# Campbellites????



## pigpen1 (Feb 17, 2009)

We have had threads on here about Baptists and Catholics, and others, but what about Cambellites???

 Must one be baptized to be saved? 
The doctrinal errors of Campbellism 





While there are many doctrinal issues that divide the evangelical from the Campbellite, the greatest point of controversy is their view of baptism. 

The Evangelical believes that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Human works such as baptism, church membership, etc... are not necessary for salvation. While obedience to God's Law has a role to play in assurance of salvation, it has no role to play in salvation. Baptism like circumcision is a outward rite which symbolizes an inner state. While both ceremonies symbolize regeneration, they do not accomplish it. 

In opposition to evangelical doctrine, Campbellite theology teaches "baptismal regeneration." It is claimed that water baptism by immersion of adults only unto remission of sins does not merely symbolize regeneration but it actually accomplishes it. Faith is not enough. Obedience to God's Law must also take place or salvation is not possible. Unless you are baptized in the exact way they dictate (immersion, adults only), for the exact purpose they have in mind (unto remission of sins), and by the right person (a Campbellite preacher) not only is your baptism invalid but you are not yet saved no matter how sincerely you believe in Jesus Christ as your Savior! To add baptism to faith is nothing more than adding works to grace which is impossible according to Rom. 11:6. The attempt to evade this by claiming that baptism is part of faith is not linguistically or grammatically possible. If obedience to God's commands such as baptism is what "faith" is, then why stop with baptism? What about all the other commands of God such as "love your wife?" A works-salvation can never say when enough works have been done! 


The Reasons Why Baptism Is Not Essential For Salvation

1. If the Campbellite doctrine is true, then the Restorers were not saved men! Thomas Campbell, Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott and Barton Stone were never baptized "unto the remission of sins." While they repudiated their infant baptism where they were baptized by the Presbyterians, they never repudiated their Baptist baptism and rebaptized according to Campbellite baptism. 
2. Jesus never baptized anyone. If baptism is essential for salvation, then Jesus never saved anyone. 
3. Paul did not view baptism as part of the Gospel (I Cor. 1:14-17). 
4. John's baptism did not save anyone even though it was "unto remission of sins" (Mk. 1:4 cf. Acts 19:1-5). 
5. Since there is only one God, there is only one way of salvation (Rom 3:28-30). This means that whatever is necessary for salvation today was also necessary during O.T. times. 
6. The Gospel of justification by faith alone apart from obedience to God's commands is taught in both O.T. and the N.T. (Rom 1:1-2). 

Abraham : before the Law (Rom. 4:1-5)  
David : after the Law (Rom. 4:6-8)  
Habakkuk: in the Prophets (Rom. 1:17)  

7. Baptism is the N.T. parallel of circumcision just as the Lord's Supper is the parallel of the Passover (Col. 2:11-12). Since circumcision was not essential for salvation, then neither is baptism. 
8. Abraham was saved BEFORE he was circumcised in order to emphasize that salvation was by faith alone apart from obedience to God's commands and that the Gentiles would be saved by faith alone apart from obedience to any command such as baptism (Rom. 4:9-11, 16, 23-5:2). 
9. Cornelius was saved and baptized by the Holy Spirit before he was baptized (Acts 10:44-48). This passage clearly refutes baptismal regeneration. 
10. Baptismal regeneration: 
a.) makes salvation depend on the availability of water  
b.) makes salvation depend on the availability of a Campbellite preacher  
c.) confuses the symbol with the reality  
d.) makes faith and obedience and the same thing  
e.) is based on a superstitious and magical view of baptism.  

11. The thief on the cross was saved without baptism. The Campbellite argument that he was saved under the O.T. way of salvation is not possible seeing that Christ had already died on the cross and finished the atonement before the thief died. The thief belongs on the N.T. side of the cross and not on the O.T. side. 
12. Campbellites claim that the word "unto" in Acts 2:38 (eis in the Greek) always means "in order to obtain" and is always "forward looking." In this way they make remission of sins follow the act of baptism in a cause and effect relationship. Baptism causes forgiveness of sins. The problem with this idea is that Greek scholars do not see this as the meaning of "eis." Liddell and Scott, Thayer, A.T. Robertson, Dana and Manty, Vine, etc... state that "eis" is often used in the sense of "in reference to something already previously existing or accomplished." In this sense, baptism is done AFTER and BECAUSE of remission of sins. Once our sins are forgiven, then you should be baptized. That the Greek scholars are correct is seen from the way "eis" is used in the N.T.: 

a. Matt. 3:11 "baptism unto (eis) repentance." You get baptized because you have repented. You do not get baptized so you can obtain repentance. The order is, "repent and be baptized."  
b. Matt 12:41: "they repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah" Obviously, the preaching came first and then the people repented in response to that preaching.  
c. Matt. 28:19: "Baptizing them in (eis) the name of the Father and of Son and of the Holy Ghost" The Triune God exists before one is baptized.  
d. Mk. 1:9: "baptized of John in (eis) Jordon." Jesus did not come into possession of the Jordon River as He was baptized. The Jordon existed long before baptism was invented.  
e. I Cor. 10:2: "baptized unto (eis) Moses." Moses existed before the "baptism" in the Red Sea. The people were not "baptized" in order to obtain Moses. Their "baptism" was in response to his leadership.  

                                                                                                            Conclusion 

As long as the Campbellites teach that baptism is essential for salvation, they will be viewed as a cult by evangelical Christians. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, apart from obedience to any of God's commands. Works are the evidence of salvation instead of the basis of it. 


[This article is taken from Robert Morey's writings. He is founder of the ministry Faith Defenders.]


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 17, 2009)

Well, I would make a comment but since you seem to have it all figured out and have posted the obvious proof that baptism is not necessary, then I really don't need to give you the other side of your thoughts.  According to you, there is no other side.

So you continue teaching the gospel of Christ, just like the apostles did.
And you continue leading people to Christ, just like the apostles did.
And you continue asking people if they believe that Christ is the Son of God, just like the apostles did.
And then you send them home without baptizing them, just like the apostles di.........  oh! never mind......... You don't do it like the apostles did.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 17, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Well, I would make a comment but since you seem to have it all figured out and have posted the obvious proof that baptism is not necessary, then I really don't need to give you the other side of your thoughts.  According to you, there is no other side.
> 
> So you continue teaching the gospel of Christ, just like the apostles did.
> And you continue leading people to Christ, just like the apostles did.
> ...






I'm outta here on that one...


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 18, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> And then you send them home without baptizing them, just like the apostles di.........  oh! never mind......... You don't do it like the apostles did.



 Peter required circumcision and law for a while also, but Paul withstood him because Peter was wrong. Was Peter correct in his teaching?? Paul said this about Baptism...1 Cor 1:17

17 For Christ sent me not to baptize , but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
KJV

and also this..1 Cor 1:21

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
KJV

 Where does Paul say Christ sent me to Baptize that they may be saved???? It doesn't, he said Christ sent him not to Baptize, but to preach the Gospel...

  If baptism was essential to salvation, I think Paul would have put more emphasis on it.

 John said, though I baptise you with water, there is one coming after me who will baptise you with the Holy Ghost..

 So Ronnie if it is, Eph 4:5 One Faith, One Lord, and One Baptism do you choose the Baptism of John over the Baptism of Christ?

 How can we make two baptisms essential when the scripture says one?


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 18, 2009)

Do a search PigPen....Do you have to be Baptized to be a Christian.  I actually think it is the most responded to thread in the Spiritual Forum.  You'll be able to read everyone's position on that one.


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 18, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Do a search PigPen....Do you have to be Baptized to be a Christian.  I actually think it is the most responded to thread in the Spiritual Forum.  You'll be able to read everyone's position on that one.



 This isn't just about Baptism, it is about the doctrines about the Campbellites [aka Church of Christ/Christian Church/Diciples of Christ].

  It started out about Baptism, but is open to the other doctrines of that denomination, like no musical Instruments, communion, or history etc, or how they claim to not be a denomination.......Pro's and Con's...


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 18, 2009)

I'll respond in detail in a little while, I got to go clean my fish right now.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 18, 2009)

1.  During the Christian reformation movement of the early 1800's there was a movement to try and unify all Christian denominations.

2.  Their desire was simple and it was admirable.  They wanted all Christians to look upon themselves as being the same.  If Christians lived next door to each other and worked together, then why couldn't they go to church and worship together?  Why did there have to be so many differences.

3.  The Campbells and others reasoned that the way to see this through would be for all Christians to just go back to the 1st century, New Testament way of doing things and believing.

4.  It would means some drastic changes would have to be made.  People would have to be willing to look back into the scripture and settle for the simple view of it.

5.  Here's some of what they wrote:
---Christianity should not be divided, Christ intended the creation of one church. 
---Creeds divide, but Christians should be able to find agreement by standing on the Bible itself (from which they believe all creeds are but human expansions or constrictions) instead of on the opinions of people about the Bible. 
---Ecclesiastical traditions divide, but Christians should be able to find common ground by following the practice (as best as it can be determined) of the early church. 
---Names of human origin divide, but Christians should be able to find common ground by using biblical names for the church (i.e., "Christian Church", "Church of God" or "Church of Christ" as opposed to "Methodist" or "Lutheran", etc.).

6.  Most of us who are trying to live out what was started by the Campbells don't really like phrases like "The Stone-Campbell Movement".  Or referring to us as "Campbellites".  We just want to be Christians and we try to look at other Christians in that way.

7.  Many, like Pigpen, refer to us a a cult.  Nothing could be further from the truth.
---We do not require a "letter" from one congregation to another to verify that you are a Christian in good standings.  If you show up at our church and claim to be a child of God then brother, that's good enough for me.
---We do not maintain a ledger of who's a Christian in our church.  It isn't our church.  God is He who adds to the church, we just do His work there.
---When someone accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior, we baptism them right then and there.  That's the was it was done in the Bible, so that is the way we do it.


Here's a link that seems to be pretty accurate with info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Movement


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 18, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> 7.  Many, like Pigpen, refer to us a a cult.



