Conversation with a member of the Church of Christ, chapter 4

Jeremy replied:
Did you actually just say that I am buying too heavily into Peter's metaphor?  Are you listening to yourself?  This is all YOUR OPINION.  You have yet to PROVE anything.  Do you see a point in us continuing this?

I replied:

If it is all just my opinion, where is your biblical response?  Did the apostles of the Lord or the Lord Himself respond that way, or did they respond with "It is written..."?  

Jeremy, later:
I understand.  It is kind of what I believe, and I didn't take that wrong.  I appreciate you qualifying not to take it wrong.  Thank you.  I don't want you to take anything that I say wrong either.  I think we are coming from two very different beliefs my friend.  I believe that a man has to hear the word as it says in Romans 10:17 before they can believe and John 6:44-45 says this is how God calls us.  I don't believe that God zaps us with it (though I do believe He is all powerful and can do as He wishes).  I don't believe that he teaches us that he will zap us when he chooses.  But I do believe that through His providence that if one is seeking God he will find Him.  I don't know that we are going to come to a resolution on this.  I stand firm in what I believe.  I have reasons and I have eplained them.  I do feel that you are far more versed on mens theologies than I am and I will admit that.  I should have asked what you believe before I asserted it.  Thank you for discussing this with me.  I still hold firm that the Bible speaks of different works and that the works it speaks of in Ephesians 2 is meritorious works, or works of the old law.  I just don't see how we come into contact with the blood of Christ other than water baptism.  When they pierced His side blood and water came out, do you not see a coorelation in that?

And finally:


I must add, you need to read Hebrews chapter 6, it is PLAINLY possible for people to fall away.... The Bible plainly teaches time after time, that there is something required of man.  God has done his part by offering the perfect sacrifice.  You're teaching that we have no free will....
"1Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to (C)maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,
 2of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.
 3And this we will do, if God permits.
 4For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
 5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
 6and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.
 7For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God;
 8but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned."

How do you get around that?

Conversation with a member of the Church of Christ, chapter 3

Jeremy then pasted a glob of text from bebaptized.org:

  I Peter 3:21

…who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were savedthrough water, and this water symbolizes baptism which now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Notice the phrases, “baptism, which now saves you”, and “it (“it” refers tobaptism) saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” First Peter tells us baptism saves us. Then he not only restates this, but also tells us how and why baptism saves us. It saves us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This ties directly into Romans 6:3-6

Peter tells us that the story of Noah and the ark is an illustration of how God saves through water.  In the days of Noah, God looked down on the earth and was grieved at all the evil he saw upon the world (Genesis 6). God used the waters of the flood to wipe out the old and bring about a new beginning. God “wiped the slate clean” and started all over again.

Many people become confused by this passage and the reference to Noah’s flood correlating to baptism. The phrase, “this water” is a reference to the water of Noah’s flood. The water of Noah’s flood is an illustration of baptism. Before Noah’s flood, the earth was filled with sin and corrupt. God “cleansed” (this is what I meant by saying that Noah corresponded to baptism) the earth with water and though this water a new beginning came about.

Understand there is nothing “magical” in the actual water itself. But when we obeyGod’s command to be immersed in water in order to have our sins forgiven,God is faithful and God cleanses our sins through the blood of Christ at this point of our obedience and faith. In other words, baptism is not a physical cleansing of dirt from our body, but a spiritual cleaning of sin from our souls by God.

Romans 15:4 teaches us…

 “For as many things as have been written in the past have been written for our instruction, that through endurance and through encouragement of thescriptures we might have hope.”

Here is another similar illustration, but this time it is Paul who speaks:

I Corinthians 10:1-4

And I do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren, that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, And were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.

Paul says he does not want us to be ignorant that the Israelites were baptized into Moses. We know that Egypt is often referred to as the “land of slavery.”

God brought Israel :

out of Egypt (the land of slavery--i.e. sin)

through the sea (water -i.e. baptism)

and into the promised land ( Israel --i.e. salvation, redemption)

Baptism is nothing new in God’s plan. It is something He has always used to illustrate the separating of sin from mankind. God has always saved peoplethrough water. It was foreshadowed long ago in the Old Testament scriptures.

If you are interested, I can also give my reasons for Acts 2:38 & Galatians 3:26-27 as well. 

I don't know that I understand what your question was in James 2.. please refresh my memory or explain more thoroughly.  Thanks.  I hope this helps you understand.

Conversation with a member of the Church of Christ, chapter 2

Just thought I'd post the rest of what the Church of Christ guys and I discussed, continued from last time.

