Church of Christ: Cult,sect or true

[other one]

Sorry a bit long for my concentration span

A.D.D. or A.D.H.D ????

I hear riddilin is pretty good for that...

[Scare Bear]

1: The demands the law made were never the problem, but they could not provide salvation. Salvation never came through the sacrifices. There is a common misperception in the church that the sacrifices were the "Old Testament means of salvation." It is believed that people in the Old Testament were saved by performing sacrifices, but that Jesus provided something better. No one in the Old Testament were saved by sacrificing. They were saved the same way we are today.

The point is, the law IS holy just and good AND the sacrifices were not enough.

2: Okay, so we don't need to love the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul and strength? We don't need to love our neighbor??? We can just scratch that out of our Bibles as no longer applicable??? Is it okay to just walk in someone's house and steal their stuff because Old Testament laws against stealing are no longer applicable??? Do you not see how absurd and ridiculous that claim is???

3: If Abraham were saved by works, then Abraham could take credit for salvation. If we could be justified by works, then we would not need Jesus. You say we are not justified by the law, but then try to make the case that we are justified by works, which is an internally inconsistent position.

4: Those who were goats, by nature did not. If you are saved, your works will bear that out. If you are not saved, (a goat) your actions will bear that out as well. This passage is not claiming salvation by works, but proves that works are the best indicator of the authenticity of one's profession of faith.

5: You are still missin the point. You are confusing applicability with relevance. The law is not 100% applicable, but it is still relevant. Of course I do not keep the ceremonial laws that were given only to Israel, but the moral/ethical laws are still applicable all people. Keeping the ethical commandments does not mean I have to eat pork. You really do have a fundamentallly flawed way of approaching the Bible.

6: Yes, but those examples are not commanded to us to imitate. A tradition of man is created when we attempt to establish doctrine absent a direct commandment from Scripture. Sunday morning church services are still nothing but a tradition of man. Always have been.

7: The fact that instruments are not mentioned does not mean they were not there. It could simply mean, that it was not an important detail to include. Even IF they did not use instruments, that does not mean it is a sin to do so. To make the case that it is WRONG for a church to use musical instruments in church, you will need to find a commandment from God that prohibits it.

8: Christmas is not commanded by God. Easter is not commanded by God. Church buildings are not commanded by God. Sunday School classes are not commanded by God. There are all kinds of things Christians do that are not commanded by God. Are you prepared to give those noncommanded things up in order to be consistent in your position???

9:There is no specific prayer to be saved, but all salvations were by faith alone apart from works: 1. Acts 8, Ehtiopian 2. Acts 9 Paul 3. Acts 11, Cornelius and his household. 4. Acts 16, Phillipian Jailer 5. All of the Apostles.

1: So, remind me the way that we're all saved, those of the Old Testament and those of us today?

Now I seem to be getting this whole contradiction of points from you. First the law is good and just and was never done away with and yet there's laws and sacrifices and rules we aren't commanded to follow. I thought we are to follow the whole law and not pick and choose? If the law is that good and just and holy then all of it should be followed right?

I believe also you are reading Romans 7 way too differently than intended. Why would verse 6 say this: 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.?

So either the old law is good or the new law. I suggest reading the whole chapter a lot closer.

2: Jesus told us these things. The Old law was nailed to the cross along with our sins as stated in Col. 2:13-14 To suggest the Old Law still applies to us today would mean that we should remain in our sins. Hebrews 10:9 then He said,

[AnotherTraveler]

Glad to know you don't think I'm a waste of space.

how could that even be possible????

We are One Body made up of sinners, kooks, and cast-offs that the Lord saw some value in redeeming. Some just hide their weirdness better than others....

This is true understanding

[Guest shiloh357]

1: So, remind me the way that we're all saved, those of the Old Testament and those of us today?

By grace through faith (Eph. 2:8,9)

Now I seem to be getting this whole contradiction of points from you. First the law is good and just and was never done away with and yet there's laws and sacrifices and rules we aren't commanded to follow. I thought we are to follow the whole law and not pick and choose? If the law is that good and just and holy then all of it should be followed right?

There is no contradiction except the one you are trying to manufacture. There no biblical support for the oft-misgiven notion that a person had to follow 613 commandments. Like I said earlier, not all commandments are applicable to all people for all time, and the Bible bears that out. That does not contradict Paul's statement that the law if holy and just. Just because the entire law is not 100% applicable does not mean that law is not holy, just and good.

I believe also you are reading Romans 7 way too differently than intended. Why would verse 6 say this: 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.?