 I did not refer to you as a Cult, the article I posted says plainly it was wrote by Robert Morey, and I didn't say I agreed with him on all points either...assumptions????

 I will be back later to post some more....I am busy at the moment...


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 18, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> ---We do not require a "letter" from one congregation to another to verify that you are a Christian in good standings.  If you show up at our church and claim to be a child of God then brother, that's good enough for me.



 How would you enforce Church Discipline if you don't know who is a member of your local assembly?????


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 18, 2009)

*Which Baptism?*

Earlier I think you asked who's baptism was acceptable, John the baptist's or Jesus'.

In Acts 19  Paul is in Ephesus and happens upon some disciples of John's.

Paul asked them: "Into who's baptism were you baptized?" (I've always wondered why Paul asked that question)
They replied:  "John's baptism.
Paul replied:  "John baptized was a baptism of repentance, asking people to believe in Jesus who was coming."

Then, according to this chapter, these dozen or so men were then baptized into the name of Jesus Christ.

After they were baptized by Paul and/or his missionary group, Paul laid his hands on these men and they received the special gifts of the Holy Spirit.

For me, Paul must have considered baptism into Jesus as being important.
What do you think in regard to this?

I got to get ready for church.


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 18, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Earlier I think you asked who's baptism was acceptable, John the baptist's or Jesus'.



 This is what I asked...

 John said, though I baptize you with water, there is one coming after me who will baptize you with the Holy Ghost..

So Ronnie if it is, Eph 4:5 One Faith, One Lord, and One Baptism . Do you choose the Baptism of John over the Baptism of Christ?

  The question is which is essential to salvation? Baptism of water or Baptism of Spirit. and how can you choose both when the Bible plainly says ONE Baptism..

 I said nothing about water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 18, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> How would you enforce Church Discipline if you don't know who is a member of your local assembly?????



I guess it's pretty simple.  It seems to work for us.


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 18, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> I guess it's pretty simple.  It seems to work for us.



 Do you even use church discipline??? have you ever withdrew fellowship from someone??


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 18, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> This is what I asked...
> 
> John said, though I baptize you with water, there is one coming after me who will baptize you with the Holy Ghost..
> 
> ...



I chose baptism (water) in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.  That's the baptism Paul insured those former disciples of John was baptized into.
God will take care of the Holy Spirit as His sees fit.


----------



## earl (Feb 18, 2009)

That s a lot of dissertation just to say I am better than you are and will have a place closer to god than you will.


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 18, 2009)

earl said:


> That s a lot of dissertation just to say I am better than you are and will have a place closer to god than you will.



 Do What??? huh??


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 18, 2009)

*One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism*

Eph 4:5

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

5. Similarly "faith" and "baptism" (the sacramental seal of faith) are connected (Mr 16:16; Col 2:12). Compare 1Co 12:13, "Faith" is not here that which we believe, but the act of believing, the mean by which we apprehend the "one Lord." "Baptism" is specified, being the sacrament whereby we are incorporated into the "one body." Not the Lord's Supper, which is an act of matured communion on the part of those already incorporate, "a symbol of union, not of unity" [Ellicott]. In 1Co 10:17, where a breach of union was in question, it forms the rallying point [Alford]. There is not added, "One pope, one council, one form of government" [Cautions for Times]. The Church is one in unity of faith (Eph 4:5; Jude 3); unity of origination (Eph 2:19-21): unity of sacraments (Eph 4:5; 1Co 10:17; 12:13): unity of "hope" (Eph 4:4; Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- 1:2); unity of charity (Eph 4:3): unity (not uniformity) of discipline and government: for where there is no order, no ministry with Christ as the Head, there is no Church [Pearson, Exposition of the Creed, Article IX].


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 18, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> I chose baptism (water) in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.  That's the baptism Paul insured those former disciples of John was baptized into.
> God will take care of the Holy Spirit as His sees fit.



 We know that the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is essential, but you are saying water is also, so how do you fit two baptisms into Eph 4:5 One Faith, One Lord, and One Baptism


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 18, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Do you even use church discipline??? have you ever withdrew fellowship from someone??




Only once in my life have I seen necessary.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 18, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> We know that the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is essential, but you are saying water is also, so how do you fit two baptisms into Eph 4:5 One Faith, One Lord, and One Baptism




I don't believe Eph 4:5 includes Holy Spirit baptism.
Holy Spirit baptism is not a responsibility of the Christian church.  God will handle that one.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 18, 2009)

Pigpen1

Would you explain your understanding of present day Holy Spirit baptism?


Now I'm gone to church.


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 18, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Pigpen1
> 
> Would you explain your understanding of present day Holy Spirit baptism?



 Same as then, here is just a few...

 John 3:3-7

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
KJV


 Acts 11:15-16

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost .
KJV

Luke 11:13

13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
KJV

Eph 1:13

13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
KJV


----------



## earl (Feb 18, 2009)

Which word did you not understand ?


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 18, 2009)

earl said:


> Which word did you not understand ?


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 18, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Only once in my life have I seen necessary.



 You must live in the garden of eden...

  In the ungodly times we live in there many cases in [I fill safe to say] all churches. The problem is nothing is done about it... People will not take that stand today.. just look at the list of offences...

1 Cor 5:11
if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard,
KJV


  Notice it says a brother, that means fellow christian not someone of the world.  That would have to be a member of that particular local assembly.... Those at Corinth couldn't remove someone at the Church at Ephesus.

 How can we take a stand to remove a person that is not a member at that assembly? 

 How can we prove that the local assembly has the right without a membership roll?

  How can the church do any legal work with out some kind of documentation of who is a member there? Like Banking, Federal paper work, to have a Checking account you must have a federal I.D number, who is gonna do that? 

  Who is gonna write the checks? maybe a visitor who comes in and says I am a Brother? If you do not have members what would stop someone from taking over any roll they wanted?

 If you and everyone else there is not a member there, how could you tell them they couldn't ? You would have no more right to say they couldn't, than they would to say they could...


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 18, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> 1.  During the Christian reformation movement of the early 1800's there was a movement to try and unify all Christian denominations
> 
> 2.  Their desire was simple and it was admirable.  They wanted all Christians to look upon themselves as being the same.  If Christians lived next door to each other and worked together, then why couldn't they go to church and worship together?  Why did there have to be so many differences.



Why are there so many differences of the Church of Christ That date back to the same time and era, from one cuppers to those with  musical instruments, Disciples of Christ, and Christian Churches? 




Ronnie T said:


> 3.  The Campbells and others reasoned that the way to see this through would be for all Christians to just go back to the 1st century, New Testament way of doing things and believing.




 and by the way the first century christians were not with out differences, just look at Paul withstanding Peter...




Ronnie T said:


> Most of us who are trying to live out what was started by the Campbells don't really like phrases like "The Stone-Campbell Movement".  Or referring to us as "Campbellites".  We just want to be Christians and we try to look at other Christians in that way.




 How can the Church of Christ claim not to be a denomination, but be the true church especially when you have just pointed out it started in the 1800's and who it was started by???


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 18, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Same as then, here is just a few...
> 
> John 3:3-7
> 
> ...




---The baptism with the Holy Spirit is passed. It was fulfilled in the days of the New Testament. Jesus said to his apostles, "For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence" (Acts 1:5). 
Approximately ten days later on the day of Pentecost, the apostles "were all filled with the Holy Ghost and spake with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4). 
---Later in Acts 10:44, the Spirit also fell upon the household of Cornelius. Peter understood the falling of the Holy Spirit on the household of Cornelius and that of the apostles' reception of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost to be cases of baptism with the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44; 11:15-17). These are the only examples of baptism with the Holy Spirit found in the Bible.


---In Acts 2 only the apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit. This can be observed by reading Acts 1:26 and Acts 2:1 consecutively. "And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place." 
"They" in Acts 2:1 logically refers back to "apostles" in Acts 1:26.  It's also important to note that when Peter speaks in Acts 2:14, the text says he stood "up with the eleven," referring to the remaining eleven apostles. Also after Peter's sermon the multitude addressed "Peter and the rest of the apostles" (Acts 2:37). 
The apostles were the ones who stood before this mixed multitude from every nation under heaven (Acts 2:5). 
The apostles were the ones they heard speaking in each man's own tongue (language) the wonderful works of God.


---I earlier referenced Paul teaching those disciples of John who had not been baptized into the name of Jesus Christ(Acts 19).  I note that after, they were re-baptized into Jesus, Paul laid his hand on these men and they began speaking in tongues.
I don't believe these men fall in the category of being baptized with the Holy Spirit.  Paul shared His Holy Spirit baptism with them.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 18, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> You must live in the garden of eden...
> 
> In the ungodly times we live in there many cases in [I fill safe to say] all churches. The problem is nothing is done about it... People will not take that stand today.. just look at the list of offences...
> 
> ...




Sure we are all members here.  This is where we worship.  This is where we connect with the church in the community.  We just don't keep rolls the way some people do.  We don't have members of this congregation who moved out of state 6 years ago that are still on our rolls.  If you're here, you're in our church directory, (pictures, address, etc).


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 18, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> ---The baptism with the Holy Spirit is passed. It was fulfilled in the days of the New Testament.



 Where do you find the days of the Holy Spirit are passed or fulfilled??? Apparently you have never experienced it. You have came along to late to tell me it has been done away with....this is why you can't understand the difference between water and Spirit..

 I have got to get in the bed, I will reply some more tomorrow evening, Lord willing..


----------



## PWalls (Feb 18, 2009)

Campbellites?

I had to go google. I had no clue who/what that was. I would've put money on that name being associated with the founding of a soup kitchen or something.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 18, 2009)

PWalls said:


> Campbellites?
> 
> I had to go google. I had no clue who/what that was. I would've put money on that name being associated with the founding of a soup kitchen or something.



That's what I thought. And some people believe I am interested in esoteric knowledge no one else knows of...


----------



## PWalls (Feb 18, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> esoteric



Listen. I have a public school education and it is after 10:30 on a week night.

