What Is Wrong With the Church of Christ?

UncleAbee

Active member
or ther Thief upon the cross, or those in jets crashing who cry out to the Lord to save them?
I answered this in a previous post. Again these are far fetched examples that happen to almost no one and applies to virtually no one's current situation.
 

UncleAbee

Active member
Infants are guilty sinners in adam, but the Lord can and deos choose to do for them ehat they cannot do for themselves!
Original sin is not taught in the COC. Adam's sin brought sin into the world but doesn't make you a sinner at birth. Our own choices make us sinners. Rom 5:12 says this the best. "12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned—"
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
Immersion is a New Testament command that has humans partake in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Romans 6:3-5). The thief was saved under the Old Testament and could not have been immersed into the DBR of Christ because Jesus had not yet died, been buried, or been resurrected. The thief on the cross is not an example of how one is saved under the New Covenant. He is saved just like all those under the Old Testament such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, David, and the like.

Matthew 7:21 - "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Consider the people outside the ark when it began to rain. Consider the people on Judgment Day when the Lord returns and they see what they should have believed.

This argument is an emotional plea that ends in universalism.

This is found nowhere in scripture.

In Truth and Love.
ALL have sinned in Adam and fallen short of the glory of God, and the way of salvation was same old or the New!
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
But this is not a problem we made up. This is something the Bible teaches that so many reject. IF water immersion is necessary for salvation and people reject that, isn't is something that should be talked about? Why would we make up such a problem in the first place?

1 Peter 3:21 is explicit. Baptism saves.
Acts 22:16 is explicit. Being baptized washes away sins and is how we call upon the name of the Lord.
Romans 6:3-5 is explicit. Baptism is how we participate in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and how we die to our old self and become a new creature.
Romans 6:16-18 is explicit. We must yield ourselves to obey unto righteousness and when we obey from the heart the pattern of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection in baptism, we are then set free from sin.
Gal. 3:26-27 is explicit. We are baptized into Christ.

The Bible is clear on the purpose and effect of baptism. To the denominational world, it's just a ceremonial after thought with no real function or purpose.

In Truth and Love.
Sp when Paul stated to us that he thanked God did not Baptize many, was sinning?
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
The Eunuch in Acts ch 8 actually shows the necessity of baptism. In vs 35 Phillip preached to him Jesus. In the very next verse the eunuch says "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized." It is implied in those two verses that part of the preaching about Jesus was water baptism. It had to be because Phillip preached Jesus and the next thing you know the Eunuch was asking about baptism. This means that Phillip didn't tell the Eunuch to be saved by a sinner's prayer or by merely believing.
Actually, he got saved in order to then be able to be water baptized!
 

Kade Rystalmane

Well-known member
ALL have sinned in Adam and fallen short of the glory of God, and the way of salvation was same old or the New!
This is a quote from Romans 3:23 and again, context is key to understanding here.

Romans 3:22-24
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:


In this section, Paul is saying that righteousness of God is manifested unto and upon all them that believe. We are talking about those who have become Christians, not all men generically without modification. This is further evidenced by the fact that the all here are "being justified" (vs. 24). So if one must insist that verse 23's all is universal, then the justification of verse 24 - the continuation of the thought - is also universal. The conclusion is Universalism, which neither of us believe.

However, if Paul is saying that all who are being justified by grace in Christ have sinned and come short, then there is absolute consistency. Of course all those who have been saved needed to be saved because they sinned.

Verse 23 isn't a universal all. It is a specific all of the class that is the justified.

In Truth and Love.
 

Kade Rystalmane

Well-known member
Sp when Paul stated to us that he thanked God did not Baptize many, was sinning?
No. The context of 1 Corinthians 1 is division based on who was doing the immersing. It is not about the importance of immersion itself. The people were considering it a prestigious thing to be immersed by Paul or Peter instead of Bob next door. Paul's point is that it doesn't matter who is there to immerse you, to hear your confession, to hold you as you go down into the water so you don't slip and fall, and to help you come back up out of the water. He is not talking about the immersee (the one being immersed) or the purpose of immersion. He's saying it doesn't matter what human immerses you. For me, that happened to be my dad, and that's cool, but its not important with regard to my salvation. I literally could get a drunk off the street to do it and it would still be fine.

Paul is thankful that he didn't immerse very many people so that they wouldn't be divided over the alleged prestige that carried. It's not who immerses you, its whose death, burial, and resurrection you are immersed into that matters.

