

Have a wonderful day...

Jim Lynch
234-3775
[email protected]
www.milescitychurch.community.officelive.com
Top
Posted by Jon Bonine (+168) 11 years ago
"Not for those who would like to incite debate that they are not able or willing to defend in person."

I suppose that I am inciting debate with my question above. I haven't taken you up on the coffee bit because I don't live in Miles City anymore; I haven't been back since 2002. Nor does my schedule allow such a trip for a cup of coffee.

I try to not get too serious over theological issues here. Lots of people have expressed their opinions about Christianity and theology. I've even had a decent conversation with Brian about theology. But I hold those people who claim leadership in a Christian church to a much higher standard.

I expect a pastor or teacher to be able to articulate their theology. If they are speaking for a Christian church, I expect it to be consistent with a basic understanding of Christianity, at least as reflected in the Apostolic or Nicene Creed.

My question still stands, "How then am I to be saved?" If faith isn't enough, then what must I do? (Bob N, I have a pretty strong opinion on the matter myself. It's a loaded question.)
Top
Posted by James Lynch (+204) 11 years ago
"I suppose that I am inciting debate with my question above. I haven't taken you up on the coffee bit because I don't live in Miles City anymore; I haven't been back since 2002. Nor does my schedule allow such a trip for a cup of coffee."

No Jon, I do not take your question to mean you are insiting debate, although many in this format do. I think I answered your question pretty clearly though, don't you?. And your right, a cup of coffee would not be worth it...I will by dinner when you can make it this way (no pun intended).


"I expect a pastor or teacher to be able to articulate their theology. If they are speaking for a Christian church, I expect it to be consistent with a basic understanding of Christianity, at least as reflected in the Apostolic or Nicene Creed."

Well, I am not a "Pastor"... we have two pastors (Elders) at the church of Christ here that oversee our congregation. However, I know what you mean in your use of the term Pastor as I too used to think the preachers or evangelists were "pastors" until I came to a better understanding of the word presbuteros.

I do not have a problem explaining my theology, I get it strait from the scripture and hope that it is clear when I teach it. As for the "Nicene Creed"? Why would I want to put my faith in an article that was drafted some 300+ years after the Bible was completed? All we need is the inspired Word to teach us everything pertaining to life and godliness. I do speak for the Church of christ here in Miles City and what I teach is ONLY what we can find withing the text of the Bible and my elders are in agreement with my teachings.

"My question still stands, "How then am I to be saved?" If faith isn't enough, then what must I do? (Bob N, I have a pretty strong opinion on the matter myself. It's a loaded question.)"

Yes Jon, that is a loaded question and you probably already know my answer but here goes anyway.

What must I do to be saved... simply put; obey...nowhere does the scripture say we are saved by faith alone.

Hear the Gospel (death, burial, and resurrection)
Believe, unto...John 3:16
Confess unto... (Jesus as Lord)...Matt. 10:32
Repent unto...Acts 2:38
Be Baptized into...Acts 22:16, Mark 16:16
Live faithfully unto death...(Rev. 2:10)

Notice that the Bible teaches all are acts "unto" salvation until one gets to baptism and it is "into" salvation (Christ)...Also notice that belief in the Bible always requires action as it is an action word...

Have a good day my friend.

In His Service, Jim
Top
Posted by Jon Bonine (+168) 11 years ago
Matt 19:25
Top
Posted by James Lynch (+204) 11 years ago
Matt 19:25?? Where does that fit into this discussion unless you are trying to change the subject??

But then I guess it is relevant when you consider the rich man was not willing to obey what Christ required in order to become His disciple. And sadly many are of the same mind these days as well.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 11 years ago
As for the "Nicene Creed"? Why would I want to put my faith in an article that was drafted some 300+ years after the Bible was completed?


I believe you may be in error regarding the timeline of biblical canon vs. the nicene creed.