We have got to cut out the BIG words. It's too much.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 18, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Why are there so many differences of the Church of Christ That date back to the same time and era, from one cuppers to those with  musical instruments, Disciples of Christ, and Christian Churches? Well, I think you've just pointed out one of our flaws.  Since Christians are human, we all get a little crazy sometimes.  It is a real problem.  There's a congregation near me that many of the people there only believe in their particular church of Christ, but not in any other church at all.
> Then there's the one-cuppers who spend all their time defending their Biblical justification for one cup rather than teaching the Gospel of Jesus.
> I've known a few who wouldn't attend a funeral in any church that had a piano or organ.
> 
> ...




I hope I didn't miss any of your questions.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 18, 2009)

PWalls said:


> Listen. I have a public school education and it is after 10:30 on a week night.
> 
> We have got to cut out the BIG words. It's too much.



Hey I proudly just squeeked out of Social Circle HS...


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 18, 2009)

*Holy Spirit during Apostle times.*

Acts 8:5Philip went down to the city of Samaria and began proclaiming Christ to them. 
6The crowds with one accord were giving attention to what was said by Philip, as they heard and saw the signs which he was performing. 7For in the case of many who had unclean spirits, they were coming out of them shouting with a loud voice; and many who had been paralyzed and lame were healed. 
8So there was much rejoicing in that city.
9Now there was a man named Simon, who formerly was practicing magic in the city and astonishing the people of Samaria, claiming to be someone great; 
10and they all, from smallest to greatest, were giving attention to him, saying, "This man is what is called the Great Power of God." 
11And they were giving him attention because he had for a long time astonished them with his magic arts. 
12But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike. 
13Even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed. 
14Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, 
15who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 
16For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 
17Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit. 
18Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money, 
19saying, "Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit." 
20But Peter said to him, "May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! 

---It was the apostles who were able to give the Holy Spirit with power.  All those who were baptized received the Holy Spirit in their lives, but the apostles were able to transfer their power to heal the sick, raise the dead, speak in languages not previously know.
You and I don't have that power.
I'm just assuming that you cannot raise the dead.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 18, 2009)

The Holy Spirit is certainly a part of each Christian's life.

1Cor 6:
15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! 
16Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH." 
17But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. 
18Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. 
19Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? 
20For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body. 

***But that isn't the same as the Holy Spirit Baptism that Jesus prepared the apostles for in Acts 1.


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 19, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Acts 8:5Philip went down to the city of Samaria and began proclaiming Christ to them.
> 6The crowds with one accord were giving attention to what was said by Philip, as they heard and saw the signs which he was performing. 7For in the case of many who had unclean spirits, they were coming out of them shouting with a loud voice; and many who had been paralyzed and lame were healed.
> 8So there was much rejoicing in that city.
> 9Now there was a man named Simon, who formerly was practicing magic in the city and astonishing the people of Samaria, claiming to be someone great;
> ...



 Not everyone who received the Holy Ghost had the same gifts as the apostles, We do not see anyone who received the Holy Ghost, with the same exact powers of the apostles, but to say they didn't receive the Holy Ghost is absurd.

  The Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, You cannot separate Him. When He manifests Himself upon someone they become a differant person than before. How can we be the temple of the Holy Spirit and Him to live in us without Him at some became manifest unto us?

 Without the Spirit we are none of His....



Ronnie T said:


> It was the apostles who were able to give the Holy Spirit with power.



There were many instances where people received the Holy Ghost without the Apostles laying hands on them.
   Acts 10:44-45

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
KJV

 The words haven't changed, Christ hasn't changed, God hasn't change, and to those who have heard the Word in their heart [not just their ears] the Holy Ghost is still poured out today. 

 You say you like to read the Bible with simplicity, you sure do try to complicate it, The Spirit abiding on or in someone is the same as being Baptised with the Spirit. He cannot be separated..

 I got to go to work now be back tonight...


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 19, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Not everyone who received the Holy Ghost had the same gifts as the apostles, We do not see anyone who received the Holy Ghost, with the same exact powers of the apostles, but to say they didn't receive the Holy Ghost is absurd.I totally agree.  All children of God have received the Holy Spirit.  But they have not been baptized with the Spirit as the apostles were in Acts 1 and 2.
> 
> The Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, You cannot separate Him. When He manifests Himself upon someone they become a differant person than before. How can we be the temple of the Holy Spirit and Him to live in us without Him at some became manifest unto us?  I agree with you in that regard also.
> 
> ...



Me too.  I got to go see some folks.
Have a good day.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 19, 2009)

*Instrumental Music in the Church of Christ*

The primary reason for leaving instruments out in those early years was because during those days, some of the mainstream denominations used them, but some were still staunchly against the use of a piano or organ.
A look back into the history of the church shows that there were no instruments used in the 1st century church at all even though instruments were widely used by the Jews.  Even in the 4th and 5th centuries there was lots of in-fighting in the church because of the instrument issue.

Today, we simply prefer to be able to sing without the hindrance of instruments that bury our voices and make it difficult for us to concentrate on the words of the songs.  For us, singing spiritual songs is a key part of our worship.

We don't have "special" singing or a "choir" because we all want to sing every single song.  We don't want to be entertained, we want to sing praises.

But we(my Christian family) do NOT condemn others who have music.  We simply do not have it ourselves.  If I go to a revival at a denominational church, I sing and enjoy the service, but it is simply not the same for me with the instruments.

We are satisfied to...  "sing and make melody in our hearts"


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 19, 2009)

*Some of my thoughts on Salvation and Baptism*

I've copied the following from the bottom of your post #1.


"As long as the Campbellites teach that baptism is essential for salvation, they will be viewed as a cult by evangelical Christians. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, apart from obedience to any of God's commands. Works are the evidence of salvation instead of the basis of it. 
[This article is taken from Robert Morey's writings. He is founder of the ministry Faith Defenders.] "

First, I've got to wonder why Mr. Morey felt a need to write such an article as this.  Does the Church of Christ beliefs on baptism keep him awake at night?  Does he feel that this teaching is worth his time and effort in order to protect the teachings of the New Testament?
Or could it be that this teaching differs from his belief and teachings so it needs to be immediately confronted and published to straighten the whole mess out.

Here are my thoughts.
Mr. Morey is what I refer to as a Spin-doctor.  One way or another he's going to proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is right and someone else is wrong. He has gone all the way back to Moses, Abraham, Israel, and circumcision to proved that what Jesus said in scripture could not possible be true:

Mark 16:16  " He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned." (NASB)

Maybe Jesus should have said:  "He who believes shall be saved, and then get baptized later on if he wants to."

Or,  "He who believes shall be saved; but he who disbelieves shall be condemned,  and baptism will be an outward sign of your new birth in Christ."

But, that's not what Jesus commanding His apostles to do.


Jesus did not seperate the two, so the church of Christ does not either.

Can a person be saved by God's grace and still be required to be baptized?  It appears to many of us that Jesus did just that.


----------



## fivesolas (Feb 19, 2009)

You guys got it all wrong. These folks are a fringe cult group that has deified Campbell's Soup and meet in secret to trade recipes and get others to eat Campbell's soup. The believe the following character on the soup can is the savior of the world...


----------



## thedeacon (Feb 19, 2009)

If you read all the conversions in the book of acts (Paul Included) you will find Baptism is included. Salvation is not based on baptism, we are saved by Grace. No one is denying that but you can't deny what the bible says about baptism unless you are in a state of denial. (pun intended)

Ronnie t I think you need to wipe your feet of this subject. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see

You can't outpuke a buzzard.

Why would you overlook something that is clearly very important to God as Baptism, the death, burial and resurrection of his son.

Everything that God teaches us through the devine revelation of the Holy Spirirt is important to God, why would you not even consinder something that is taught so much in the New Testiment.

I just don't get it.

Can a person Go to heaven without being baptised. Maybe so!! and probably so!!! Should we just decide that we want to take that chance?? 

I will let all you so called Bible Scholers answer that question. 

God be with you all I think you are going to need it


----------



## fivesolas (Feb 19, 2009)

No one laughed at my joke...at least I thought it was funny.


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 19, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> I totally agree. All children of God have received the Holy Spirit. But they have not been baptized with the Spirit as the apostles were in Acts 1 and 2.






Acts 1:5

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
KJV

Acts 11:15-17

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost .

17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
KJV

 Read these, they all are in context, The gift of Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost falling on them, and Baptism of Holy Ghost are the same event.  They were Baptized in the Holy Ghost, the Baptism of the Holy Ghost was not just to the Apostles...It was a promise to all...

  Who was John the Baptist talking to in these verses..Mark 1:7-8

7 And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.

8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost .KJV

 Was John the Baptist talking to the apostles? No..

  John was talking to these...Matt 3:5

5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
KJV

  The  Apostles were from the region round about Galilee and had not been chosen at the time John said this..

 So how could John tell the people in a completely different Area of the region that Jesus would Baptize them with the Holy Ghost, if it only pertained to the Apostles?

 Why would Peter say that the Gentiles received it the same way as him ???
    Acts 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
KJV

   The only difference between the Apostles and every one else is they had some extra ordinary gifts, But both Apostle/Jews and Gentiles were Baptized in the Holy Ghost..


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 19, 2009)

I understand exactly what you're saying and I'm familiar with the verses, but I disagree with your conclusion.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 19, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> No one laughed at my joke...at least I thought it was funny.




I thought it was kinda cute.


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 19, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> I understand exactly what you're saying and I'm familiar with the verses, but I disagree with your conclusion.



  How they all are in context?


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 19, 2009)

Goodnight, I got to get up early in the morning, but I'll be back sometime....lordwilling...


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 19, 2009)

you guys do realize it is just y'all???


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> you guys do realize it is just y'all???




Yeah, I noticed.  I don't blame um.
How ya think I'm doing?


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 19, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Yeah, I noticed.  I don't blame um.
> How ya think I'm doing?



I always thought I was pretty well versed in religious history... I ain't never heard of these guys... Of course I learn every day how little I know.


