In Search of Truth

RE: Re-baptism - Sin and Salvation

m273p15c — Wed, 07 May 2008 04:25:18 GMT

Author: m273p15c
Subject: I agree but offer a word of caution on another point
Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 10:25 pm (GMT -6)

I agree with JSM17's sentiment. The Scriptures place no emphasis on who is performing the baptism. In fact, you find a couple of passages that de-emphasize it!

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, wrote:

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. (I Corinthians 1:14-17)

That baptism is required for salvation is beyond doubt (Acts 2:37-38; Romans 6:1-6; I Peter 3:21; ...). However, Paul references his commission in answer to those who are emphasizing the one who performs the baptism. He clearly shows that who baptizes is not important; otherwise, he would have been commissioned to baptize!

John, an apostle of Jesus Christ, wrote:

Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples), (John 4:1-2)

Again, if the performer of baptism was important, why did Jesus not baptize anyone Himself? Why did He make His disciples do it? If some blessing was associated with performer of baptism, why did Jesus and Paul deny others that blessing? Elsewhere, Jesus taught that the nature of God is to give good gifts (Matthew 7:7-11), and Paul sought to bestow spiritual blessings (Romans 1:11). The very fact that Jesus and Paul both made a point to not baptize people indicates that it would have been misleading or troublesome to have done so! The blessing in baptism comes by Jesus' resurrection, from God - not from the performer (I Peter 3:21).

Remember, given enough time, mankind has a tendency to over-emphasize things, even becoming superstitious (Numbers 21:6-9; II Kings 18:1-4). Can you imagine what would have happened if Jesus had baptized people on a regular basis?

That being said, I would offers some caution. JSM17's leading "if" is a BIG "if"!

JSM17 wrote:

If a person, that is a repentant, confessing sinner is baptized into Christ scripturally, then there is no reason for him or her to be rebaptized by a "Church of Christ" person.

My experience has been that most people coming out of denominational faiths do not exactly recall why they were baptized. Most believe it was for the remission of sins, especially after they have been studying NT baptism for a while. On occasion, some questioning will jar their memory; however, it can easily be resolved by one of two different ways:

Be baptized again, just to be sure and remove all doubt. Are you sure it was for the remission of sins? Were you baptized immediately, or did you wait until a regularly scheduled date, or until enough people at the church were ready to be baptized too? Were you accepted into the old church once you confessed or witnessed, or once you were baptized? What did people say to you immediately before and after you were baptized?
Go with the person in question, and tell the person who performed the original baptism (or preacher, deacon, or elder at the same church) that you are considering being re-baptized in water "for the remission of sins", because you believe it essential for salvation. Referencing a Bible passage or two always helps to clarify your intentions. Generally, an eye-opening discussion then ensues.

My concern is not that the baptism was performed by the wrong person, rather my concern is that the baptism may not have been for the remission of sins, considering that all the mainline denominations teach salvation by faith alone. (There are a few rogue congregations who teach and practice the truth on baptism.)

Should a person be baptized again, if they were baptized for the wrong reason? Absolutely!

Luke, the inspired historian, wrote:

And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" So they said to him, "We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said, "Into John's baptism." Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:1-5)

In comparing the two baptisms, please note that the medium was the same (water). The reason was similar (both for repentance unto remission of sins - Mark 4:4). They both required confession (Mark 1:5). However, the authority and foundation was different. One was looking unto Jesus. The other was directly authorized by Jesus! Consequently, they needed to be baptized again. Similarly, if a person is baptized for the wrong reason (for example, because a person believed that he was saved, and baptism was required to join a local church), or if one is baptized under the wrong authority (for example, because a certain denomination commanded it), then such a one needs to be baptized again - but, not because the wrong person was preforming the baptism.