Council of Nicea: http://en.wikipedia.org/w..._of_Nicaea

Biblical Canon: http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ical_canon
Top
Posted by Jon Bonine (+168) 11 years ago
I'll spell it out for you this one time James.

If it's about obeying, then it is something that we do.
Is that not a work?
Then how do we reconcile Ephesians 2:8-9 with "obeying"?
If it's about obeying, then the disciples' question is valid, "Who can be saved?" Who is capable of obeying the whole council of God?

Jesus answer is rather instructive.

As per your into/unto distinction, it just doesn't hold water. Only the Revelation 2 passage uses the word unto. The other passages you cited use eis or en (Greek)

Have fun with John 6:28-29
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 11 years ago
Speaking of question begging: http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ty_of_Mary Discuss.
Top
Posted by James Lynch (+204) 11 years ago
Council of Nicea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Biblical Canon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

Not that I would doubt its validity without looking at it but I have much better resources than an opinion post dictionary.

Still the dating does not validate the Nicene Creed as inspired scripture.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 11 years ago
Please learn how to post a proper link James....

read the instructions at the bottom of the reply page dealing with URL

http://milescity.com/foru...?fpid=5976
Top
Posted by James Lynch (+204) 11 years ago
"If it's about obeying, then it is something that we do.
Is that not a work? "

An obedient act to a spicific cammand would not be a "work".
I attend worship weekly in order to obey the command to not forsake the assembly (Heb. 10:25)...that is an obedient act not a work. I partake of the Lords Supper weekly according to the example and command of the Apostles teachings...that does not mean the partacing is a work but an act of obedience.

An act of obedience is something you do in order to obey Christ a work is something you do as a sacrifical service to the ONE who cammands that respect of appreciation and sacrifice on our part for what He has done for us. If you study the use of the word work between James and Paul this will be clear.


"Then how do we reconcile Ephesians 2:8-9 with "obeying"? "
God providing the grace through my faith still does not exuse me from meeting His commands and acting on them out of obedience.


"As per your into/unto distinction, it just doesn't hold water. Only the Revelation 2 passage uses the word unto. The other passages you cited use eis or en (Greek)"

Try this one...
Reconcile the word for in Acts 2:38 "...repent and be baptized...for the forgiveness of sin..." With Matthew 26:28 ...My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sin.

If baptism in Acts 2:38 is not for the forgiveness of sin then that would mean Jesus blood was not poured out for the forgiveness of sin...if not then why not?

Have fun with John 6:28-29 - Remember what I said earlier...belief requires action because it is an action word.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 11 years ago
Here's the nicene creed:


We believe in one God,

the Father, the Almighty
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation

he came down from heaven:

by the power of the Holy Spirit

he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again

in accordance with the Scriptures;

he ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,

and his kingdom will have no end

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,

and the life of the world to come. Amen.



So... which parts do you disagree with? Because you really can't discuss even a minimalist christian orthodoxy without accepting a majority of the nicene creed.

And I'm not trying to say that the creed proceeded the formation of the canon - but every line in the creed exists because it was felt that something in the canon of the time required clarification.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (12/3/2009)]
Top
Posted by James Lynch (+204) 11 years ago
TY for the tip Howdy...do not use this site much...will get it right next time.
Top
Posted by James Lynch (+204) 11 years ago
"We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church."

This would be the one statement that would not validate is as scripture and thus not needed.

How about the "one Church" that all believers are to be baptized into...Christ's church...

The Nicene Creed is valid as long as it harmonizes with scripture...as with any man made doctrine or teachings.
Top
Posted by Christen LeBlanc Ramsey (+269) 11 years ago
in response to bridger and the virgin birth:

would any of us believe the same claim being made today?
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 11 years ago
You are welcome James....at least if the URL tag is clickable, then folks can read along with the sites that are referenced without much trouble...
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 11 years ago
The word "catholic" in this case means "universal".

The Nicene Creed is valid as long as it harmonizes with scripture...as with any man made doctrine or teachings.