In Truth and Love.
 

Kade Rystalmane

Well-known member
IF God saves any who was not also water baptized, would invalidate that view!
If God saves any who are under the New Testament (that is, after the DBR of Jesus into which we are immersed) who is not immersed, then it would invalidate the view. Such a person does not exist. A person who is in a jet plane that is crashing who calls out to God to save them despite their prior unwillingness to obey the gospel and be immersed into Christ is no different than a person outside the ark after the door was shut with the water of the Flood rising banging on the door demanding to be let in.

If we are going to go down the rabbit trail of situation ethics, what about the person who doesn't believe yet and dies who might have believed had they been given a little more time? Is God unjust for condemning the unbeliever who died before old age? No.

God has stated the conditions for us to access the grace He has freely given. Hearing the gospel, believing the gospel, repenting of sins, confessing faith in Christ, and being immersed in water into Christ for the remission of sins. It's not hard. It's not even beyond what everyone is doing mostly already anyway. But it is understanding why and doing it for the reasons God says to do it. (I.e. going deep sea diving on vacation is not NT immersion for salvation).

In Truth and Love.
 

UncleAbee

Active member
Actually, he got saved in order to then be able to be water baptized!
That's not at all what the passages states. No place in there does it say the eunuch was saved after belief. Phillip preached Jesus. The eunuch immediately asked about baptism. Phillip said you can get baptized if you believe. The eunuch made a confession and was baptized. Then they rejoiced. That is how people are saved. They must hear the gospel. Believe it. Repent and confess Christ. Get baptized.
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
If God saves any who are under the New Testament (that is, after the DBR of Jesus into which we are immersed) who is not immersed, then it would invalidate the view. Such a person does not exist. A person who is in a jet plane that is crashing who calls out to God to save them despite their prior unwillingness to obey the gospel and be immersed into Christ is no different than a person outside the ark after the door was shut with the water of the Flood rising banging on the door demanding to be let in.

If we are going to go down the rabbit trail of situation ethics, what about the person who doesn't believe yet and dies who might have believed had they been given a little more time? Is God unjust for condemning the unbeliever who died before old age? No.

God has stated the conditions for us to access the grace He has freely given. Hearing the gospel, believing the gospel, repenting of sins, confessing faith in Christ, and being immersed in water into Christ for the remission of sins. It's not hard. It's not even beyond what everyone is doing mostly already anyway. But it is understanding why and doing it for the reasons God says to do it. (I.e. going deep sea diving on vacation is not NT immersion for salvation).

In Truth and Love.
We receive the Holy Spirit when we receive Jesus as Lord thru faith!
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
That's not at all what the passages states. No place in there does it say the eunuch was saved after belief. Phillip preached Jesus. The eunuch immediately asked about baptism. Phillip said you can get baptized if you believe. The eunuch made a confession and was baptized. Then they rejoiced. That is how people are saved. They must hear the gospel. Believe it. Repent and confess Christ. Get baptized.
There is no passage that teaches one must be water baptized to be saved, to be in obedience, but not saved!
 

Lt. Columbo

New Member
This folder was empty so I thought I'd put something in it. What is the Church of Christ and what do they believe that is sinful?
Also known as the Restoration Movement, the church of Christ is a group of people who endeavor to follow what they understand to be the beliefs and pattern of worship of the early Church. I don't think they believe anything sinful.
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
Below is a lot of verses removed from any context to try and arrive at the above conclusion. In context, none of these passages indicate that children are guilty of sin or even that all individuals have sinned. The easiest objection to this is Jesus Himself because it is explicit that He lived as human as any of us but was never guilty of sin.

In context, Paul is talking about types of men or generalities of the different races: Jew vs Gentile. In the book of Romans, Paul's comparison of Jew vs. Gentile is central to every point he makes. His point here is not that every individual has sinned (indeed, Jesus did not!), but that generally speaking, all kinds of men have sinned whether they were under the law of Moses or not.

Furthermore, in Romans 5 Paul is essentially saying that Christ - the new Adam - undid what the first Adam did. That Adam brought [spiritual] death into the world by sinning, but Christ brings new [spiritual] life, i.e. resurrection. Romans 6 - which comes right after this text - says that in Christ we are a brand new creation, dead to our old self. If it is true that sin is an inherited thing (which it is not), then those who are recreated in Christ no longer have that as part of their makeup and thus cannot pass it on to their children. Christians, at the very least, should not have sinful children unless one believes that Adam's sin is greater than the blood of Christ.

