Church of Christ? (circumcision, contradiction, woman, churches)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks for the comment. I think the word SAVED, as when applied to people addressing the specific question (and answer) of what they need to do, should not be supposed in context. I think the Bible is simple when it comes to what we need to do. The Bible is not entirely simple, but for the most part, extremly complex to keep conversation such as this going. If we all agreed on the same thing, then why would we ever need to study. I think God in his complexity expects us to debate and challenge each other. But, I am getting somewhat off the subject. I think it's also presumtuous to assume that we, as living our current lives, can get back to the first century church. Again, of course God had the foresight to see the fact that we would have electricity and technology to help get to word out to the world. The first century church did not have the ability to create audio cassette and DVDs of their sermons to pass out to the masses. Why would we suppose to be able to compare ourselves in our current progression as humans to these simpler times? Why don't we greet each other with a holy kiss? I am getting off topic. Thanks again for addressing me. I enjoy this debate because this excites me to open my Bible and look for myself in the truth, and not what man has told me.
Sure. I believe the word SAVED in this context to this certain question or maybe a different a question that is worded a little different would mean the same thing because someone knew that they were in danger and wanted to be rescued from that danger. I believe Paul and these people in Acts 2 had fear in their hearts. But regardless of what people said then or even today or realized the state they were in, the end result would be salvation. I don't believe everyone is going to agree with each other on everything and I believe that people shouldn't agree on everything because someone can be wrong and that's why everyone should study for themselves. Yes, we are living in a different time and things are different today than they were long ago but not everything. The gospel of Christ is still the same as it was long ago. The bible even tells us that perilous times will come and things will only get worse even in the church (2 Tim.3:1-5, 13 1 Tim. 4:1-3). Thanks for your comment as well. God bless.
boonedoggle, any preacher in the church, that is an honest preacher, will tell you to not take his word for it, but to search the scriptures to see if what he says is so. This is what the Bereans did, and it is what we all should do.
I have been a member of the church for almost 43 years, and have always done that. I have never found a reason to leave the church. I have seen preachers who were not sound, and they have not been retained by the honest congregations.
I am sorry you are questioning the only way that the scriptures teach that we can get into Christ.
boonedoggle, any preacher in the church, that is an honest preacher, will tell you to not take his word for it, but to search the scriptures to see if what he says is so. This is what the Bereans did, and it is what we all should do.
I have been a member of the church for almost 43 years, and have always done that. I have never found a reason to leave the church. I have seen preachers who were not sound, and they have not been retained by the honest congregations.
I am sorry you are questioning the only way that the scriptures teach that we can get into Christ.
But, you are missing the point. We should not close our minds to what is preached in our own churches. If we start believing like that, then we never consider anything else we might study in our Bibles, but moreso what we hear in a morning sermon. I respect the fact that you have been in the church for 43 years, but I encourage you to challenge what you believe to be the truth. I know this is hard, and I forsee a similar converstation between me and my dad. I look forward to it, as long as he doesn't get angry with me.
But, you are missing the point. We should not close our minds to what is preached in our own churches. If we start believing like that, then we never consider anything else we might study in our Bibles, but moreso what we hear in a morning sermon. I respect the fact that you have been in the church for 43 years, but I encourage you to challenge what you believe to be the truth. I know this is hard, and I forsee a similar converstation between me and my dad. I look forward to it, as long as he doesn't get angry with me.
It appears you do not understand what I posted. I have not just learned from hearing morning sermons! I have learned from studying the word of God. I have no reason to "challenge" what I believe (know) is the truth. It is all recorded in the scriptures.
I have done extensive topical studies, on my own, with the bible, a concordance, and a greek lexicon, and I have not found any doctrine being taught by sound preachers in the church that I question.
Yes, there are some differing 'opinions', but they are on subjects that do not pertain to our salvation.
I have do reason to pick the word of God apart, and try to find 'hidden' meanings on it. I trust God to have given us what we need.