In summary, does it matter who baptizes a person? No. That facet is minimized in Scripture (I Corinthians 1:14-17; John 4:1-2). Can a person be re-baptized? Yes, and he should, if he were baptized for the wrong reason or upon the wrong foundation (Acts 19:1-5). Does this particular person need to be baptized again? I don't know. That is between him and God. After I questioned him, like above, if he assured me that he was baptized for the remission of sins, then I would trust him and God. (Trust him, because we are to give the benefit of the doubt - I Corinthians 13:7. Trust God, because He is the judge, and He has promised to chasten us and reveal our errors to us - Romans 14:4; James 4:11-12; Hebrews 12:6-9; Philippians 3:15.) Otherwise, as JSM17 said, we become like the denominations, who emphasize the "name". Or, we become like the earliest "denominations", who brought the name of Christ down to the level of man, and stood condemned (... or, "I am of Christ" - I Corinthians 1:12).
_________________
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

The New Jerusalem?? - The Church

christianonly81093 — Wed, 07 May 2008 01:32:01 GMT

Author: christianonly81093
Subject: The New Jerusalem??
Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 7:32 pm (GMT -6)

In Old Testament prophecy, it talks about Israel being restored, such as in Ezekiel 37:11-14. My question is, does that
mean the church being established,and therefore being the "New Israel" or is it talking about the Jewish people becoming Christians and Israel being re-established?

My confusion comes to me because I always took in that "New Jerusalem" in Revelation is the church. But I don't really know. Please shed some light on this.
_________________
Salem

RE: Re-baptism - Sin and Salvation

JSM17 — Sat, 03 May 2008 21:38:33 GMT

Author: JSM17
Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 3:38 pm (GMT -6)

If a person, that is a repentant, confessing sinner is baptized into Christ scripturally, then there is no reason for him or her to be rebaptized by a "Church of Christ" person. We are not baptized into the building per say, but into Christ. By saying that one must be re-baptized in and by the church of Christ is as much denominational as everyone else.
_________________
...in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power...

Re-baptism - Sin and Salvation

approachable — Fri, 02 May 2008 05:05:00 GMT

Author: approachable
Subject: Re-baptism
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 11:05 pm (GMT -6)

Hello. Is everything well?

A brother sent me an e-mail response a few months ago on the subject of re-baptism, when coming from a denominational church. He says that, even if one was in a denominational church and may have been taught error about certain things, one may still be saved if he has the proper understanding of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection, and was baptized (buried) for the remission of sins (which some denominations teach). He admits, however, that one would still have to leave the denominational church because of the errors with worship, and other things relevant to rightly continuing in the faith (Matthew 28:20)

In this post, I would like a response to his reasoning behind what he believes. I have placed bold emphasis on the portion (below) that I especially want you to comment on.

In him saying that one can be saved in a denomination in the midst of erroneous teachings, but the faithful teaching of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection (i.e the plan of salvation) being intact , he says, "At what point does the messenger nullify the message? How much error can a church or person hold before those who are converted by his efforts are invalidated? No one seems to be able or willing to answer this question". In saying this, he is speaking in refutation of those who say you have to be re-baptized to be saved when coming from a denominational church, and into the church of Christ.

Would you comment on this? Thank you, and may God bless you.

RE: Leviticus 19:27-28 - Morality

m273p15c — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 03:57:25 GMT

Author: m273p15c
Subject: pertains to the Old Covenant, but may be condemned for other
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:57 pm (GMT -6)

I believe this pertains to the Old Covenant only. Therefore, we are not specifically prohibited from taking part in these things.

Generally, speaking I understand that the Old Testament serves as a wealth of examples to shed light on God's nature, common pitfalls, and general learning (Romans 15:4; I Corinthians 10:6, 11; Romans 11:21-22). However, I do not believe any command of the Old Testament is bound upon us, because its authoritative power ceased at the cross (Romans 7:1-4; Galatians 3:19, 23-25). The only exceptions, which are not really exceptions, would be commands that are reiterated in the New Law (for example, Romans 13:8-11 - notice anything missing?), or specific applications that fall under broad commands of the New Law (consider the many specific references to variants of fornication in the OT, whereas the NT says simply not to fornicate, etc.). The power of these exceptions is not because they were originally given in the OT, but because they were commanded in the NT! Therefore, they are not technically exceptions - just duplications.