Applies to adults only. These are the same people who were reproducing in the prior verses. Yes, the innocent young that were alive when the Flood came suffered the consequences of the sins of their parents, but this verse obviously does not apply to all individuals since we have eight explicit examples that it doesn't apply to.

A lot of people who believe in infant sinners come to this verse because of the word "youth" (Hbr. na'uwr). However, this is not a word that deals with very young ages such as preborn, infants, toddlers, etc. For example, Goliath was called a man of war from his youth (na'uwr) in 1 Sam. 17:33. In 1 Kings 18:12, Obadiah is concerned King Ahab is going to kill him if Obadiah does what Elijah asks. In that text, Obadiah says " but I thy servant fear Jehovah from my youth." It is evident therefore that the word pertains to those old enough to "fear Jehovah", to believe and be morally responsible for their actions.

Grammatically the sin belongs to the mother here, or at least the world in which the conception was done, not the child.

Except that this is poetic hyperbole given that babies in the womb can't actually speak anything. If we are to take this passage literally, are you breaking the teeth of your newborns (vs. 58:6) or at the very least praying for God to break their teeth (which they don't have)?

Also, Jesus was not estranged from the womb and did not go astray as soon as He was born, speaking lies as an infant.

Does not actually refer to infants and small children.

No context. Does not actually mention infants and small children.


However, right after that in Romans 4 Paul talks about the righteousness of Abraham. Also, Jesus. So obviously this is a poetic generalization about the kinds of men (Jew vs. Gentile) and not individuals.

Same. Furthermore, to go astray means you have to start on the right path. Every passage that talks about leaving God, being separated from God, going astray, etc. demands that we were first in a right relationship with God to begin with and had to leave. I cannot leave my house if I am not first in my house. I cannot fall out of a tree I was never in. For these passages to be about inherited sin at conception, they could not speak of sin in these terms. Instead, they would have to be talking about starting life separated, starting life on the wrong path, not leaving it. All of these verses are teaching exactly the opposite of what you intend.

Which is why we should trust in Jehovah with all our hearts and lean not upon our own understanding but in all our ways acknowledge Him and He shall direct our paths. (Prov. 3:5-6)


Now you are just copypasting Calvinistic prooftexts, none of which actually talk about babies. As this is outside of the scope of our conversation, I will reply to them no further except to say that Jesus showed explicitly and emphatically that human babies are not born with either a so-called "sin nature" or guilty of sin or inherited sin. In fact, Ezekiel 18:20 singularly destroys the idea of inherited sin.

In Truth and Love.

All that to show that what I said was correct. The Bible doesn't say one word about children being innocent and/or not subject to the fall.

I don't object to your kind-hearted approach to children, but I cannot share it as doctrine. Scripture simply does not say what you claim.
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
But this is not a problem we made up. This is something the Bible teaches that so many reject. IF water immersion is necessary for salvation and people reject that, isn't is something that should be talked about? Why would we make up such a problem in the first place?

1 Peter 3:21 is explicit. Baptism saves.
Acts 22:16 is explicit. Being baptized washes away sins and is how we call upon the name of the Lord.
Romans 6:3-5 is explicit. Baptism is how we participate in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and how we die to our old self and become a new creature.
Romans 6:16-18 is explicit. We must yield ourselves to obey unto righteousness and when we obey from the heart the pattern of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection in baptism, we are then set free from sin.
Gal. 3:26-27 is explicit. We are baptized into Christ.

The Bible is clear on the purpose and effect of baptism. To the denominational world, it's just a ceremonial after thought with no real function or purpose.

In Truth and Love.
Baptism is not salvific.

Does 1 Peter 3:21 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation? | GotQuestions.org

 

Kade Rystalmane

Well-known member
All that to show that what I said was correct. The Bible doesn't say one word about children being innocent and/or not subject to the fall.

I don't object to your kind-hearted approach to children, but I cannot share it as doctrine. Scripture simply does not say what you claim.
The point of my post was to show that the Bible doesn't say what you claim. It does say what I claim. Ezekiel 18:20; Rom. 7:9; Psa. 106:38; Matt. 19:14 and parallels.
 
Top