Beause the context in which Paul is dealing with the law pertains to its condemnation of the sinner. We are delivered from the law in terms of condemnation, which is why Paul juxtaposes it with "no condemnation" in Romans 8. From the standpoint of a sinner, the law of God is condemnation. It decrees a sentence of death upon the sinner. When are delieverd from being "under the law" (a phrase Paul uses for condemnation) to being "under grace" (a phrase Paul uses for referrng to those who are saved). You need to read Romans 7 in the context of chapters 6 and 8. Paul's point is that the law is holy and just, but I stand condemned in the presence of that holiness. The problem was not the law, according to Paul. The problem was his sin. Only salvation can rescue us from the just, and holy condemnation of the law that is occasioned by our sin.

The demands of the law are just. The problem is that on my own, I cannot meet those demands. I do not, possess, the strength, or the resources necessary to meet up with righteousness the law justly demands of me. The answer is NOT to get rid of the law. The answer is for God to meet those demands and to supply the righteousness of the law that I cannot procure for myself. He did this in Christ. The righteousness of the law is being fulfilled in me (Rom. 8:4) God did not eradicate His Law. Instead, he imputed His righteousness to me by faith in the finished work of the cross.

The Old law was nailed to the cross along with our sins as stated in Col. 2:13-14 To suggest the Old Law still applies to us today would mean that we should remain in our sins.

Not it does not. The Bible never says the "Old Law" was nailed to the cross. That is something YOU are penciling into the text. There is not such thing as "The Old Law." That is something you are adding to the text of Scripture. The law of God is not "old."

Hebrews 10:9 then He said,

[Scarletprayers]

Glad to know you don't think I'm a waste of space.

how could that even be possible????

We are One Body made up of sinners, kooks, and cast-offs that the Lord saw some value in redeeming. Some just hide their weirdness better than others....

This is true understanding

Yeah, so sad there is so little of that true understanding here though isn't it.

[Scare Bear]

By grace through faith (Eph. 2:8,9)

But, Whatever sinners must do in order to be saved, must be done in order to be saved by grace. Would you agree that obedience is necessary to obtain that grace?

There is no contradiction except the one you are trying to manufacture. There no biblical support for the oft-misgiven notion that a person had to follow 613 commandments. Like I said earlier, not all commandments are applicable to all people for all time, and the Bible bears that out. That does not contradict Paul's statement that the law if holy and just. Just because the entire law is not 100% applicable does not mean that law is not holy, just and good.

Do you follow every single rule that applies to you? Do you rest and worship on the sabbath?

Beause the context in which Paul is dealing with the law pertains to its condemnation of the sinner. We are delivered from the law in terms of condemnation, which is why Paul juxtaposes it with "no condemnation" in Romans 8. From the standpoint of a sinner, the law of God is condemnation. It decrees a sentence of death upon the sinner. When are delieverd from being "under the law" (a phrase Paul uses for condemnation) to being "under grace" (a phrase Paul uses for referrng to those who are saved). You need to read Romans 7 in the context of chapters 6 and 8. Paul's point is that the law is holy and just, but I stand condemned in the presence of that holiness. The problem was not the law, according to Paul. The problem was his sin. Only salvation can rescue us from the just, and holy condemnation of the law that is occasioned by our sin.

Now as far as this goes, I don't understand how you cannot see the example Paul is giving in Romans 7. Look at Galatians 3:24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

Hebrews 8 describes this clearly: 13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

The demands of the law are just. The problem is that on my own, I cannot meet those demands. I do not, possess, the strength, or the resources necessary to meet up with righteousness the law justly demands of me. The answer is NOT to get rid of the law. The answer is for God to meet those demands and to supply the righteousness of the law that I cannot procure for myself. He did this in Christ. The righteousness of the law is being fulfilled in me (Rom. 8:4) God did not eradicate His Law. Instead, he imputed His righteousness to me by faith in the finished work of the cross.

Not it does not. The Bible never says the "Old Law" was nailed to the cross. That is something YOU are penciling into the text. There is not such thing as "The Old Law." That is something you are adding to the text of Scripture. The law of God is not "old."

If He did not eradicate His law then there was no reason for Jesus to die. There was no reason at all. As I understand anyone could become a Jew as long as they did what was required of them so therefore by clinging onto the old law one does not need Christ.

Again Hebrews 8:13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. So if something is obsolete or aging isn't that called old?

That is referring to the Old Covenant, not the Law. They are not the same thing.

Let me get this straight, so if you make a covenant with someone you are not obligated to follow the rules set forth in such covenant? The definition of a covenant is this: a signed written agreement between two or more parties (nations) to perform some action. You're right, they're not the same thing but they go hand in hand. You cannot make a covenant without performing some sort of action.