And that's the point I'm driving at: The interpretation of scripture that we have today would not exist if it were not for the framework of interpretation that the Nicene creed illustrates. Every line in the creed exists because it was felt that something in the canon of the time required clarification. To say that scripture can "stand alone" without such a framework invites a rehashing of any number of heresies that have been dealt with throughout the ages.

But if everybody's cool with that then great, I'm not entirely sold upon this whole "trinitarianism" thing anyways.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (12/3/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 11 years ago
I have never been cool with picking and choosing what things fundamentalists believe, as in the pledge of alligience using "under God" which wasn't added until very late in the last century...but they love that...They appear to pick and choose quite often without any semblance of education on the matter...what they purport to be the TRUTH makes no sense to me because of their lack of formal education in many instances..How can they interpret the Bible without an education??

[This message has been edited by howdy (12/3/2009)]
Top
Posted by polar bear (+506) 11 years ago
Infant baptism is harmless. It does not "save" anyone though. You must be able to accept the beliefs to be "saved". I would prefer it be called an infant dedication where the parents are committing to raise the child in the truth. The truth is that no one must be baptized to be saved. It is simply a symbol of what has occurred in your heart and that is where baptism/salvation takes place. Additionally, you must continue to accept to continue to be saved.

Just to be clear though, I think being saved is a very, very simple thing.
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+581) 11 years ago
A sacramental understanding of Baptism is anything but "harmless." Anything that kills and then raises anew with Christ could actually be understood as dangerous, even harmful, to life as we know it.
Top
Posted by Lorin Dixson (+594) 11 years ago
I am always surprised at the number of vocal Christian's, that think the word catholic, only means the name of a church.
Top
Top
Posted by Heath H (+650) 11 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14936) 11 years ago
With regard to importance and efficacy of infant baptism and baptism in general please consider the following resource:

http://www.wordmp3.com/fi...aptism.htm
Top
Posted by RA (+645) 11 years ago
Howdy said:
"...what they purport to be the TRUTH makes no sense to me because of their lack of formal education in many instances..How can they interpret the Bible without an education??"

Am I to understand that you are proposing that ONLY educated individuals may interpret the Bible? And, if that is what you are proposing.....what do you consider as 'education'?
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 11 years ago
I was referring to the many religious scholars that have made a lifetime of studying and interpreting the Bible...that have masters and doctorates in many areas including the ancient languages in which the Bible was originally written...that is the education I am referring to..Of course anyone can open the Bible and try to interpret it..I would think that the ones that have a higher educational level in those areas would be more accurate in that endeavor...I certainly would never try to do so, as I don't feel adequately educated in that area...
Top
Posted by Jon Bonine (+168) 11 years ago
Thank you Bridgier.

James, I have no problem with a baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Or the Lord's Supper for the forgiveness of sins.

In post 5, way back at the start of this discussion, James said,
baptism is an act of obedience required by God where one is clothed with Christ (Gal 3:27) not to be confused as a work to show ones appreciation for the salvation God offers through Christ...

If baptism is an act of obedience, who is doing it?
"Be baptized..."
Wendy, can you help us out? Active or passive voice?

[This message has been edited by Jon Bonine (12/3/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4460) 11 years ago
Sorry, Howdy, but we've been down the "leave all the interpretation to the rich guys" road before, and it went about as well as you'd expect.

Leave interpretation up to the powerful and the only real product is corruption.

Much like a thriving democracy, a thriving Church needs educated members.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (12/3/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 11 years ago
I agree Rick, educated members are necessary for a thriving church..I am not saying "rich guys"...EDUCATED GUYS is my requirement at least in my own mind..
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4460) 11 years ago
It seemed to me like you were saying that you can't take someone's interpretation seriously if it's contradicted by someone else who holds a degree on the subject.

Maybe we should go back to the Vulgate. That'd fix it.

Or put another way... sometimes the highly educated can be highly misinformed. Or in some cases, they may even have the wrong motive.