----------



## gordon 2 (Feb 20, 2009)

In my view you could all be united as Roman Catholics and continue to enjoy your differences. Plenty in the RC church are like minded in this large denonimation, but just haven't rounded to other pews or bothered to fret baptisms to extreme views sufficient to comit entire cultures to the value and shine of  "we have the real apostolic and biblically based relics of faith."


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 20, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Who was John the Baptist talking to in these verses..Mark 1:7-8
> 
> 7 And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.
> 
> ...



  Ronnie, could you explain this from your beliefs that the Baptism of the Holy Ghost was only to the Apostles?


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 20, 2009)

Sure, briefly.  (Didn't turn out to be brief.

1.  John the baptist can do no more than baptize with water, as a suggestion that they purify and cleanse themselves; but Christ will be able to baptize with the Holy Ghost.  John meant that Jesus can give the Spirit, and that Spirit can cleanse and purify the heart, water can clean the outside, Jesus can clean the inside.  Or destroy with fire, as Matt and Luke say in their parellel verses that match these words of John.  

2.  John was a preacher who always spoke in regard to Jesus being the One who was being prepared for.  It was Jesus who would bring salvation. 
In all his exhortations, he directed people to Christ. 

************************************
1.  In Acts 1:5 Jesus told His Apostles, only His apostles,  "not many days from now you will be baptized with (with) the Holy Spirit."  John baptized with water, apostles would be baptized WITH the Holy Spirit.

2.  Jesus also said  Acts 1:8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth." 

3.  Acts 2:1 When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place.  2And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.  3And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. 

*The apostles were definately baptized(covered) with the Holy Spirit.  
This would only happen on one other occasion.

*************************************
The only other time would be at Cornelius' house.
In Acts 11 Peter is retelling the story to the apostles in Jerusalem........   
"15And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. 16"And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17"Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?" 

*When all the other people Peter had been involved in baptizing,  this was different.  This household received had received the great powers just as the apostles had.
Why?  As proof that God wanted them to be His children.  As proof that it was permissable to baptise them with water in the name of Jesus Christ.

***********************************

All other records show that it took the hands of the apostles to bestow the powers of the Holy Spirit upon a Christian.

All Christians received the indwelling of the Spirit.  But only the apostles could give these great Powers to others.

That's my take on the Holy Spirit.


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 20, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> 1.  John the baptist can do no more than baptize with water, as a suggestion that they purify and cleanse themselves; but Christ will be able to baptize with the Holy Ghost.  John meant that Jesus can give the Spirit
> 
> 2.  John was a preacher who always spoke in regard to Jesus being the One who was being prepared for.  It was Jesus who would bring salvation.
> 
> All Christians received the indwelling of the Spirit.



  A little contradictory, in 1. You said the meaning of Holy Ghost Baptism is Jesus giving the Spirit to those believers.. Which I agree..

 In 2. You said John always spoke in regard to Jesus is who would bring salvation....How did John say this this would be done by Jesus? he said I baptize you with water, but Jesus will Baptize you with the Holy Ghost... 
      but you say the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is not salvation...

  And then you say that all christians receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit...how do they receive the Holy Spirit? From Jesus..... Did Jesus change his application method...

  Let me simplify this for you  Jesus takes a repentant sinner and gives them the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which is salvation....John called it the Baptism of the Holy Ghost.....but you call it a indwelling because the extra baptism doesn't line up with your doctrine, but it lines up with Johns....


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 20, 2009)

I didn't realize that all this Holy Spirit discussion had to do with the "One Baptism" statement of Eph 4:5.

Eph 4:5 doesn't negate the fact that from that historical point forward water baptism was written about and accomplished in the life of all new believers.

Eph 4:5 doesn't negate the fact that Holy Spirit Baptism is not discussed from that historical point forward.

Eph 4:5 does not negate the fact that Jesus  directed His apostles
15 "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.  "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. "

That verse still stands.

Eph 4:5 does not negate    Acts 22:16 concerning Paul's being saved;     "Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name."
What did he mean by "and wash away your sins"?  We all know that it's the blood of Christ that washes away sins.  Could it be that it is during baptism that the cleansing occurs??  What else could it mean?  That will always be a question for me.

Eph 4:5 does not negate   1 Peter 3:21
"Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"
Now I know that we all have been saved by the grace of God.  It is in God's goodness that we are saved.  But what does 1Peter 3:21 mean???? "baptism now saves you"???  Peter is talking about water baptism, not Holy Spirit.  It means something important.

As a teacher, I have a grave responsibility.
For much of my life I sat on the pew and my opinion became whatever the last good sermon might have lead me.
I'm no longer in that casual position.
All the verses have become important to me.
Will I make mistakes??  Absolutely.
Will I be wrong at times???  Most likely. Applies to everyone.
But I have to involve everything that has been left for me.  It's all valuable or it wouldn't be part of God's word.
I don't know if that's the way Bro. Campbell saw it, but it's the way I've chosen to deal with it.


----------



## pigpen1 (Jul 23, 2009)

Bump.


----------



## Lowjack (Jul 23, 2009)

My Position is that I accept what Paul says and what peter says, *but I obey what the Master said,* "go Forth and preach this Gospel to every creature and Baptizing them in the name of the Lord"
That was not a suggestion it was a commandment from the very savior and groom, after he resurrected and as he was leaving, so What part of Baptising every creature don't you all understand.

I can also argue that the baptism done by Christian churches only resemble the Mikva(Baptism) that John Did. But that's nor here nor there right now.


----------



## Lowjack (Jul 23, 2009)

It pains me very much to see you all brothers and sisters lost in your interpretations of What Baptism means and why we are to be baptize, why are you lost so ? Because you lost the Jewish significances of the rituals that were commanded by God, so you have created rituals which are meaningless, so you seek out because your soul is telling you, something is missing, so I will share with you tonight the why of Baptism.
If you believe that you are the bride of Christ then you will comprehend, watch this short video by my friend and read around the web site.
http://www.rebeccaatthewell.org/jewishweddingmikvah.html


----------



## Tim L (Jul 24, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> We have had threads on here about Baptists and Catholics, and others, but what about Cambellites???
> 
> Must one be baptized to be saved?
> The doctrinal errors of Campbellism
> ...



Hmmm...It pretty much says it all that you can't bring yourself to call the church by it's true name, The Christian Church...


----------



## thedeacon (Jul 24, 2009)

I am a christianite not a cambellite but I can read my bible and see the importance of Baptism. In all the conversions in acts the converts were told to be baptized. In fact you can read facts about baptism but the sinners prayer is never mentioned in the bible but you never here anyone say that prayer is not necessary. Would someone please give me the scripture where someone in the bible has prayed the sinners prayer, please.

Why don't we just stop this and agreee that we dissagreeee and let it go. 

Cambellits, come on now, I am a proud member of the Church of Christ "Christian only" and have never associated myself with cambell,,,,,, just Christ and I have never put anyone else on here down for there believes no matter how rediculas they seem to me. Who knows maybe I should study more and change my mind, it has surely happened in the past. Try it you might like it yourself


----------



## Lowjack (Jul 24, 2009)

Christianite ? Is that like Kriptonite ? LOL


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 24, 2009)

First of all.... I want to say Hello to everyone here!

And second of all.......... Ronnie T???  THANK YOU!  I knew I liked your posts for a reason!    Love you, Brother!  

I am a member of the Lord's Church... Church of Christ, by the world's desire to attach a name to a religion.   

Water baptism is a clear cut issue for those who open their Bibles and read.  If it were not important, it would not have been mentioned so many times... and Jesus Himself would not have instructed that new believers be baptized.

We have attendance cards for attendees to fill out, just so our Elders can better assess who may be in need of their help physically or spiritually.  Although we have an extensive prayer list, and people usually let me know if they are going on vacation for any length of time, sometimes things can "get by" without us knowing.  (Yes, we've actually had someone get all bent out of shape because they'd been in the hospital for a week and no one came to visit them... yet, no one was ever informed about it!)

If a member moves away, it is not with a letter informing any new church home of their standing with us.  That is not to say that the new church home has no right to contact us and check the standing for themselves.  

Disfellowshipping someone is serious business - and a last resort when all biblical means have been exhausted to resolve the issue and the offender is still unrepentant.  This is one of the burdens that our Shepherds bear.  That has only happened once since I have been here, and I promise you... It is only by the grace of God that there was not a death involved as a result of their actions.  I will not go into details, and I can tell you that we continue to pray for them every day.   

And now, I must get back to work...


----------



## pigpen1 (Jul 24, 2009)

thedeacon said:


> I am a christianite not a cambellite but I can read my bible and see the importance of Baptism. In all the conversions in acts the converts were told to be baptized. In fact you can read facts about baptism but the sinners prayer is never mentioned in the bible but you never here anyone say that prayer is not necessary. Would someone please give me the scripture where someone in the bible has prayed the sinners prayer, please.
> 
> Why don't we just stop this and agreee that we dissagreeee and let it go.
> 
> Cambellits, come on now, I am a proud member of the Church of Christ "Christian only" and have never associated myself with cambell,,,,,, just Christ and I have never put anyone else on here down for there believes no matter how rediculas they seem to me. Who knows maybe I should study more and change my mind, it has surely happened in the past. Try it you might like it yourself



 You have to go back to where the Church of Christ was started, you may say with Christ, but the fact is it was started by  Thomas and Alexander Campbell.

 well here is the history....

Campbellites
Home »History »Groups »Campbellites
Campbellites were religious followers of ministers Thomas Campbell and his son Alexander Campbell in the early nineteenth century. Originally associated with the Presbyterian Church in western Pennsylvania and Virginia, the Campbells argued that the strict religious practices of the church were too divisive and that all denominations should give up their doctrinal differences and reunify as one single Christian Church. In addition, they believed that all Christians, regardless of denomination, should be allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper. Unable to convince the various denominations to follow their teachings, the two men founded their own church in 1809. They later formed an alliance with the followers of another religious dissenter, Barton W. Stone of Kentucky, to create the Disciples of Christ in 1832.