Jeremy said:

If you want to get "to the heart of the matter", please go to www.bebaptized.org Baptism is not a "tradition". It is a biblical teaching that is biblically supported. This will answer any and every question that you might have. If you don't wish to discuss your beliefs (because this is why you feel the way you do about baptism) then you don't have to.
If you are truly seeking biblical truth, and why I believe what I teach, then read this site and get back with me on additional questions. Your belief on predistenation and total depravity, etc. Is why you take the stance you take concerning baptism. That is why I asked the question. This site will explain far more than I could convey via facebook, in a month. If you are truly interested then do the research. I have reviewed this site and am not sure who even created it, but this is exactly what I believe the Bible teaches.

As far as Ephesians 2:8-10 is concerned, I am curious if your Bible contains James chapter 2 that says faith without works is dead? The Bible does not contradict itself, so there has to be more to the story....please see the site. Thanks.

I am curious as to how we "seek" first the kingdom of God in Matt 6:33 if it is all of God and nothing is required of us....

If we are predistined, then why are you bothering to tell me to repent because you feel I am wrong? According to your teaching, my future is already determined? Or maybe I misunderstand what you and Mark Driscoll teach...?

I replied:



Jeremy,

I am not in the habit of repeating myself if I don't have to. There are questions on the table for you related to baptism, faith vs works, and James 2. You have not yet responded to any of them. The next time you write, please answer those questions and we can go from there, but we won't be going anywhere if you don't do so.

As for your bebaptized site, do you really think that I think baptism is a bad thing? Or that it is optional?
No, it is not optional, and it is an amazingly good thing. It is, however, not a pre-requisite for salvation. Even the site itself (http://www.bebaptized.org/Baptismis.htm) is inconsistent with itself - it says, "Baptism is our signal to God we have accepted Christ’s gospel." If it is a SIGNAL, then it's not part of the Gospel. And since it says "signal that we have accepted Christ's gospel", it's not part of the Gospel. But you'd have me believe it is part of the Gospel. A work, part of the Gospel. That's the problem. The Gospel is the good news that Christ has saved many apart from their works, solely by His grace. Unfortunately, you don't believe that.
Anyway, the site also appears to be long on out-of-context Bible citations, and short on argument. Unfortunately, it resembles the way you "argue" as well.

You said:
--"Your belief on predistenation and total depravity, etc. Is why you take the stance you take concerning baptism."

You need to make an argument for that, but you didn't. In fact, it's my recognition that the Bible teaches justification by grace ALONE thru faith ALONE that helps me understand that baptism is not, in fact, a pre-req for salvation. I submit all things to the Word of God. One could only wish you'd do the same rather than charging it with error as you are doing.


You said:
--"If we are predistined, then why are you bothering to tell me to repent because you feel I am wrong"

If you had any idea beyond the most basic and most shallow level of what Calvinism teaches, you wouldn't even ask this absurd question. God uses means to accomplish His ends - kinda like when He spoke to create the world, when He uses angels to communicate, when He sends people to accomplish His judgment...the list goes on and on.
Besides, think of your own position. Do you think God knows the future exhaustively? If he doesn't, you're even worse off than I thought and worship a finite god who doesn't even know that he can win the victory. If He does know it, then I'd ask you the same question to show how bad the question is: If the future is already scripted such that God knows it exhaustively, then why are you bothering to tell me to be baptised because you feel I am wrong?


When you respond, respond with the answers to my questions (or at minimum, the original ones surrounding baptism, faith vs works, and James 2), or don't bother writing again.

(to be continued...)

Conversation with a member of the Church of Christ

I got into a discussion with a couple of Church of Christ guys on Facebook.  Here's a fair representation of what's transpired.


It started off by discussing Mark Driscoll and how awful and horrible he is, how he's a false teacher, etc.  I figured that since the two critics were Church of Christ and that they called him a "false teacher", at the foundation was a disagreement on the nature of salvation and the role of faith and works in it.


Joshua wrote:  

"1 Peter 3:21, baptism is an anti-type to Noah and the ark. Thus us being saved through water as well. "Baptism now saves us!!" That doesn't refer to the holy spirit baptism at all. O.k. so that's disproving one claim. What was the other one? Oh works to justification. James 2:18, show me your faith without your works and I'll show you my faith by my works. If you want to get into a biblical discussion, you're going to need to do your homework and not rely on "hear say" from you denominational preachers. Because what you presented is the same basic gibberish that denominations claim. Nothing I haven't heard before. Baptism (submersion into water) is a necessity to being a christian. You are not a Christian until you have been baptized into Christ. That's the facts of the bible. Don't argue with us about it, study the bible for yourself. You can argue with God on judgement when he asks why you didn't follow his will to the letter. Oh and that menstual cloth stuff is just unnecessary and nasty. You didn't have to bring that up, there's a lot of other examples in the bible to reference to. Yuck!  I don't even know who you are, but you seem as far off as that driscoll guy.... If you would like an in depth study of the truth and what God's will really is for us. let me or my brother know. "

Here is my response: 
1) You have not shown that the psg refers to water baptism and not Spirit baptism.  Please prove it from the text.  You *assert* that it is not HS baptism but don't show why.  Noah and the 7 others were saved in the ark, NOT BY THE WATER.  They never got wet.  The water was of judgment and death on the ungodly.  You're asserting a type-antitype relationship where none exists.  If anything, baptism is the antitype of the *ark*, not the water.