My own personal feeling is that the truth should generally stand on its own.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (12/3/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 11 years ago
but who determines truth...and what is truth??
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4460) 11 years ago
I believe 'truth' is basically the nature of God, our father.

Nobody determines it but him.

The one thing I'm sure of is that the truth is not based on what you or I believe. God's truth is the truth with or without me.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 11 years ago
but how do we determine what he says is the truth?? How do we determine the difference between "our own opinions" and what God says is the truth...My answer is you cannot determine that...noone can..

have to continue tomorrow...bedtime for this ole lady...goodnite all..
Top
Posted by James Lynch (+204) 11 years ago
Wow...thank you all for the interest and the comments on the subject. I am always encouraged to find out there are many who are interested in seeking God's truth pertaining to spiritual matters.

One comment I found interesting...
"Maybe we should go back to the Vulgate. That'd fix it."
Perhaps even better...the Greek text in which the NT was written. Isn't that what "understanding" is...to study and become educated in the Word in order to "know" what God wants from His created beings?

However, one does not need to have a doctorate or even a masters to understand the simplicity of the scriptures, not that it doesn't help to study any subject to a higher level of learning. I certianly would not want to be a surgeon and opporate on someone if I had not studies the anatomy of the human body. Therefore, I do not teach that which I do not at least have a basic education in or understanding of.

Now let me see if I understand what I am hearing as a general rule here...especially with Jon's comments.

Are we saying that in order for one to be saved he/she doen NOT have to "do" anything. Just have faith only (Believing in Jesus) and keep that belief until ones death or the return of Christ and then one will be found righteous and acceptable to God and recieve salvation in heaven as a free gift from God???

Look forward to your reply.

Jim

http://www.milescitychurch.community.officelive.com

[This message has been edited by James Lynch (12/4/2009)]
Top
Posted by James Lynch (+204) 11 years ago
howdy said:

"but how do we determine what he says is the truth?? How do we determine the difference between "our own opinions" and what God says is the truth...My answer is you cannot determine that...noone can.."

My way of thinking is to allow scripture to interpret scripture as a general rule. Scripture will always teach us if we are open to accept it. I always search the scripture to make sure it is in harmony with "all" of God's word. Before I ever pick up a commantary or any outside resource I come to a conclusion as to what the scripture is teaching FIRST and then I seek the comments of those who are much more sudied on the subject than I am. No matter what subject you study there will be diferent opinions...and opinions are like noses...we all have one and eventually we blow it.

Then, once we have studied, we can draw our conclusions based on what God says and not what I think, others think, or may believe. The main goal should be to find out what God thinks. The hardest thing for me to do is to look into scripture and accept what I thought was true is not in line with what God has revealed and to change my thinking to match His thinking. My problem is not accepting the truth but making the change in ordert o fall in line with God's Word. Is it just me, or do others have that problem as well?

Just my own personal take on it. Hope it helps.

Rick's comment really says it in a nut shell...but you know being a preacher, we tend to take the long way around..lol

Hope everyone has a great day and hope to see you at the stroll...or at least the locals.

[This message has been edited by James Lynch (12/4/2009)]
Top
Posted by James Lynch (+204) 11 years ago
"James, I have no problem with a baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Or the Lord's Supper for the forgiveness of sins."

If one has been save by believing in Jesus then how can one be baptized for the forgiveness of sin, or even need to be?? And how and where would the Lord's Supper for forgiveness of sin fit in?? I don't see that in scripture.

If one believes is he still in sin and in need of baptism and the Lord's Supper for the forgiveness of sin? Are there things I still need to do in ordert to be forgiven of my sins or is my faith not enough??
Top
Posted by Russell Bonine (+243) 11 years ago
Therefore, I do not teach that which I do not at least have a basic education in or understanding of.


Except for the understanding of faith and sin

James, you either hold an insufficient belief about the full effect of sin or you believe that children who die or the mentally handicapped who die, go to hell.