Over time, the Campbells' new church gained members from a number of denominations, in spite of its perceived radical views, and spread into Ohio. By the 1850s, the Disciples of Christ, also commonly known as the Christian Church, had established ninety churches in the state and had founded Hiram College


----------



## pigpen1 (Jul 24, 2009)

Here's some more....

Historians generally date the origin of the churches from 1809, when the Rev. Thomas Campbell, a dissident Presbyterian minister from western Pennsylvania, founded a new "Christian Association" to bring the church back to the practices of New Testament times. The Campbellites eventually split into liberal and conservative camps over such issues as the right of pastors to use the title reverend and the introduction of organ music in church services. In 1906 the conservatives reported separately in a U.S. religious census as members of the Churches of Christ; the liberals kept the title that Campbell applied to his followers, Disciples of Christ.


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 24, 2009)

thedeacon said:


> I am a christianite not a cambellite but I can read my bible and see the importance of Baptism. In all the conversions in acts the converts were told to be baptized. In fact you can read facts about baptism but the sinners prayer is never mentioned in the bible but you never here anyone say that prayer is not necessary. Would someone please give me the scripture where someone in the bible has prayed the sinners prayer, please.
> 
> Why don't we just stop this and agreee that we dissagreeee and let it go.
> 
> Cambellits, come on now, I am a proud member of the Church of Christ "Christian only" and have never associated myself with cambell,,,,,, just Christ and I have never put anyone else on here down for there believes no matter how rediculas they seem to me. Who knows maybe I should study more and change my mind, it has surely happened in the past. Try it you might like it yourself


  And thank YOU as well!    I've never heard of anyone actually saying they were a "Campbellite" (sp?)...  Who made that name up?  I am a CHRISTIAN, first and foremost.  Calling myself a Campbellite would mean I was worshipping a MAN, not Jesus Christ.  I do believe that we are told not to do that.... 

Studying never killed anyone, and I encourage everyone to do it.   Are we not to "grow in grace and knowledge"?? (2 Pet. 3:18)


----------



## Twenty five ought six (Jul 24, 2009)

> I've never heard of anyone actually saying they were a "Campbellite" (sp?)



I have.

It's interesting that the focus of this discussion is on the Campbellites/Church of Christ/Disciples of Christ.

I know many, many Southern Baptists who believe that total immersion is necessary for the remission of sins, and to receive salvation.  I don't know that anyone considers them a "cult."  

Most SB churches of which I've been a member will not let you become a member unless you have been fully immersed.


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 24, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Here's some more....
> 
> Historians generally date the origin of the churches from 1809, when the Rev. Thomas Campbell, a dissident Presbyterian minister from western Pennsylvania, founded a new "Christian Association" to bring the church back to the practices of New Testament times. The Campbellites eventually split into liberal and conservative camps over such issues as the right of pastors to use the title reverend and the introduction of organ music in church services. In 1906 the conservatives reported separately in a U.S. religious census as members of the Churches of Christ; the liberals kept the title that Campbell applied to his followers, Disciples of Christ.




Imagine that........... religious liberals!  LOL

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with giving Campbell the credit for seeing that denominationalism goes against the teachings of the Bible and trying to take steps to correct that.  I give him Kudos for trying!


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 24, 2009)

Twenty five ought six said:


> I have.
> 
> It's interesting that the focus of this discussion is on the Campbellites/Church of Christ/Disciples of Christ.
> 
> ...



You are right.... I've talked to several different "Southern Baptists" whose beliefs are very close to ours.  If there were any major differences, I don't recall any.  And yet, there is no stigma attached... maybe because of the word "Baptist"???


----------



## pigpen1 (Jul 24, 2009)

Country_Girl said:


> I've never heard of anyone actually saying they were a "Campbellite" (sp?)...



 Campbellite was what they were called when it started, then it was called Diciples of Christ, then Church of Christ, and Christian Church.

 I was raised in the Christian Church and the Church of Christ. My Grand father was a Elder. I have studied their doctrines all my life. The scariest part is I have many family members that think water baptism has saved them, but can not give a testimony of a personal experience of Salvation. 

 I followed that teaching from 9yrs old till I was 23 and then I truly got Saved and saw it was not water but Spirit.

Water is just a outward Show of a Inward transition.

Now I am a member of a Independent Amillennial Baptist Church, But most importantly I am a Member of the true Church of Christ, where all who are washed in his Blood are members no matter of what denomination they worship at.


----------



## pigpen1 (Jul 24, 2009)

Country_Girl said:


> You are right.... I've talked to several different "Southern Baptists" whose beliefs are very close to ours.  If there were any major differences, I don't recall any.  And yet, there is no stigma attached... maybe because of the word "Baptist"???



 There are a lot of major differences, Music, Communion, Altars, and doctrine of eternal security etc.

 I am Baptist, and I know there are extreme differences in the Baptist Churches as well. Just like the Church of Christ has its differant branches. Have you ever heard of "One Cuppers". They are a branch of the CoC that will only take communion from one cup that is passed through out the whole congregation. Then you have those that allow musical instruments, some who will allow women to have certain leadership rolls and some who will not. 

 Now about musical instruments, I read on the other thread where you said they told you they did not have them because they were not mentioned in the New Testament. I ask then why do they have a Church Building, Indoor plumbing, Sunday School, VBS, Sunday School and other teaching literature??? None of these are mentioned in the New Testament either, but the CoC has them.


----------



## donjon25 (Jul 24, 2009)

My head hurts.

I can't believe I sat here and read all these posts.  

I'll be honest, I know nothing about the church of Christ.  However, twice I've been thrown for a loop while reading their church sign.  Once it said "obey Acts 2:38".  I was like yeah, because as an apostolic pentecostal, that is our message.  Then another day I saw on their sign: "using musical instruments for worship is an abomination".  I was like WHAT???  

Where in the Bible does it say "no instruments?".  I can however find scriptures condoning the use of intruments.  King David comes to mind.  

Someone posted that the Holy Ghost was only given to the 12 apostles on the day of Pentecost?  It was given to the 120 that were in the upper room - including the mother of Jesus.


----------



## thedeacon (Jul 24, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> You have to go back to where the Church of Christ was started, you may say with Christ, but the fact is it was started by  Thomas and Alexander Campbell.
> 
> well here is the history....
> 
> ...



Believe it or not, there is very little that you can tell me about Barton Stone, The two Campbells and the begiening of the reformation movement of the Churches, even though I am just a dum ole country boy I have studied the subject extensively. 

As a child I was never taken to church or Sunday school. We usually fished on sunday. As I entered adulthood I started to wonder about Jesus. I studied with my girlfriend and other people, read many books and decided to take the bible as the source of all my decisions in my life.

I have no problem with the way that you interpret the Bible, if you are sure you are right but  I have to believe that what I read in the bible to be true. I also do not condemn you for your belief, in fact unlike some people on here I commend you for steadfastness.

But and I do say But, I am not a Cambellite because of what I believe any more than I am a Paulite, or a Johnite and I refuse to hang any secular name on you because of what you believe. I don't think that is what Jesus would want one of his followers to do. I respect you for what you believe and I would expect you to be diligent in your teaching thereof.

Over the years I have learned that maybe I have been a bit to conservative is some of my views and have changed on some points. I think that is called growth or maybe maturity. I am 64 years old and I am still learning. I try to spend as much time in the word. I use books and commentaries that are written by many, many belief's. I do however try to come back to the book and use God's word to make my final decision. 

I do not take lightly what the bible says. It bothers me when people say they are Christians and do not bother to open their bibles during the week. They need to read 2 Tim. 2:15. 

Yes maybe I am a little more conservative than most but I know in my heart I am safe and ready to meet my Lord and Savior. When I get to heaven and God says; deacon ole boy you didn't have to be baptized to be saved but come on in. I will be ok with that. He may even tell me it would have been ok for me to have a beer on a hot afternoon but I know I am safe not drinking one. 

Like I said, what I believe has nothing to do with Campbell, it has to do with Jesus Christ my lord. 

You and your wife both seem to have an above the average intelligence and I respect that and applaud you for your work. All I ask is the same respect. 

Forgive my grammer and spelling I don't have time to check it I have washing and ironing to do since I am away from home with my sick mother.


----------



## post450 (Jul 24, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> .......
> Now I am a member of a Indepent Amillennial Baptist Church, But most importantly I am a Member of the true Church of Christ, where all who are washed in his Blood are members no matter of what denomination they worship at.



Pigpen, does Amillennial mean there is less than a 1,000 of you?  

On a more serious note, I am married a girl who who was raised in the Church of Christ which came with a mother in law who is still CoC to the core and none too thrilled that her daughter married a Baptiscostal and later became one. Being that I have got to hear a lot of her rhetoric through the years, one major principle of the CoC that I have not seen mentioned is the works based attention or completion of Salvation after baptism, at least from the more conservative branches, which does hold some merit as Paul said "show me they faith without thy works and I will show thee my faith by my works."

My great grandmother would only use the term "Campellites" to refer to the Church of Christ, but that word would be offensive to me if I was a Church of Christ member. Based on the responses of those belonging to this denomination, it would appear most are offended and would prefer to distance themselves from the term, much like the Calvinists have chosen terms such as "Reformed and Apostolistic" to distance themselves from John Calvin. I guess maybe you having been one for a good portion of your life would give more leeway. I certainly have not yet got up the courage to call my mother in law a Campellite. How did your family members that are CoC react to your Baptist conversion?


----------



## pigpen1 (Jul 24, 2009)

thedeacon said:


> Believe it or not, there is very little that you can tell me about Barton Stone, The two Campbells and the begiening of the reformation movement of the Churches, even though I am just a dum ole country boy I have studied the subject extensively.
> 
> As a child I was never taken to church or Sunday school. We usually fished on sunday. As I entered adulthood I started to wonder about Jesus. I studied with my girlfriend and other people, read many books and decided to take the bible as the source of all my decisions in my life.
> 
> ...