Repentence is a response to gospel. It does not save you. Furthermore, repentence is a daily response to the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

So you can still be saved without repenting?

No, not really. Like I said, they met every day, not just Sunday.

Did they break bread or give of their means everyday?

Except that you are comparing two disimilar thing. Noah was given specific instructions about the material, dimensions, etc. of the ark. The ark was being used as means of salvation from the flood to come.

The argument that having musicial instruments even though there no commandment against musical instruments constitutes disobedience is a logically and biblically fallacious argument. For it to be sin, or displeasing to the Lord, it would have violate a commandment from God.

Yes, that he was and that's my point. We are given the command to sing. We are never told if it is or is not ok to use musical instruments during worship services. To apply musical instruments to worship would be adding to the word of God.

God told Nadab and Abihu which specific kind of fire to use and they disobeyed, what happened to them? What happened to Uzzah when he touched the ark? We are told what to do, we are given that command!

Yes, and since God received and was pleased worship at His Temple with musical instruments and He hasn't changed, then there is no basis for saying that God would be displeased with musical instruments today.

Do you think God would have rather had everyone use their own instrument? (voice) Now here's something I've been thinking on, it may or may not be right but it's just a thought an opinion and I'm not making this gold... but early Christianity included two groups of people: Jews with a background of instrumental music (Psalm 150) and pagan Gentiles who also worshipped with musical instruments. Yet when the church was established in about 33 A.D., those early Christians worshipped without such instruments. Now to keep the unity between the gentiles and the jews I think musical worship was nixed. I mean, you wouldn't want pagans to introduce their musical praise into worship to God now would you? But like I said, it's a thought.

yes, but none of them indicate that Baptism is necessary for salvation. Salvation is Jesus + 0.

But why do you think every act of conversion includes the example of baptism? Why aren't there acts of conversion where all one had to do was pray?

By the way I hope you had a Merry Christmas and hope you will have a happy new year!

[Guest yod]

So you can still be saved without repenting?

what is there to repent from if there is no law?

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

By grace through faith (Eph. 2:8,9)

But, Whatever sinners must do in order to be saved, must be done in order to be saved by grace. Would you agree that obedience is necessary to obtain that grace?

If grace is obtained by obedience, then it is lost by disobedience, which contradicts what grace is. Grace is not for people who don't sin. If you don't sin if you are 100% perfect then why would you need grace? Grace is for the people who sin, for the people who stumble in a sincere attempt at serving the Lord. Let me illustrate it this way:

You have insurance on your car. Let's say one day you accidentally hit the car in front of you in a fender bender. What you do if your insurance company said, "We only cover you when you are a good driver. Since you had a fender bender, we are NOT going to cover you and in fact, we are canceling your policy and you are no longer a policyholder. Pay for the accident yourself." You would be on the phone with your lawyer, because the insurance is there for when you have accidents. What is the point of having insurance if it won't cover you in the event of an accident.

If God's grace only extends to perfect people who never sin, then it is not grace at all and is worthless.

Now as far as this goes, I don't understand how you cannot see the example Paul is giving in Romans 7.

I am looking at it. Romans 7 illustrates Paul's frustration: "That which I want to do, I do not; that I do not want to do, that is what I do." Paul is looking at himself in light of God's law and illustrating thereby the condemned state of a sinner without Christ.

Look at Galatians 3:24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

That is true, but that is only ONE function of the law. We are no longer under the law pertaining to its function as a schoolmaster. That does not mean we can live as we please. We are now free to keep God's commandments as they were meant to be kept.

Hebrews 8 describes this clearly: 13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

He is referring to the older covenant which was passing away. He was not referring to the law. The covenants pertain to how the law was adminstered. The old system is passing away and now we observe God's commandments under a new system or new covenant.

If He did not eradicate His law then there was no reason for Jesus to die. There was no reason at all.

If Jesus eradicated the law, then there is nothing for us to obey. There is no standard against which to measure what is right or wrong. What if the government eradicated all laws in the country against stealing??? Some could walk into your house anytime they wanted and take your stuff and you would have no legal recourse against them. Do you not see how absurd what you are saying is??

Nowhere in the New Testament does it say the law was eradicated. That is just the typical Christian overstatement based on a lack of proper and skilled study in Scripture. What was eradicated was the curse of the law, not the law itself. You need to read your Bible.