However, Christians are instructed not to do things that may take away from their influence (I Corinthians 9:19-23; Romans 2:24). Furthermore, they are not permitted to partake in things that are generally shameful (I Timothy 2:9; I Corinthians 11:13-14). Therefore, if one of these habits are commonly associated with rebellion, idolatry, or anything else that is ungodly, we should not partake. Consequently, I believe a tattoo would be wrong, not because it is explicitly condemned, but because it is commonly associated with rebellion - not Christianity. Therefore, it may hamper our ability to teach, and it may bring unnecessary and unfair shame upon our Master. That is my judgment and application of the above passages.
_________________
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

A Conversation About Mark 16:9-20 - Evidences and Apologetics

Snapp — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 06:33:38 GMT

Author: Snapp
Subject: A Conversation About Mark 16:9-20
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:33 am (GMT -6)

Greetings,

This discussion is about Mark 16:9-20.

My view is that Mark 16:9-20 was part of the Gospel of Mark when the Gospel of Mark was initially used by the church. The available evidence, both internal and external, is not strong enough to prove that Mark 16:9-20 is not an integral part of the Gospel of Mark.

Does anyone here have an opposing view, plus the time to discuss this topic? If so I would enjoy hearing from you.

Yours in Christ,

Snapp

RE: Does Mark 16:9-20 belong in your bible? - Evidences and Apologetics

Snapp — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 06:27:28 GMT

Author: Snapp
Subject: Mark 16:9-20 and Evidence-Presentation
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:27 am (GMT -6)

I, too, believe that Mark 16:9-20 belongs in the New Testament.

Regarding your statement that the signs described in this passage will follow the apostles, I think we should consider what the text says in 16:20 and in 16:17 -- in 16:20, the signs accompany the disciples, i.e., the Eleven. in 16:17, Jesus says that the signs shall accompany those who believe.

So there's some room for an interpretation to the effect that these signs were promised to all believers, and the apostles were just typical believers in this regard. But I think there's a better way of understanding the passage: picture a military general, speaking to his army before a battle. He says, "I want each one of you to do your best. Don't turn your back on the enemy. Follow your orders. Those who fight well will be awarded a badge of honor." This would not mean that the general was promising a badge to everyone who fought well, everywhere. The phrase "Those who fight well" was limited in its scope, contextually, to those to whom he was speaking on that particular occasion. And the same sort of thing occurs in Mark 16:17. So, besides the fact that not all believers are going around casting out demons, speaking in new tongues, taking up serpents, surviving poison-ingestion, and healing the sick, there's a reasonable interpretation of the passage that works in favor of limiting its application to those individuals who were on the scene (i.e., the Eleven, and whoever else happened to be with Him on the occasion described in Mark 16:14-18).

This thread, which was begun years ago, it seems, apparently deteriorated before a thorough investigation of the evidence involved could really get underway. I'd like to revisit the topic in a new thread (so that future visitors won't have to plod through all the banter in this thread).

My opening position will be: Mark 16:9-20 was part of the Gospel of Mark when the Gospel of Mark was initially used by the church. The available evidence, both internal and external, is not strong enough to prove that Mark 16:9-20 is not an integral part of the Gospel of Mark.

If anyone here would like to engage with a counter-claim, I would welcome a cordial conversation on this subject. (In the new thread, that is.)

Yours in Christ,

Snapp

RE: Indwelling of the Holy Spirit ... Word Only? - Holy Spirit, Apostles, and Miracles

JSM17 — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 12:04:23 GMT

Author: JSM17
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:04 am (GMT -6)

Quote:

Since there is ample proof of the Spirit dwelling in us through the Scriptures, I believe the burden of proof and explanation lies on that of the literalist to explain and defend how the Spirit dwells in us literally and apart from the Word. If God chooses to act in a way that transcends what He has revealed, that is His business, but I am hesitant to ascribe a work or method to God that I cannot necessarily support from Scripture.

First of all I do not believe that there are brethren who believe that the Holy Spirit dwells apart from the word. We should take the time to try to understand someone view. We do not beleive that God is acting in a way that transends His own words.

How about the day of Pentecost?

True or False
1. Those on Pentecost who cried out help (Acts 2:37) were convicted of their sin by the word?
2. Those on the Pentecost who received the word (Acts 2:37, 41) had the word indwelling their hearts (cf.Rom.6:17)?
3. Those on Pentecost who received the word had the abiding word within them (that is, the word entered and the word remained).
4. Those on Pentecost who came to repentance and baptism had the active word within them?