I hope I have not disrespected you, if I have I apologize. I have just debated the Doctrine of this denomination just like I would debate any other including Baptist, which I am part of. 

 As for you personally, I can't think of a one on one debate that I have had with you to disrespect you in any matter.

If someone brings out a falsehood or tradition dealing with the Baptist church, I do not get offended, I will probably agree with them. How ever if they bring up something that is part of the doctrine that I believe, I will debate it and back it with scripture. If someone feels I am wrong so be it, that still doesn't offend me.

 I commend you Deacon for coming from a Church less background and searching out what you feel is right and following it.


----------



## Lowjack (Jul 24, 2009)

I guess I'm a Campbellite now, I just had a Campbell's vegetable soup, LOL


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 25, 2009)

If more threads were of the character of this one I would be a regular visitor, rather than a rare visitor.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 25, 2009)

Being a member of the Church of Christ all my life (I'm 60 yr old) I can tell you that I've never referred to myself as a campbellite and until this forum I've never heard of any Christian referred to as a campbellite.

Here's some other things I'd like you to know from my personal knowledge and belief.
1.  We do not have instrumental music but I know of no place in the Bible that forbids instruments.
2.  I believe in baptism(cause the Bible tells me so) but baptism means nothing without the saving grace of God thru Jesus' death on the cross.  Nothing without the blood of Jesus.  Nothing without the acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior.  Nothing without the forgiveness of God.  Nothing without life in Christ.  There is nothing magical in baptism.
3.  Member's of the Church of Christ are not the only one's who are going to heaven.  As a matter of fact, I suspect some members of the Church of Christ won't make it to heaven.  Your church affiliation ain't gonna get you there.
4.  The Church of Christ is not the original church.  Though I sure try to be like that early church.

As for Bro. Campbell, I don't even know his first name.  Never read any of his writings.  But he had a great idea:  Denominations getting rid of all things that hinder and separate, and just worship and serve.
I know of the one-cuppers.  And more power to them if that's what they want.  Personally, these days, I like my own little cup.


----------



## pigpen1 (Jul 25, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Being a member of the Church of Christ all my life (I'm 60 yr old) I can tell you that I've never referred to myself as a campbellite and until this forum I've never heard of any Christian referred to as a campbellite.
> 
> Here's some other things I'd like you to know from my personal knowledge and belief.
> 1.  We do not have instrumental music but I know of no place in the Bible that forbids instruments.
> ...



 Amen Ronnie, I can agree with you on this, and as for the One cuppers, that would move a lot of the back row people to the front for sure.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 25, 2009)

donjon25 said:


> My head hurts.
> 
> I can't believe I sat here and read all these posts.
> 
> ...


...


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 25, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Campbellite was what they were called when it started, then it was called Diciples of Christ, then Church of Christ, and Christian Church.
> 
> I was raised in the Christian Church and the Church of Christ. My Grand father was a Elder. I have studied their doctrines all my life. The scariest part is I have many family members that think water baptism has saved them, but can not give a testimony of a personal experience of Salvation.
> 
> ...



...


----------



## pigpen1 (Jul 25, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> In other words, you are non-denominational. By the way, I agree with your amillennial point of view



 You could say that...... There are so few Baptist Churches left that believe like the one I attend, that they are almost Non-existent...


----------



## pigpen1 (Jul 25, 2009)

post450 said:


> Pigpen, does Amillennial mean there is less than a 1,000 of you?
> 
> On a more serious note, I am married a girl who who was raised in the Church of Christ which came with a mother in law who is still CoC to the core and none too thrilled that her daughter married a Baptiscostal and later became one. Being that I have got to hear a lot of her rhetoric through the years, one major principle of the CoC that I have not seen mentioned is the works based attention or completion of Salvation after baptism, at least from the more conservative branches, which does hold some merit as Paul said "show me they faith without thy works and I will show thee my faith by my works."
> 
> My great grandmother would only use the term "Campellites" to refer to the Church of Christ, but that word would be offensive to me if I was a Church of Christ member. Based on the responses of those belonging to this denomination, it would appear most are offended and would prefer to distance themselves from the term, much like the Calvinists have chosen terms such as "Reformed and Apostolistic" to distance themselves from John Calvin. I guess maybe you having been one for a good portion of your life would give more leeway. I certainly have not yet got up the courage to call my mother in law a Campellite. How did your family members that are CoC react to your Baptist conversion?



 Some of my family have came over to the Baptist Church as well. My Father and Mother have, but most of my family do not like me unto this day because of me leaving the "family tradition" of the CoC and Christian Church.

 As for your first statment, yes they are less than a 1000 of me, but by the looks of my honey do list, my wife must think there are more than a 1000 of me.


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 27, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> There are a lot of major differences, Music, Communion, Altars, and doctrine of eternal security etc.
> 
> I am Baptist, and I know there are extreme differences in the Baptist Churches as well. Just like the Church of Christ has its differant branches. Have you ever heard of "One Cuppers". They are a branch of the CoC that will only take communion from one cup that is passed through out the whole congregation. Then you have those that allow musical instruments, some who will allow women to have certain leadership rolls and some who will not.
> 
> Now about musical instruments, I read on the other thread where you said they told you they did not have them because they were not mentioned in the New Testament. I ask then why do they have a Church Building, Indoor plumbing, Sunday School, VBS, Sunday School and other teaching literature??? None of these are mentioned in the New Testament either, but the CoC has them.


 I don't guess I've studied up on Southern Baptists enough.  I didn't realize there were such major differences.  I might have to check into that.

The things you mention are not part of worship.  They may be part of the evangelism or education... or in the case of a building, plumbing (and I'll throw in air conditioning), creature comforts.  But they are not part of worship.

Is that to say that a "thought" has never crossed the mind of the preacher to turn off the heat for a Sunday morning lesson in the middle of winter, or the AC in the dead heat of summer?  Or, even go one step further and ponder having the entire service outside - cold or hot, rain or shine?  Some of the early Christians travelled for days to cram themselves in to the area of choice... In Thailand, they still do.  To sit on a piece of dirt in a crowded shack for HOURS to hear the gospel.  How spoiled we've ALL become!  I digressed... Sorry!  lol  

I've heard of the One Cuppers, and all I can say is "YUCK!".  And with my luck, I'd always be at the tail end of the backwash line.....  LOL


----------



## pigpen1 (Jul 27, 2009)

Country_Girl said:


> I don't guess I've studied up on Southern Baptists enough.  I didn't realize there were such major differences.  I might have to check into that.



Yep, there are a lot of differences in the Baptist Church. You have Southern Baptists, Freewill Baptists, Missionary Baptists, Primitive Baptists,  Georgia Baptists and inside these groups they are divided even more with things like Premillennial, Postmillennial and Amillennial doctrines. Some are Calvinist some are not. Some believe in eternal security and some do not.

 So a person can't just say my belifes are close to the Baptist beliefs......I am Baptist and I can't just summarize my beliefs that generally. Most Baptist do not truely know all this either, they just think Baptist are all under the same doctrine.


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 27, 2009)

post450 said:


> Pigpen, does Amillennial mean there is less than a 1,000 of you?
> 
> On a more serious note, I am married a girl who who was raised in the Church of Christ which came with a mother in law who is still CoC to the core and none too thrilled that her daughter married a Baptiscostal and later became one. Being that I have got to hear a lot of her rhetoric through the years, one major principle of the CoC that I have not seen mentioned is the works based attention or completion of Salvation after baptism, at least from the more conservative branches, which does hold some merit as Paul said "show me they faith without thy works and I will show thee my faith by my works."
> 
> My great grandmother would only use the term "Campellites" to refer to the Church of Christ, but that word would be offensive to me if I was a Church of Christ member. Based on the responses of those belonging to this denomination, it would appear most are offended and would prefer to distance themselves from the term, much like the Calvinists have chosen terms such as "Reformed and Apostolistic" to distance themselves from John Calvin. I guess maybe you having been one for a good portion of your life would give more leeway. I certainly have not yet got up the courage to call my mother in law a Campellite. How did your family members that are CoC react to your Baptist conversion?



OK... I have to ask........ Bapticostal???

Not sure how old you are, or how old your MIL is, but I can completely sympathize with your situation.  Some of the older members are just "way" out there.  About too prune-lipped to be able to smile - and would probably think it was a sin if they actually managed to do so.  I feel your pain.  Not to worry... we're working on ours.  

It is not just works alone, lest anyone should boast.  It is not just faith alone.  There is much work to be done for the Lord... idle bystanders are not much help.  

It is not "once saved, always saved" - you have to continue to learn and grow as a Christian, and yes, you are to do the Lord's work.  There are enough warnings in the Bible about "falling away" or "drifting away", and encouragements to "stay the course" or remain steadfast, that there is obviously a serious consequence for those who do not heed the warnings.  Not only was Paul determined to remain diligent, even when in prison, but his letters to the churches urged them to do the same.  Who am I to say that Paul didn't know what he was talking about? 

It is what it is.... I'd rather do it and find out it didn't need to be done... than to find out too late that I should have done it.


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 27, 2009)

donjon25 said:


> My head hurts.
> 
> I can't believe I sat here and read all these posts.
> 
> ...



OK.  Number One... you will NEVER see a sign like that in front of our building.  I guess their "mission" was to throw people for a loop.  I can actually think of many more "happenings" going on in our world today that would be more of an abomination, if they really wanted to go there. 

You missed the thread that first brought the instrumental music up... and I don't even know if I can recall which one that is now.  I asked that very same question when I first started visiting, and got answers that pretty much sum up to it not being about what "is" in the Bible in this case as much as what ISN'T.  OT mentions instruments.  NT does not.  Anywhere.  So, since we are not add to or take away from the Word... I guess it was decided that music would be adding to the Word in the NT.

I'm OK with it being without music.  We all sing, and it sounds wonderful... and we don't have to worry about one of the musicians being out sick or hurt, either.  I don't attend to be entertained; I come to worship.