Your understanding of faith is about making it a moral decision. This is nothing less than Pelagian and excusing children from divine judgment is modified universalism.

"Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

This can only go one of two ways. Either we are sinful from conception or sex, even within the confines of biblical marriage, is sinful. (If you chose #2 then you have a problem with other portions of scripture)

By virtue of the fact that babies die means that no matter how cute they are they are sinful. "The wages of sin is.?"

Eph 2:1-3 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
Again emphasis on our natural state of sin i.e. "by nature children of wrath"

John 3:5-6 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Being born of the water and the Spirit is Baptismal.


(Mat 18:1-6)
At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.


How does one receive a child in Jesus' name? I will give you a hint. Baptism. Look at Matthew 28:19-20 "baptize in the name"

Luk 18:15-17 Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."

How does one receive the kingdom of God like a child?

Act 2:38-9 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

Is not the promise spoken of here, which is for you and your CHILDREN, that of baptism for the forgiveness of sins?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 11 years ago
Holidays at the Bonine household compound must be awesome, but I'd hate to watch them try and determine which version of Grace to say before dinner.
Top
Posted by James Lynch (+204) 11 years ago
Like I said earlier in this same post:

Show me in scripture where the Bible ever authorized an infant to be baptized. One must be able to hear (understand) and believe (conscience acceptance) the gospel before one can be accountable to it. Luke 18:15-17 is not referrencing children being baptized when brought to Jesus.

So basically infant baptism is of no effect. We cannot justify doing infant baptisms without adding to scripture our own doctrine. Baptism as taught in scripture is for those who have the ability to understand the lost state in which they are in and to have the intellect to understand who Jesus is, what He has done, and be able to believe that truth. Therefore, this would leave no "need" for an infant to be baptized.

Do you believe one can suffer the consequenses of sin without being guilty of that sin?? Infants are born into a world of sin and have a sinful nature in the flesh. We do not become accountable for sin untill one has the ability to understand what sin is and why we need redemption. Therefore, infants and others who are unable to believe and obey are not subject to guilt. Just because my family or children suffer the consequenses of my actions does not make them accountable for those actions. No child is accountable for sin if he/she is innocent. Sin is not passed down from generation to generation but the consequeses of sin are.

Gal. 3:26-27 Paul said..."For you are all sons of God through faith in Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ"
"Through faith" would automatically require one to have an understanding of what faith is, and the faith of my parents would not be sufficient to justify me as we are all accountable for our individual lives.

"Your understanding of faith is about making it a moral decision."

Is not everything we do based on a moral decision?? The nature of living a life acceptable to God requires one to live based on morality. Take morality out of the equation and what do we have?? Life without choice or direction (like the world we live in); sheep following after anyone who will lead them no matter where, as long as the grass is green and good to the taste.

"By virtue of the fact that babies die means that no matter how cute they are they are sinful. "The wages of sin is.?""
DEATH = Spiritual Death...So just because a baby dies means it is sinful? Death of the body does not kill the spirit.

"Luke 18:15-17 Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."

This passage is not referring to Jesus forgiving anyone of their sins. The meaning is that one must become as a little child in the sence of pure and innocent in order to enter the kingdom. Children are willing to accept the simplicity of the love of God at face value where as we age we see things in a different way and are less willing to accept change. This is where one lets his/her ego or belief system thast comes from our worldly wisdom over ride the message of what God wants to reveal through His wisdom.

It would seem to me to be a real stretch to take this passage of scripture and make an application to justify the need for children to be baptized because they are "sinful."


Have a good day folks...hope you are enjoying this thread as much as I am. God bless.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14936) 11 years ago
I'd hate to watch them try and determine which version of Grace to say before dinner.


Good bread, good meat,
Good Lord, let's eat!

or

Rub-a-dub-dub,
Thanks for the grub.
Yah God!