2) Peter says "NOT the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a clear conscience".  The baptism he's referring to is NOT water. You have it exactly backwards.  The baptism is a symbolic act of obedience to one's newfound Lord - God, you've awakened my conscience to desire to serve You, so now I am entering into baptism to obey You and thus have a clear conscience.  And that is b/c of the just-experienced HS baptism, which accompanies regeneration and justification.

3) Please answer - Is baptism a work?
i. If it IS a work, how is Ephesians 2:8-10 true, where it says that salvation is NOT BY WORKS?
ii. If it is NOT a work, what precisely is it?  What biblical support can you bring fwd to support your contention?

As for James 2, I like to quote it too!   James 2:10 - 10For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. So...how's that going for you?  Have you offended in one point?  Let's not be silly - of course you have.  And yet you want to tell me that you can contribute some righteousness of your own to your own salvation?  How does that work, since you're guilty of all the law?

Then read this from a real exegete (this is a link to my blog where I quote one):  http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2009/12/read-this-before-yelling-james-2.html


Jeremy, the other guy, has not yet interacted with that post, but said this in a PM: 

Alan I am not looking 4 an argument. I don't enjoy that. If you wish to study to seek truth I am more than willing. I'm not interested in going back and forth on facebook. I am not on here enough 2 accomplish anything with that.

I responded:
Jeremy,

If you weren't looking for an argument, why did you
1) spend 5 posts in an argument with me? and
2) make unbiblical accusations against an elder of a church?

Jesus debated. The Apostle Paul debated. If you're not interested in substantiating your accusations that Driscoll is a false teacher and that a sinner does in fact contribute anything other than sin to the equation of salvation, then fine, that's not my problem. Let me turn your own statement back on you: If you wish to study to seek truth I am more than willing. I'm not interested in going back and forth on facebook.


Peace, Galatians 1:8-10, and good luck with trying to please God based on your own merits,
Alan

 
Then Jeremy said:

I wasn't looking for an argument. You called me out by name on _____'s page. I didn't make unbiblical accusations against an elder of a church. I already explained that to you. If you don't like it, then move on buddy. Just because someone attaches a little truth to an otherwise absurd sermon, does not make him a ligitimate proclaimer of the gospel. I explained to you my thoughts on salvation and you just keep taking me to one verse. I named many. The Bible does not contradict itself, you haven't spent the time to read Ephesians in context. Thats like saying that you can take only eggs out of plan to bake a cake, and you will still have a cake at the end. You are picking 1 verse out of entire Bible and saying it means this. Well take these... "Judas hung himself"...."Go ye therefore and do likewise." Two different verses, but by your logic...They say what they say right? You gotta take it for what it is. (Now I don't really believe this, but I'm making a point) I'm not going to spend my time with a contentious person that believes false doctrine. The harvest is plenty and the workers are few. You have told me your stance.... I do not know what there is to discuss, I am well aware of the Calvanist doctrine. We don't believe that we are saved by merit, but that the Bible explicitly names actions that are required to render God's grace operative...one being baptism. I showed you a verse that likened baptism unto Noah and water 1 Peter 3:21, you show me a verse that says, accept Jesus into your heart and you will be saved. BELIEF in itself is an action! Your doctrine contradicts itself. So good luck with your unmerited favor without believing, which by the way does require something from you, thus being a "work". You see? I can debate this all day long, but you aren't going to change.

My latest response:
Jeremy,

I called you out by name after you called Driscoll out. And then I baited you into revealing your real problem with him - you think his Gospel is wrong. That's why you call him a false teacher. And I know from listening to him that he preaches the biblical Gospel, whereas Church of Christ usually throws in human works into the equation. So I asked you about it, and you confirmed my suspicions.

My "picking out" verses are fully in line with the context of the psgs, the books, and indeed the entire Bible. CORRECTLY prooftexting is not wrong; Jesus did it all the time, so did Paul, Peter, and the author of Hebrews. Your problem is that you make the Scripture contradict itself. My position harmonises ALL of what God said. It's a position I commend to you, rather than thinking your human traditions are better than God's teaching.