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 27, 2009)

hummerpoo said:


> If more threads were of the character of this one I would be a regular visitor, rather than a rare visitor.


Well then, by all means.......... STICK AROUND!  Very refreshing to see that not EVERYone is out to bash each other for their beliefs, isn't it?  This is actually very interesting....


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 27, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> I guess I'm a Campbellite now, I just had a Campbell's vegetable soup, LOL


  Are you sure that doesn't make you a vegetable??


----------



## post450 (Jul 27, 2009)

Country_Girl said:


> OK... I have to ask........ Bapticostal???



Pretty simple, I was raised in a Pentecostal home but now I am an active member of a Southern Baptist church, missionary I believe, all these monikers confuse me, lol. Anyway this background + my present denomination='s Bapticostal. 
Pigpen is right about the wide variation in Baptist beliefs. I accept our church's specific doctrine to be a close overall interpretation of scriptures. Our church is of the the Premillenial variety, hence the Amillenial jab at Pigpen who obviously has a great sense of humor. Where I differ with the general Baptist doctrine is I believe in an anointing or Baptism of the Holy Spirit beyond Salvation, just not to the extent of most Pentecostals. I am also of the free-will mindset, though my church is not. I believe that when the Bible says to fail not the assembling or yourselves together, that means you should attend and support your local church when possible. My biggest complaint with the Baptist denomination, in general, is the lackadaisical attitude and Sunday morning, if at all, attendance of many Baptists who use Grace as a crutch to place everything else in their lives in front of serving God. Having been Baptist for several years now, I can say that and if it offends other Baptists, then so be it.



Country_Girl said:


> Not sure how old you are, or how old your MIL is, but I can completely sympathize with your situation.  Some of the older members are just "way" out there.  About too prune-lipped to be able to smile - and would probably think it was a sin if they actually managed to do so.  I feel your pain.  Not to worry... we're working on ours.



My MIL is just under 60 and my FIL passed away 10 years ago, so she is a widow and I do overlook most of what she says. She's usually more depressed than mean anyway.



Country_Girl said:


> It is not just works alone, lest anyone should boast.  It is not just faith alone.  There is much work to be done for the Lord... idle bystanders are not much help.
> 
> It is not "once saved, always saved" - you have to continue to learn and grow as a Christian, and yes, you are to do the Lord's work.  There are enough warnings in the Bible about "falling away" or "drifting away", and encouragements to "stay the course" or remain steadfast, that there is obviously a serious consequence for those who do not heed the warnings.  Not only was Paul determined to remain diligent, even when in prison, but his letters to the churches urged them to do the same.  Who am I to say that Paul didn't know what he was talking about?
> 
> It is what it is.... I'd rather do it and find out it didn't need to be done... than to find out too late that I should have done it.



I couldn't agree more. Faith and works go hand in hand. 

Tell me again, what denomination did you say that you belong to?


----------



## pigpen1 (Jul 27, 2009)

post450 said:


> Pigpen is right about the wide variation in Baptist beliefs. I accept our church's specific doctrine to be a close overall interpretation of scriptures. Our church is of the the Premillenial variety, hence the Amillenial jab at Pigpen who obviously has a great sense of humor. :



 You know you might burn in the lake of fire because of that.....




post450 said:


> Pigpen who obviously has a great sense of humor. :



 I DO NOT!!! I AM SERIOUS, ALL OF THE sometimes.....


----------



## pigpen1 (Jul 27, 2009)

One thing that I have found to agree with the CoC, is their  escatology doctrine. 

I have never talked to a CoC minster that was premillennial, how ever that doesn't mean that there are not some who are. Ronnie might could answer that for us.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 27, 2009)

I'm not aware of any premillennial ministers in the CofC.

Why would Christ want to return to this dirty little planet?

Ephesians 1:19...........That power is like the working of his mighty strength, 20which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.


----------



## post450 (Jul 27, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> You know you might burn in the lake of fire because of that.....



Nah..........you'll just get to hear me tell you " I told you so" everyday for a 1,000 years. 



pigpen1 said:


> I DO NOT!!! I AM SERIOUS, ALL OF THE sometimes.....



Yeah, we know. Does your congregation know that you post on here?


----------



## pigpen1 (Jul 27, 2009)

post450 said:


> Nah..........you'll just get to hear me tell you " I told you so" everyday for a 1,000 years.









post450 said:


> Yeah, we know. Does your congregation know that you post on here?



 Some do, some don't know what a computer forum is.
 My former pastor is on here too, he stays in the firearm swap n sell most of the time.


----------



## pigpen1 (Jul 27, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> I'm not aware of any premillennial ministers in the CofC.
> 
> Why would Christ want to return to this dirty little planet?



 I can't understand that either. That sure goes against 2nd Peter 3:10.


----------



## post450 (Jul 27, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> I'm not aware of any premillennial ministers in the CofC.
> 
> Why would Christ want to return to this dirty little planet?



Of course Premillennialist believe to rule the earth for a thousand years as described in Revelation 19 and 20 even prophesied about in Isaiah, specifically in chapter 11. 

As far as his reason for wanting to return, maybe because he did create it to begin with in perfection and will return it to it's original glory as described in Isaiah. 

He did make some covenants with David which have not yet been fulfilled.

Do you have an alternate interpretation of Rev. 19 and 20? 

I have listened to some Coc doctrine which basically disregards the entire book of Revelation. I did not know if that was denomination wide or church specific.


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 28, 2009)

post450 said:


> Pretty simple, I was raised in a Pentecostal home but now I am an active member of a Southern Baptist church, missionary I believe, all these monikers confuse me, lol. Anyway this background + my present denomination='s Bapticostal.
> Pigpen is right about the wide variation in Baptist beliefs. I accept our church's specific doctrine to be a close overall interpretation of scriptures. Our church is of the the Premillenial variety, hence the Amillenial jab at Pigpen who obviously has a great sense of humor. Where I differ with the general Baptist doctrine is I believe in an anointing or Baptism of the Holy Spirit beyond Salvation, just not to the extent of most Pentecostals. I am also of the free-will mindset, though my church is not. I believe that when the Bible says to fail not the assembling or yourselves together, that means you should attend and support your local church when possible. My biggest complaint with the Baptist denomination, in general, is the lackadaisical attitude and Sunday morning, if at all, attendance of many Baptists who use Grace as a crutch to place everything else in their lives in front of serving God. Having been Baptist for several years now, I can say that and if it offends other Baptists, then so be it.
> 
> 
> ...


  First of all, I am sorry to hear that your MIL is feeling so empty at times.  I will pray for her, and I sure hope you do the same.  

I belong to a wonderful Church of Christ family, evidently of the "conservative" persuasion. 

Now, please humor this young Christian (I've only been a member of the Lord's church 5 years now- still a LOT to learn!)... what in the world is all this Amillenial, Premillenial and Postmillenial stuff y'all are mentioning?  What does that even mean?   



pigpen1 said:


> One thing that I have found to agree with the CoC, is their escatology doctrine.
> 
> I have never talked to a CoC minster that was premillennial, how ever that doesn't mean that there are not some who are. Ronnie might could answer that for us.


Oh, there you go.... using big words!  Show off...  LOL  

Eschatology???  dictionary.com sure was vague in its definition.



post450 said:


> Of course Premillennialist believe to rule the earth for a thousand years as described in Revelation 19 and 20 even prophesied about in Isaiah, specifically in chapter 11.
> 
> As far as his reason for wanting to return, maybe because he did create it to begin with in perfection and will return it to it's original glory as described in Isaiah.
> 
> ...


 Revelations is a tough book to understand... open to a lot of interperetation, simply because Paul attempted to describe an experience that overloaded all his common senses.  Just how do you put all of that into words so that someone who has never seen it would understand?  It's like trying to describe a sunset to someone whose been blind their entire lives, only on a much larger scale.  Our Elders feel that Revelations is better studied by more "mature" Christians, simply because of its complexity... I didn't fit into that category when the class was being offered, and it hasn't yet been offered again.  

That being said, I don't think it's "disregarded".  Do we fret and worry about it?  No.  If you follow the scriptures and don't fall away, you will not have to worry about what happens when we are called home.  It DOES serve as quite an incentive to "stay the course" and try to bring as many souls to Christ as possible so that they don't have to endure the events described, though.   

Maybe Ronnie has a better take on this, since I have not done a study on Revelations yet, but my opinion seems to be the general consensus in my church family.


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 28, 2009)

Forgot to touch on a few things earlier.  Sorry!  



post450 said:


> Pretty simple, I was raised in a Pentecostal home but now I am an active member of a Southern Baptist church, missionary I believe, all these monikers confuse me, lol. Anyway this background + my present denomination='s Bapticostal.  Oh, OK.... so this is a "self-appointed" description?  I was wondering if there had been another division somewhere along the way that I wasn't aware of.
> 
> Pigpen is right about the wide variation in Baptist beliefs. I accept our church's specific doctrine to be a close overall interpretation of scriptures. Our church is of the the Premillenial variety, hence the Amillenial jab at Pigpen who obviously has a great sense of humor. Where I differ with the general Baptist doctrine is I believe in an anointing or Baptism of the Holy Spirit beyond Salvation, just not to the extent of most Pentecostals. I don't know much about Pentecostals, so I'm not familiar with their beliefs.  I have always wondered how people can call themselves "Baptist" and not believe in baptism, though.  I kind of equate that to someone being called a teacher and not believing in teaching.
> 
> ...


----------



## Madman (Jul 28, 2009)

> Revelations is a tough book to understand... CG



CG,

The Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ is really not that difficult to understand.   

WE WIN!!


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 28, 2009)

Madman said:


> CG,
> 
> The Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ is really not that difficult to understand.



Yeah, right.
There are more differences in the interpretations and eschatology of John's dreams on the isle of Patmos than any other holy book in existance.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 28, 2009)

The book of Revelation contains so much information that anyone could probably support ANY belief from it.
In Revelation, John tries to explain "spiritual" matters in a way that we "Physical" people can understand them.

Will there be streets of gold in heaven:  I don't think so.
They will be far grander than any gold street could possibly.