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (12/4/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 11 years ago
Careful Richard, that's a terribly monophysite formulation you're using there.
Top
Posted by Jon Bonine (+168) 11 years ago
One comment I found interesting...
"Maybe we should go back to the Vulgate. That'd fix it."
Perhaps even better...the Greek text in which the NT was written.


Not a problem. Would you prefer the LXX or the BHS for the Old Testament?

And how and where would the Lord's Supper for forgiveness of sin fit in?? I don't see that in scripture.

So what is the context of Matt 26:28?

for one to be saved he/she doen NOT have to "do" anything. Just have faith only

I'm saying that one CANNOT do anything to effect salvation. You still make faith a work with your understanding. It's the difference between Fides quae and Fides qua.

This is where baptism is important. Does someone "do" baptism (active voice)or is it something that is done to a person (passive voice). Since Wendy is wise enough not to engage, I'll help you out. The Greek is passive. Baptism is something done to us, not something that we do (not much room left for an act of obedience).

Bridgier, when in Rome Wittenberg...
Top
Posted by Jon Bonine (+168) 11 years ago
My wife's family has the prayer;
Three slices for four
Thank God there aren't any more.

It just doesn't work for our family.
Top
Posted by James Lynch (+204) 11 years ago
"Would you prefer the LXX or the BHS for the Old Testament?"
Either would be sufficient since the OT is now our schoolmaster for our leaning and not a "law" in which we live under.


"So what is the context of Matt 26:28?"
The LS was instituted by Jesus and a feast to be done regularly in order for His disciples to remember the sacrifice that he made for us. Paul clarified the LS in 1 Corinthians 11:23ff. From this we can see there is not power in the act of partaking except that of keeping His sacrifice fresh in our hearts and minds.

"I'm saying that one CANNOT do anything to effect salvation. You still make faith a work with your understanding.

This is where baptism is important. Does someone "do" baptism (active voice)or is it something that is done to a person (passive voice). Since Wendy is wise enough not to engage, I'll help you out. The Greek is passive. Baptism is something done to us, not something that we do (not much room left for an act of obedience)."

Sure it does...Did Saul not have to "arrise and be baptized" at the instuctions of Anninais in Acts 22:16 in order to "call upon the Lord" to wash away his sins. Was that an act of obedience or was it something he just simply did for naught? So for someone to "do" a baptism the person must first take action.

Faith in and of itself is an act...if I come to a belief and change my mind on something is that not an action taking place in my mind??

Christianity requires action; otherwise where would the need be for one to be saved?

[This message has been edited by James Lynch (12/4/2009)]

[This message has been edited by James Lynch (12/4/2009)]
Top
Posted by Russell Bonine (+243) 11 years ago
DEATH = Spiritual Death

The result of sin is both spiritual and physical death. Read Genesis Chpt 3.


"Luke 18:15-17 Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."

Why were people bringing these children for Jesus to touch them? I don't think this was a "political hand shaking and kissing babies" PR stunt by Jesus. The "touching" is indicative of healing. Consider Luke 8:43-47



Sin is not passed down from generation to generation but the consequeses of sin are.

Read Romans 5:12
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 11 years ago
So, just to be clear here... was it just people that didn't die in the garden of eden, or were the animals immortal as well?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14936) 11 years ago
James: there are many points here that could be argued one way or the other. While it is tempting to "go there" I am going to refrain. It is obvious that for now you are comfortable teaching/preaching what I will characterize as "therapeutic decisionism".

Nearly 20 years of my life were wasted in that kind of theology where everything was about me and the decisions I made. I lived a life preoccupied with worry about individual activities and whether those activities were part of God's will for my life. Most everything was about how scripture could be framed to verify that I was right and was what I wanted to hear.

I used to believe that I was saved because I made a decision for Jesus to make Him Lord of my life. The funny thing is that the harder I tried to live a moral and pious life, the more aware that I was falling short. There simply were, despite my best efforts, many holes in my theology. I used to believe many of the things you have espoused, like baptism being for grownups, that the IS in the Lord's Supper means "represents" rather than IS, etc.

