Church of Christ: Cult,sect or true

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Feb 4 2010, 07:43 PM)

Not everyone baptizes under the belief that they are immersing or being immersed for the remissions of sin

Why don

[Guest shiloh357]

It is impossible for anyone to place their faith in Christ without repenting.

Then we are in agreement

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Feb 4 2010, 07:43 PM)

Not everyone baptizes under the belief that they are immersing or being immersed for the remissions of sin

Why don

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Feb 4 2010, 07:43 PM)

Not everyone baptizes under the belief that they are immersing or being immersed for the remissions of sin

Why don

[Guest shiloh357]

No, I was just referring you to the people who could best explain why they do not except baptism the way you do.

Again, I am really not concerned with what they think

[Scare Bear]

One time I considered going to a Church of Christ. When I saw their statement on their website said that you are not welcomed at the church if you have not been baptized, I was turned off by it.

I am baptized but I thought that was weird.

What church was this?! If a church of Christ says you are not welcomed to worship with them because you're not baptized is not a congregation I'd want to attend either!

[Scare Bear]

In universe that has Jesus, why would I follow the disciples??? I prefer to follow Christ's example. He is the author and finisher of our faith, not the apostles.

Well then I guess the only parts of the bible we should follow are whatever Jesus said. Whatever Peter and Paul and others did have no bearing whatsoever.

It is "abiblical" The Bible does not mention it so you cannot argue that it violates any biblical doctrines or Christian ethics. So long as you are not violating a commandmnent from God agaisnt musical instruments then you cannot argue that employing them in worship is a sin or is displeasing to GOd.

Let's say the Lord asked me to go and fetch Him a dove and I come back with a dove and a raven... did I sin? He didn't tell me NOT to get a raven....

I have already addressed that absurd question and will not entertain it any further. Grow up.

If we have to follow the laws in the old testament then stoning would be one of them? I'm just trying to see which laws we can and can't use here.

Ok. So I can substitute the bread for carrots and grape juice is gonna be beer. As long as my heart is in it for the right reasons I can do whatever I want as long as it's for the Lord?

That is not what I said and you know it. Please, try to come up with reasonable responses instead of these silly questions.

I did not say it was not important. It is important. What I said was that it is necessary for salvation.

Mark 16:16

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Acts 2:38

Peter replied, "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.

Actually, having the HOly Spirit is the chief hallmark of being saved. The people in Cornelius' home were baptized with the Holy Spirit. Caiaphus did not "have" the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit manipulated Caiaphus to say what he said, but there is no way you can with any intellectual honesty, draw a comparison between Caiaphus and the people Cornelius' home.

But I thought the Holy Spirit working in someone was always the indication they were saved. So just this one time the person wasn't saved?

Well, maybe you should familarize yourself with what Peter said before they received the Holy Spirit.

So, they heard the Word, received theWord and had received the gift of the Holy Spirit before being immersed in water.

Acts 10:44-46 "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God."

They still hadn't heard all of what Peter had to say, he was still speaking... Besides it doesn't even say at that point that Cornelius even believed and one has to believe before they can be saved. The command to be baptized was part of the words that Peter preached whereby Cornelius and his entire house would be saved.

Look at Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.

14When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

They believed and were baptized but according to your views they weren't saved until the Holy Spirit came upon them? Wouldn't the Spirit need to come upon as soon as they believed? Why such an emphasis on baptism if it's not necessary?

[Scare Bear]

By that rationale, you should not meet in a building, you should not meet on Sunday, there should be no personally owned Bibles, no hymnbooks, since the NT also does not tell us specifically what songs we can and cannot sing.

We are told to gather together not forsaking the assembly... whether it be in a building or out in the fields.

We are given plenty of examples of the 1st century Christian's coming together on the "Lord's Day" which is Sunday.

No bible means that no one can study to show themselves approved

No hymnbooks would mean that a visitor to our congregation couldn't join in the singing because they may not know the words. We are commanded to sing hymns and how else are we gonna know the words to the hymns if we have no songbook?

To evidence your faith, but works are not part of how you obtain salvation.

James 2 might disagree. 14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them,

[jeffnevins]

25 pages? I have my idea, but I wonder what the consensus is?

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

In universe that has Jesus, why would I follow the disciples??? I prefer to follow Christ's example. He is the author and finisher of our faith, not the apostles.

Well then I guess the only parts of the bible we should follow are whatever Jesus said. Whatever Peter and Paul and others did have no bearing whatsoever.

No, what I am saying is that apostles point us to Jesus. Jesus is our example. He is the standard against which we are measured, because it is His image we are being made into. We are not being made into the image of the apostles. I don't follow Paul or Peter. I follow Christ.

QUOTE

It is "abiblical" The Bible does not mention it so you cannot argue that it violates any biblical doctrines or Christian ethics. So long as you are not violating a commandmnent from God agaisnt musical instruments then you cannot argue that employing them in worship is a sin or is displeasing to GOd.

Let's say the Lord asked me to go and fetch Him a dove and I come back with a dove and a raven... did I sin? He didn't tell me NOT to get a raven....

That depends. Did God forbid you to also bring back a raven? If God did not forbid the raven, you cannot argue that returning with a raven is a sin. The Bible defines sin as the transgression of the law.(1John 3:4) So for something to be a sin, you would have to demonstrate where it transgresses a commandment. You would have to show that it was an act of disobedience.

QUOTE

I have already addressed that absurd question and will not entertain it any further. Grow up.

If we have to follow the laws in the old testament then stoning would be one of them? I'm just trying to see which laws we can and can't use here.

I have already addressed that question from you. Please read my previous replies in this thread. I don't have time to repost the same stuff over and over.

QUOTE

I did not say it was not important. It is important. What I said was that it is necessary for salvation.

Mark 16:16

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Acts 2:38

Peter replied, "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.

Neither of those verses claim that baptism is necessary for salvation. What if someone gets saved in a hospital and are near death and are hooked up to wires and tubes and are unable to be immersed in water. Does that person go to hell even if they have trusted Jesus as Savior?

QUOTE

Actually, having the HOly Spirit is the chief hallmark of being saved. The people in Cornelius' home were baptized with the Holy Spirit. Caiaphus did not "have" the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit manipulated Caiaphus to say what he said, but there is no way you can with any intellectual honesty, draw a comparison between Caiaphus and the people Cornelius' home.

But I thought the Holy Spirit working in someone was always the indication they were saved. So just this one time the person wasn't saved?

No, you aren't getting it. The Holy Spirit can cause someone to do something. That does not mean the person is saved or that the person "has" the Holy Spirit.

QUOTE

Well, maybe you should familarize yourself with what Peter said before they received the Holy Spirit.

So, they heard the Word, received theWord and had received the gift of the Holy Spirit before being immersed in water.

Acts 10:44-46 "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God."

They still hadn't heard all of what Peter had to say, he was still speaking... Besides it doesn't even say at that point that Cornelius even believed and one has to believe before they can be saved. The command to be baptized was part of the words that Peter preached whereby Cornelius and his entire house would be saved.

That is just intellectual suicide on your part. The fact was Peter said what He said. He said enough that they were able to hear the Word and believe. They believed and the Holy Spirit was manifest BEFORE they were baptized. You can try every kind of theological gymnastics you can think of, but there is no getting around the plain meaning of the text.

They believed and were baptized but according to your views they weren't saved until the Holy Spirit came upon them? Wouldn't the Spirit need to come upon as soon as they believed? Why such an emphasis on baptism if it's not necessary?

I did not say it wasn't necessary. I said it wasn't necessary for salvation.