And belief is NOT an action. This is, again, where your position is internally contradictory. Belief is an action that *God performs upon the person*. It's not sthg that the person does. Doesn't originate with the person. God grants us faith.
Two things about this approach:
1) Even if I did hold to this belief, showing that my position is wrong doesn't make your position right. That's a logical fallacy called the "tu quoque".
2) You're projecting your own position onto me, but your attempt at showing that my position is ALSO wrong fails, since God grants faith. 1 John 5:1 - 1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
When it says "is born", that is a perfect passive participle in Greek, expressing an action that HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE. Could translate it "has been born of God". Believers have been born of God; THEREFORE they believe.

Anyway, as for 1 Peter 3, here are my questions for you (then I quoted my arguments from above).

Universalists everywhere, or, Paul vs James

It looks like not only is AB Dada a universalist, but it's looking like Dave Parker is too!
This conversation just amazes me more and more w/ virtually every statement from either Adam or Dave.

I was asked about the doctrine of Paul vs James 2, so I answered:

FF Bruce's commentary on Galatians 5 can prove handy:

"To seek it [justification] through faith in Christ was to seek it on the ground of God’s grace; to seek it through legal works was to seek it on the ground of their own merit…Paul has already made it clear (3:10) that those who seek justification through legal works do not attain it (cf. Rom 11:7), but rather incur the curse of the law; what he emphasizes here is the incompatibility of faith and works, of divine grace and human merit, where justification of the sinner before God is in question.

Here [5:5] is such a reference, however; by contrast with the vain hope of righteousness by legal works, he says, we who believe in Christ are enabled by the Spirit, through faith, to wait confidently for the hope of righteousness. The law holds out no such sure hope as this. The ‘hope of righteousness’ is the hope of a favourable verdict in the last judgment (Rom 2:5-16). For those who believe in Christ such a verdict is assured in advance by the present experience of justification by faith…In their case the eschatological verdict of ‘not guilty’ is already realized."

--F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians (Erdmans 1988), 231-232.


And here is a quick cut and paste of some quotes in an article dealing w/ this topic from here...

"There is no reason to assume that James was commenting on Paul. Notice that there is no reference in his epistle to Jewish/Gentile relations in the church, which is the point of departure for the Pauline doctrine.

And there is no reason to assume that James is using the word in the same specialized sense as it acquires in Pauline thought. A word is not a doctrine. The reason we have a Pauline doctrine of justification is not because Paul uses the word, but because he has laid out a detailed theological model of justification—such as you don’t find in James.

From what I can tell, James is making a much simpler point, where faith and works are equivalent to hearing and doing (1:22-25). Don’t be hearers of the word only, but doers as well. This is a common admonition in Scripture...faith is not the ground of our justification. The ground of our justification is penal substitution. Faith is merely a condition of its individual application to the sinner...sanctification is a necessary condition of salvation, but not a condition of justification.
...we’re not talking in generic terms about man’s relation to God, but in specific terms about the sinner’s relation to his Judge."

For the purposes of this discussion, you can consider me in agreement w/ the author of that article.
My own brief commentary is this:
Paul discusses forensic justification of the dead, dirty sinner before a loving, yes, but also holy and just God in various psgs thru the NT, including Romans 2-10, most of Galatians, heavy references in Colossians, and Ephesians 1-2 (among other places). It is out of these places that the Reformation doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone has been derived. I say "Reformation doctrine" simply to give it a name and set it apart, but I will be happy to defend it from biblical exegesis.

James, by contrast, as noted above, is not discussing justification of the sinner before God.
A final note - what does James' "justification" mean, then? It is the validation before witnesses of the faith that exists. In the case of Abraham, for example, he lifts the knife to kill Isaac and thus validates the fact that he has faith in the eyes of:
-Isaac
-Sarah his wife
-the billions who have read Genesis over the centuries

The problems of the conundrum you think I have are manifold.
1) Eph 2:8-9 says we are saved by grace, NOT by works.
Romans 3:28 says we are justified by grace apart from the works of the Law.
Romans 11:6 says that grace mixed with works is no longer grace.
Scripture thus contradicts Scripture if what you have said is true.
2) The context of the psgs out of which we derive the Pauline doctrine of justification are clearly related to justification.
The context of James 2 is not.
3) We don't know how to be saved.


Problem is, Dave, you are really giving me the impression that you believe all people will be saved (when you said "our belief or faith that Christ did these things for us is evidence of our realization that we’re no longer condemned").
2 questions:
1) Do you believe that all people are saved? If not, is the vast majority of humanity (who have ever lived) saved, ie, will they be in Heaven?
2) What is your scriptural argument for the position expressed in your answer to my 1st question?

Peace,
ALAN