Frankly, for me, much of the confusion came from sitting under preaching that always promised a better life if I had faith like Abraham, or Joshua, or any of a number of other characters. If I behaved the way they did, I too could achieve a better and more blessed life. It came from a semi-pelegian/arminian view of Scripture. All of my "works" pious or otherwise did nothing for me. The harder I tried the more I failed.

So what caused the changed?

Coming to the understanding that there is nothing I can do to make the triune God love me more that He does right now. It is not about me and my works, but about Christ Jesus and His work.

First and foremost was a new understanding of the total depravity of man. Coming to grips with the fact that I was D-E-A-D dead in sin, not merely sick, and that I could do nothing to change my condition. (Eph 2:8-9). I can't keep any part of the law, but the good news (Gospel) is that Jesus did that in my place. As Luther puts it we are simultaneously saint and sinner. The sinner part of me is here until the end. I sin daily and need to confess and repent of my sin and receive the forgiveness of Christ. The Divine Service is about God serving us, not about our praise of God. My faith is sustained by hearing the preaching God's Word and participation in the the Lord's supper which DOES sustain faith. I am fully persuaded that is means is.

This happened because someone suggested that I go study the events surrounding the reformation and subsequently the doctrine that was recovered in the reformation. That process helped tremendously in gaining a much better understanding of Scripture. I am still chief among sinners, but I have a peace and joy that I never had when I was a part of the therapeutic decisionism movement. I would recommend that process to others.

Christianity isn't about our personal piety; it isn't how great we are, but rather about Jesus Christ and what HE accomplished through the cross and resurrection.

I pray that God richly bless you in your continued study of His Word.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (12/4/2009)]
Top
Posted by Russell Bonine (+243) 11 years ago
So, just to be clear here... was it just people that didn't die in the garden of eden, or were the animals immortal as well?


Scripture does not speak to the immortality of animals. Only man is given the designation of living soul. (Gen 2:7)

Genesis 3:21 implies the death of the first animals in God making a covering of skin for Adam and Eve. This "sacrifice" was the model for Adam which we later see in the sacrifice given by Abel.
Genesis 9:2-3 is the first indication that animal would fear man and that man was permitted to eat animals.

It is certain however, that animals were affected by the fall of man into sin as was all creation.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6023) 11 years ago
It is certain however, that animals were affected by the fall of man into sin as was all creation.

"Certain," eh?

Idiotic.
Top
Posted by Russell Bonine (+243) 11 years ago

"Certain," eh?

Idiotic.


Yes, Certain!

Exhibit A:
http://milescity.com/foru...fpid=45886
Top
Posted by James Lynch (+204) 11 years ago
"Why were people bringing these children for Jesus to touch them? I don't think this was a "political hand shaking and kissing babies" PR stunt by Jesus. The "touching" is indicative of healing. Consider Luke 8:43-47"

You tell me...most of the people in that day did not even understand the spiritual aspect of what Jesus was all about. They looked at the physical needs being met and wanted to have their needs met. Perhaps this was sick children needing to be healed, or any of many possiblities. And since the scripture does not tell us beyond them wanting Jesus to "touch" them we can only infer as to what the purpose of that touching would have been. Physical healing would not have anything to do with being baptized for the forgiveness of sin.

Therefore, we can rest assure, that whatever the "touching" was for it was not to be baptized for the forgiveness of sin since that command had not yet been established by Jesus untill after His resurrection.




"Read Romans 5:12 - "

Still Paul in this text is speaking of the consequenses not the guilt involved with our own sin. We are subject to the consequeces of Adam's sin (ie. spiritual and physical death, sin, sickness, toiling, etc.) but are not responsible for his actions nor will we be judged for his sin only our own transgressions.
Top
Posted by James Lynch (+204) 11 years ago
Richard, Thank you very much for sharing that detailed presentation of your commitment to Christ.