It appears you do not understand what I posted. I have not just learned from hearing morning sermons! I have learned from studying the word of God. I have no reason to "challenge" what I believe (know) is the truth. It is all recorded in the scriptures.
I have done extensive topical studies, on my own, with the bible, a concordance, and a greek lexicon, and I have not found any doctrine being taught by sound preachers in the church that I question.
Yes, there are some differing 'opinions', but they are on subjects that do not pertain to our salvation.
I have do reason to pick the word of God apart, and try to find 'hidden' meanings on it. I trust God to have given us what we need.
Sorry, I didn't mean to get into semantics. What do you think about what I posted originally about what John the Baptist said in all the gospels, and what was reference in Acts 11:16? How can this be looked upon as anything but simple instructions on what we need to do in regards to baptism?
Jesus did baptize with the Spirit. It was done twice. First was the day of Pentecost, and it was only on those speaking. The second was on Cornelius and his household. It was to show that the Gentiles were also accepted into the church. The miraculous gifts wre given by the laying on of the Apostles hands, and ceased when there were no more Apostles. It was to confirm the word. The baptism with fire is yet to come....
The only baptism that the disciples were told to have is/was the burial in water. It was/is symbolic of Christ's death, burial, and resurection. Romans chapter 6. It washes away one's sins. It puts one into Christ. It gives the recipient the gift of the Spirit ( not the miraculous gifts). God adds the recipient to His church. It all ties together so beautifully, I cannot understand the problem with it. It is a form of righteousness...as per what Jesus said when he was baptized. Without it, no one is in Christ, or in His church.
Jesus did baptize with the Spirit. It was done twice. First was the day of Pentecost, and it was only on those speaking. The second was on Cornelius and his household. It was to show that the Gentiles were also accepted into the church. The miraculous gifts wre given by the laying on of the Apostles hands, and ceased when there were no more Apostles. It was to confirm the word. The baptism with fire is yet to come....
The only baptism that the disciples were told to have is/was the burial in water. It was/is symbolic of Christ's death, burial, and resurection. Romans chapter 6. It washes away one's sins. It puts one into Christ. It gives the recipient the gift of the Spirit ( not the miraculous gifts). God adds the recipient to His church. It all ties together so beautifully, I cannot understand the problem with it. It is a form of righteousness...as per what Jesus said when he was baptized. Without it, no one is in Christ, or in His church.
Huh? Where do you get the idea (ie Biblical reference) that the disciples were told to have only a burial in water? I am sorry, but I am just seeing an avoidance of my original question I've always had; "I indeed baptize you with WATER unto repentance, but HE who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirt and fire". We must be able to look outside the box and stop trying to look for ways around the simple versus that Sunday school children can understand. This is the way it should be.
Again, just for the record, I have always believed in the Church of Christ beliefs. BUT, I have to learn to TEST all things, in order to be true to myself and the word.
The church of Christ teaches the scriptures.... all of the scriptures, not just the part that appeals to them.
Eph. 4:5, one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
That baptism is the one that every one was given all through the book of Acts, the about 3 thousand on Pentecost, Cornelius and his household...the Ethiopian Eunuch, the jailor and his household, Paul, the disciples at Ephesus who had been baptized into John's baptism, Lydia and her household....
The church of Christ teaches the scriptures.... all of the scriptures, not just the part that appeals to them.
Eph. 4:5, one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
That baptism is the one that every one was given all through the book of Acts, the about 3 thousand on Pentecost, Cornelius and his household...the Ethiopian Eunuch, the jailor and his household, Paul, the disciples at Ephesus who had been baptized into John's baptism, Lydia and her household....
So, do you suppose Paul was talking about the same baptism as described in Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33, and Acts 11:16?
At least FIVE times, by different writers, this particular topic is specifically addressed, which in itself, reinforces the meaning of things revealed in the Bible. How can this possibly be ignored? To me it seems simple, and not because it just appeals to any one person, or taken out of context as you suggest.
There is no mention of baptism of WATER in Eph. 4:5. We can't assume that every time baptism is mentioned that it is referencing baptism with water unless expressly written.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