The answers to the questions are true, it is the word of God within a sinner that convicts, but since many proclaim that the Holy Spirit indwells through his word only then the word that dwells in a sinner also means that the Holy Spirit can dwell in a sinner. Sinners received the word, if H.S. dwells through His word then the sinner receives the H.S. through the word.

Does one receive the H.S. when he recieves the word?

1. The "word only" position means that the H.S. indwells a Christian only in the sense of the H.S.'s word being in that Christian?
2. But, in the sense, the H.S. can be in a sinner (Acts 2:41). The received word would constitute the received Spirit.
3. However, John 14:17 says that this sense of being in or "indwelling" is not what the indwelling of the Spirit actually is.
4.So, if the H.S. cannot be correctly siad to be "in" the word only through the word, then He cannot be correctly said to be "in" the church only through the word.

This means that the "word only" or "only through the word" position implies that the Holy Spirit is not in the church at all!

1. If the "Word only" position implies that the H.S. does not actually indwell the church at all, then it is a false doctrine.
2. The "word only" position implies that the H.S. does not actually indwell the church at all. (How does it do this? By claim that the Spirit indwells the church in the same sense whereby he dwells the world, which according to John 14:17, constitutes no dwelling at all).
_________________
...in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power...

RE: Indwelling of the Holy Spirit ... Word Only? - Holy Spirit, Apostles, and Miracles

JSM17 — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:54:01 GMT

Author: JSM17
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:54 pm (GMT -6)

Luke 3:15,16

15 Now as the people were in expectation, and all reasoned in their hearts about John, whether he was the Christ or not,16 John answered, saying to all,"I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
NKJV

Eph 3:16-19
16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man,17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love,18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height --19 to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
NKJV

Gal 4:6-7

6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!"7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
NKJV

Rom 8:9-11

9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
NKJV

Jude 20-21

But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit,21 keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
NKJV

Phil 3:2-4
3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh,
NKJV

1 Cor 6:19-20
19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?
NKJV

Do these passages speak of literal indwelling or representative indwelling? To say that we need to now exactly how the Spirit dwells within us, is like saying that we need to know exactly how the blood of Christ cleanses us. Just because we cannot explain it according to our logic does not mean that God does not do it. Does he literally forgive us through the cleansing or just He represenativly cleanse us?

Direct help from the Holy Spirit does not imply a miracle!

The word only position inplies no Holy Spirit in the church!

How does the word only account for the new birth in water and spirit?

Help from the Holy Spirit does not denounce the sufficiency of scripture.

The Brethren have held many debates, has anyone looked or listened to them?

This is about truth why not look into it. If we hold to a doctrine should we not exhaust our efforts to make clear why we believe it?

As a christian of only seven years I have found the biblical information clear that God does do things for His children. If God gave men the word of God only, it could not save them without God acting upon human kind.

You have things like prayer, worship, fellowship, the church all these things are not the word, alll these things are in conjunction with the written word. The Holy Spirit is said to be in heaven doing nothing, is these true? Or does He really lead us in our walk?
_________________
...in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power...

RE: Presidential Voting and The Christian - Miscellaneous

acts2216 — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:30:10 GMT

Author: acts2216
Subject: Another two cents ... well, more like a nickel ...
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:30 am (GMT -6)

Hello, gentlemen,

If I might throw 2 more cents into the pot, this particular topic is one that has been on my mind a lot through the past few elections. While mulling things over during the last presidential election, I heard a statement that cut me to the quick: "The lesser of two evils is still evil." I no longer bend over backwards in compromise for a candidate who has a reasonable chance of winning. Experience should tell us that this does not yield the results we hope for. Republicans have been in power the majority of my lifetime and Roe v. Wade has yet to be overturned by Republican appointees. And regarding conservative philosophies, in the past 8 years, the government and its deficits has grown many times over what the Clinton administration managed to do. The next time Democrats rise to power, they'll have a significantly swollen government with which to drive their agendas. It seems to me that insisting someone must always choose one of two erroneous positions is the way to always be wrong.