If I may, let me tell you some of how I arrived at the conclutions I have and perhaps it will help you and others to better understand my thinking.

I grew up in SW Va. at the feet of a prominate Baptist preacher, A.G. Lynch. For many years as a child I came to the understanding that I was "saved" through faith and all I had to "do" is believe that Jesus died for my sins and ask Him to come into my heart and forgive me of my sins. No problem, until I became a teen and began to wonder in my own heart..."If my faith is all that I need then why are there so many commands telling me to do this...don't do this...etc."

It was at that point in my life and not until I was 22 yrs old that I could not understand what the differnce in me and the demons was. I believed...and so do the demons...so are we both justified by our faith? I knew in my heart there had to be another answer so I began my search.

I tried penticostalism (emotionalism), evangelical (what I call total acceptance), and even delved into universalism. All the while my wife of less than a year was attenting the church of Christ without me. I wondered..."how was it she could be at peace with our small world but yet my heart was torn?" So I began to attend with her as part of my search figuring I could eliminate this one too. As things were being taught that I had not heard before it made me cautious and curious at the same time.

To make a long story short...I began to question my own belief system because everything I was hearing came straight from the Bible and I could not deny it being there because (unlike many "churches") I was encouraged to study the Bible. "Imagine that", I thought..."a church wanting to follow only the Bible!!" It was about 1 1/2 years later (1985) that I realized what the difference between me being a believer and the demons who also believe.

Faith!!

Their faith (the deamons); was a faith that believed in God, as did I, they believed in Jesus as the Son, as did I, and they believed in the judgement, as did I. So what was the difference??

Action!!

I saw the Bible calling me to act in many different ways that I had never been challenged to do so before. Suddenly it made sense to me.

Having faith was not enough. Granted Jesus is the one who provided "the Way" and it is only through Him by the grace of God that we are able to have salvation. However, when we search the scripture we find that faith was always the qualifier to justification when one acted upon that faith. So I came to understand that if I wanted my faith to be justified then I must act upon that faith. Otherwise I was no better than the deamons who also believe, but are not justified.

If faith is enough for me to be saved then this would mean that I could do whatever I want as long as I believe and God will overlook my transgressions because of my faith. It just doesn't compute with the teachings in scripture. Faith requires actions.

After 24 years training my mind to think for myself and allow God to speak for Himself through the Word that has been my primary mission to others for the past 10 years I have been a preacher in the church of Christ. I do not seek to lead anyone astray because I am fully aware that teachers will be judged more harshly than those who choose not to do so. My only goal in this life is to preach Jesus and Him crucified just as Phillip did to the eunuch in Acts chapter 8.

I will be the first to admite that I am nothing save for the mercy and grace given to me by God through Jesus Christ my Lord and Savour. I beg to differ with you that you are not the "cheif" of all sinners because I wore that crown many years ago.

I do agree that there are so many ways one can go in a discussion such as this but I too would refrain from doing so. I am not afraid of confrontation nor will I ever back down from defending the Gospel of Christ, but as we all know there is a time for everything and everything in its own time.

My hope is that our discussion will help both of us and be a benifit to other who may be following this thread. I believe that if I can somehow make someone turn to God and His Word and find a more perfect way than what they now live then God has been glorified through these efforts.

I truly hope the best for you and your family. May your holiday season be filled with love and joy and may both our heart continue to be enlightened to His truth.

And to those in the Miles City community, always know that my door is always open and I invite anyone who would like to study more deeply. My belief is that if we agree on the Bible there can be no devision among us. I am not looking for denominationalism but the truth.

I hope this helps you somewhat understand how I arrived at where I am in life. Far from perfect but thanks be to God I am forgiven!!

Good day my friend...Jim

[This message has been edited by James Lynch (12/5/2009)]

[This message has been edited by James Lynch (12/5/2009)]
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6023) 11 years ago
Well, I'm convinced by your "logic," Russell.

Rock me, sexy Jeebus! Rock me!
Top