Let me get this straight, so if you make a covenant with someone you are not obligated to follow the rules set forth in such covenant? The definition of a covenant is this: a signed written agreement between two or more parties (nations) to perform some action. You're right, they're not the same thing but they go hand in hand. You cannot make a covenant without performing some sort of action.

You really need to read your Bible. The law was given AFTER the covenant was made. The law was not the covenant and the covenant was not the law. Furthermore, of the New Covenant, God said he would write his law on the hearts of the people. He did not say He would do away with the law.

As I understand anyone could become a Jew as long as they did what was required of them so therefore by clinging onto the old law one does not need Christ.

Well, you understand incorrectly. That is not how a person became a Jew.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

Repentence is a response to gospel. It does not save you. Furthermore, repentence is a daily response to the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

So you can still be saved without repenting?

That is not what I said. I said that repentance in and of itself does save you. Besides, as Yod pointed out, how is sin determined without a law to divide between right and wrong? I John 3:4 tells us that "sin is the transgression of the law." Now that is a New Testament Scripture and it tells us that when we sin, we break God's law. How is that possible if the law was eradicated??? Was John wrong??? Without the law, there is no sin to repent of.

QUOTE

No, not really. Like I said, they met every day, not just Sunday.

Did they break bread or give of their means everyday?

Does it matter what they did when they met??? The point is that you cannot point to any place in the NT that commands ONE specific day to meet. Meeting on Sunday is a tradition. It is a good tradition, but it is still just a tradition.

Yes, that he was and that's my point. We are given the command to sing. We are never told if it is or is not ok to use musical instruments during worship services. To apply musical instruments to worship would be adding to the word of God.

Yes, but that commandment to sing was not given as an instruction as to how to perform weekly worship services. The "singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord" is an everyday thing. It is given to us as a matter of daily, personal attitude and behavior. There is nothing in what the Bible says about singing that says, "this is how you will conduct church services," nor is the singing limited to specific day of the week. You are trying read something into the Scriptures that is not there.

God told Nadab and Abihu which specific kind of fire to use and they disobeyed, what happened to them? What happened to Uzzah when he touched the ark? We are told what to do, we are given that command!

Yes,but this not not at all similar to that situation. Nabab and Abihu were told exactly what to do when they entered the Tabernacle. They violated a specific commandment and brought something into the tabernacle that violated that commandment.

Musical instruments do not qualify as a "strange fire" as the New Testament is completely silent on the issue and besides, you cannot compare church services with the ritualism of the Tabernacle. I find it interesting and internally inconsistent for you to claim that the law is eradicated, but then appeal to the law to justify your position against musical instruments. You cannot claim the law is done away with, but then use it to justify your position on theological matters. You cannot have it both ways.

QUOTE

Yes, and since God received and was pleased worship at His Temple with musical instruments and He hasn't changed, then there is no basis for saying that God would be displeased with musical instruments today.

Do you think God would have rather had everyone use their own instrument? (voice) Now here's something I've been thinking on, it may or may not be right but it's just a thought an opinion and I'm not making this gold... but early Christianity included two groups of people: Jews with a background of instrumental music (Psalm 150) and pagan Gentiles who also worshipped with musical instruments. Yet when the church was established in about 33 A.D., those early Christians worshipped without such instruments. Now to keep the unity between the gentiles and the jews I think musical worship was nixed. I mean, you wouldn't want pagans to introduce their musical praise into worship to God now would you? But like I said, it's a thought.

How do you KNOW the early Christians worshipped without musical instruments??

I am sorry, but you are really reaching on that one. For one thing, you don't know if musical instruments were used or not. Secondly, Gentiles who used their musical instruments in worship would not pose a threat to the faith. Sure, you would not want them to bring certain types of songs in praise to the pagan gods, but I think we can give them enough credit to know better than that.

But why do you think every act of conversion includes the example of baptism? Why aren't there acts of conversion where all one had to do was pray?

Baptism was commanded by Christ. It was not given as an option. That does not make it necessary for salvation. I would also add that the people at Cornelius' home were saved and filled with the Spirit BEFORE they were baptized.

[Scare Bear]

If grace is obtained by obedience, then it is lost by disobedience, which contradicts what grace is. Grace is not for people who don't sin. If you don't sin if you are 100% perfect then why would you need grace? Grace is for the people who sin, for the people who stumble in a sincere attempt at serving the Lord.

Here is an article I think can explain it better than I could: Many people are in a constant dance with the Scriptures. These dancers twist here, turn there and generally maneuver all around in an attempt to see in the Bible what they themselves want rather than looking for what God wants (cf. 2 Peter 3:16). This has been done with the teachings on God