I vote for the man who enables me to walk away from the Diebold machine with a clear conscience. In short, I started handling my political power the same way I handle my religion. I believe the best way to conserve and advance Christianity is in getting back to the apostles' doctrine--what does the text say? In the same way, the best way to conserve and advance the American system is to judge a candidate based upon his adherence to the American founding document, that which he will swear upon his inauguration to uphold--the Constitution. I want a candidate who will preserve liberty by upholding the laws we have, not by piling new laws onto the books and creating new departments to enforce them.

If I handled my religion the way most of us handle politics I imagine it would look something like this:
"As a Christian, I don't agree with Billy Graham. He makes a lot of statements that contradict the Christian philosophy. Besides not showing an attitude that reflects Christ, I disagree with much of what he teaches about salvation and the church. But he has a large constituency, the ability to reach more people. It is better for someone to accept his brand of Christianity than continue living completely depraved, right? Better his brand of Christianity than Islam or Buddhism, right? After all, if I put my support behind someone committed to sticking more closely to the founding documents of Christianity, I'm just wasting my effort, throwing away my support. Much better to settle for the lesser good, the lesser of two evils. The restoration principle I've been committed to is hopelessly unrealistic."

So far, this stand has left me voting for the third or fourth guy on the presidential ballot. This time around, I intend to vote for Ron Paul. Some of my brethren who know of my choice have objected, saying they've seen voter's guides that mark him as being against traditional marriage and abortion. I've seen these, too. I've also heard the man speak on each issue. He is marked as being "against" these things because he argues that no new laws or amendments need be made to defend the one and defeat the other. To say one is �against� heterosexual marriage because he doesn�t think the Federal government should be the determining power in the issue is exactly like saying one is �against� orphans getting cared for because they don�t think the Church of Christ should be the determining power in the issue. Ron Paul is a political "anti"! He has said, we needn�t redact the Constitution in order to define marriage�just look it up in a dictionary! In other words, that marriage is between a man and a woman is self-evident. He is not opposed to civil government defining laws of marriage, but he has said such should be handled at the state level. And if Massachusetts and California are going to hell in a handbasket, it doesn�t mean every other state must follow suit. That kind of "radical" talk of state autonomy shouldn't be that unfamiliar to those who argue on the same grounds for congregational autonomy. Regarding abortion, the man is an obstetrician. He knows that a fetus, by law, is a human being. A fetus has rights of inheritance. If a doctor harms or kills a fetus, he can face criminal charges. The laws are there. They should be enforced. The power to make law does not lie with the judiciary, but with the legislature.

Is a vote based on a vastly outnumbered but sound principle a wasted vote? I don't think so, no more than my casting my lot with a congregation of 70 saints taking a stand in a down full of churches with much larger power of influence is bad stewardship. I hope that my vote will be part of a movement that eventually gets the attention of the Republican party and persuades them to not only stop, but reverse the slow crawl towards liberalism that continues to disappoint so many of us.

Meanwhile, with both of you, I will fearfully pray that God will grant us peace while we are under whomever should rise to the ever-ascending highest office in the land. But I don't think our instruction to pray for that man necessarily means we should hold our nose, vote for him, and hope he bears fruit with his new power that is far sweeter than that which has come off his vine so far.

At the same time, I realize most of the brethren I know will vote for McCain. I don't intend to hold it against them. I preached a meeting in rural Kentucky last year--when I pulled into the parking lot of the assembly house for the first time, I thought I might be in the wrong place. I saw at least 3 Kerry bumper stickers! Yes, the whole church was composed of yellow-dog Democrats, going back generations. That limited my conversation somewhat at the potluck! It forced us into talking about things we share in common, like our faith and our families. The meeting went great.

I don't intend to draw lines of fellowship based on our political champions or issues like Social Security or the war. I marvel that the first Christian congregation contained big government tax collectors and pro-secession Zealots. I wonder how politically active they remained after becoming citizens of the Kingdom. Did they have to leave it all behind? I can only imagine they at least had to leave their political principles at the doorstep of their assemblies. I'll do the same ... But I'm sure not leaving them behind when I walk to the ballot!