The Revelation needs to be aligned with the rest of the Gospel.  It is addressed to Christians, not old testament Jews.  One would be wiser to look to New Testament teachings rather than old testament teachings to learn of Jesus' second return and His calling up of His church.

This supposed 1,000 year issue will resolve itself one day and Christ's church will be soaring through the heavens.


----------



## pigpen1 (Jul 28, 2009)

post450 said:


> Of course Premillennialist believe to rule the earth for a thousand years as described in Revelation 19 and 20 even prophesied about in Isaiah, specifically in chapter 11.
> 
> As far as his reason for wanting to return, maybe because he did create it to begin with in perfection and will return it to it's original glory as described in Isaiah.
> 
> ...




It all boils down to Literal vs Spiritual interpretation.

 I believe the 1000yrs is symbolic not literal calender years.

2 Peter 3:8

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
KJV

 This 1000yrs in Rev 20 is supposed to be Christ's "Kingdom".

 Christ said this about His Kingdom....Matt 16:28

28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom .
KJV

 If the Kingdom is yet to come, this means there are some 2000yr old Jews that have not died yet.

Christ also said this about His Kingdom...John 18:36

36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
KJV

So, will his Kingdom be from hence???


Notice this about Rev. 20..Rev 20:4

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
KJV

He did not see bodies....they did not have a bodily form...

notice this also,Rev 20:6

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
KJV

They shall be priests....look what John said in Rev.1..Rev 1:5-6

5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
KJV

All who have been washed in His Blood are already Priests.. All who have been Saved have had part in the first Resurrection. I was dead in my sins, but brought to life in Christ, who is the Resurrection.

 This is a very short summary, and in no way scratches the surface, but I am out of time right now. I will have to come back later.


----------



## pigpen1 (Jul 28, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> The book of Revelation contains so much information that anyone could probably support ANY belief from it.
> In Revelation, John tries to explain "spiritual" matters in a way that we "Physical" people can understand them.
> 
> Will there be streets of gold in heaven:  I don't think so.
> ...



 Amen! Ronnie


----------



## post450 (Jul 28, 2009)

Country_Girl, free-will is apparently a very big can of worms as evident by the recent thread http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=379183
I believe that one can willfully reject the offer of Salvation (as opposed to those of the Reformed or Calvinistic variety who accept predestination) and that one can leave the faith at any time during their life. I do accept eternal security, just not to the point of most Baptists.

As to the Premillennial, Amillennial, Postmillennial; here it is condensed without any rapture or tribulation implications. 
Premillenial - The belief that the second coming of Christ will occur, then Christ will literally reign on earth for 1,000 years with Satan being bound during this period. After this is the Great White Throne judgement.
Postmillenial - The belief that the 1,000 period is prior to the second coming of Christ, but with no earthly reign of Christ during that period. The belief is evil will have been defeated prior to the 1,000 years which will be of peace.
Amillenial - The belief Christ's second coming will be to gather his people and judge the world, not return to earth to establish a kingdom, after which his kingdom will be in heaven forever. The belief associates the 1,000 years as a metaphoric time period.

The subject of prophecy is very interesting and my youth group chose it as this month's subject of study. We have both Pre and Amillenial views in our congregation, so I have tried to walk a very fine line as to not offend any parents. It's not worth causing division, but a little debate is OK, especially here.  Once it happens, then we will know for sure. LOL


----------



## pigpen1 (Jul 28, 2009)

post450 said:


> Country_Girl, free-will is apparently a very big can of worms as evident by the recent thread http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=379183
> I believe that one can willfully reject the offer of Salvation (as opposed to those of the Reformed or Calvinistic variety who accept predestination) and that one can leave the faith at any time during their life. I do accept eternal security, just not to the point of most Baptists.
> 
> As to the Premillennial, Amillennial, Postmillennial; here it is condensed without any rapture or tribulation implications.
> ...



 Ok, I will throw this in for a little more fun..

 Don't forget about the pre-trib, mid-trib and post-trib premillennial views......


----------



## pigpen1 (Jul 28, 2009)

I also forgot to put this in my earler post. Christ said this when he was asked about the coming of the Kingdom..Luke 17:20-21

20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
KJV


----------



## post450 (Jul 28, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> The book of Revelation contains so much information that anyone could probably support ANY belief from it.
> In Revelation, John tries to explain "spiritual" matters in a way that we "Physical" people can understand them.
> 
> Will there be streets of gold in heaven:  I don't think so.
> ...



I respectfully disagree. Your first statement sounds more like an excuse rather than an explanation. Atheists and Agnostics make this argument about the entire Bible daily. Revelation 22:7 states "Behold, I come quickly: blessed [is] he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book." and 18 and 19 warn of adding to or taking away from this book. If it was not relevant, why did God allow it to be included?

Why could we only align it with New Testament scriptures?If you reference it with the prophetic books such as Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Micah, and so on, it does make sense and fits perfectly. The prophet Isaiah clearly prophesied that a suffering Messiah would come and pay for our sins, and He did, and that a nation would be born in one day, which happened on May 14, 1948. Isaiah made a lot of prophesies, but there was no timetable. Doctrine prior to this was obviously more difficult to understand or incomplete at best. The Apostle Paul uses substantial reference to Old Testament scripture explaining Salvation to the Jews.

As to it not being addressed to Jews, what about the 144,000 which are sealed in Revelation 7:4?

Explaining it away does not diminish the relevance.


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 28, 2009)

Madman said:


> CG,
> 
> The Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ is really not that difficult to understand.
> 
> WE WIN!!



 



WTM45 said:


> Yeah, right.
> There are more differences in the interpretations and eschatology of John's dreams on the isle of Patmos than any other holy book in existance.


 I do believe Madman has just managed to give us the simplified "cliff notes" version!


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 28, 2009)

post450 said:


> I respectfully disagree. Your first statement sounds more like an excuse rather than an explanation. Atheists and Agnostics make this argument about the entire Bible daily. Revelation 22:7 states "Behold, I come quickly: blessed [is] he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book." and 18 and 19 warn of adding to or taking away from this book. If it was not relevant, why did God allow it to be included?
> 
> Why could we only align it with New Testament scriptures?If you reference it with the prophetic books such as Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Micah, and so on, it does make sense and fits perfectly. The prophet Isaiah clearly prophesied that a suffering Messiah would come and pay for our sins, and He did, and that a nation would be born in one day, which happened on May 14, 1948. Isaiah made a lot of prophesies, but there was no timetable. Doctrine prior to this was obviously more difficult to understand or incomplete at best. The Apostle Paul uses substantial reference to Old Testament scripture explaining Salvation to the Jews.
> 
> ...



Lot's of people disagree with me from time to time and they may be better for it.  But I will only go so far out on a limb in my attempt to understand scripture.
I'm satisfied to not totally understand a particular part of God's word.  It is clear to me that Christ will return and claim His church.  The 1,000 year reign is not clear and certainly not precise.  And (in my estimation) not plausible.  

The world and heavens already belong to Christ.  The kings of the world belong to Christ.  Christ has nothing to prove upon the face of this planet.  Israel has been given the option:  Accept Christ or reject Christ.  Now all that awaits it His coming.

And, we've gotton off topic.  And, we're speaking of which we don't know.
You and I both.


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 28, 2009)

post450 said:


> Country_Girl, free-will is apparently a very big can of worms as evident by the recent thread http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=379183 Haven't read it all, bit it looks like another "dog chasing its tail" thread to me.  I got quite a few giggles, though! LOL
> 
> I believe that one can willfully reject the offer of Salvation (as opposed to those of the Reformed or Calvinistic variety who accept predestination) and that one can leave the faith at any time during their life. I do accept eternal security, just not to the point of most Baptists.Well, well... we actually differ a little here!  Wow!  LOL  I believe in free will as well... but I also believe that "God has a plan" for each and every one of us as well.  All our life experiences, including the people we come in contact with, are part of God's "shaping" of us... as a piece of His body, as a worker in His Kingdom... even if it is long before we finally get around to accepting His gracious gift.  "Everything happens for a reason."
> 
> ...


 There are a lot of "unknowns" that people have come to question throughout their Walks, questions that they drum up in the parts of the Bible that are "silent".... but we tend to remind ourselves quite regularly how very little some of our pesky little questions are going to be when we are standing before the throne of God.  LOL


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 28, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Ok, I will throw this in for a little more fun..
> 
> Don't forget about the pre-trib, mid-trib and post-trib premillennial views......



Oh..... have mercy!!!    LOL


----------



## christianhunter (Jul 28, 2009)

I've avoided this Thread from the start.I'm going to give some of you some Brotherly advice,and unfortunately some of you are Pastors.Remember in some of your posts,that you are talking about THE HOLY WORD Of GOD.I would not dare type out some of the posts I have read.I would tread lightly,THE LORD is not concerned with our opinions.


----------



## post450 (Jul 28, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Lot's of people disagree with me from time to time and they may be better for it.  But I will only go so far out on a limb in my attempt to understand scripture.
> I'm satisfied to not totally understand a particular part of God's word.  It is clear to me that Christ will return and claim His church.  The 1,000 year reign is not clear and certainly not precise.  And (in my estimation) not plausible.
> 
> The world and heavens already belong to Christ.  The kings of the world belong to Christ.  Christ has nothing to prove upon the face of this planet.  Israel has been given the option:  Accept Christ or reject Christ.  Now all that awaits it His coming.
> ...



True.
At least we can agree on his imminent return. The details are not near as crucial as Salvation through Christ anyway.


----------



## christianhunter (Jul 28, 2009)

So why does condemnation come on those who would change one Jot or one tittle?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jul 28, 2009)

I'm southern baptist...well independent baptist now.

Baptism is not a requirement for anything, and i've never heard another baptist say it was.

We do full submersion, however that is symbolic just to Jesus' baptism.

Never heard of the cambellites either...I was thinking...aaahhhhhh another tribe in the OT that I didn't know about...LOL.

IMHO there is only one requirement and basically that is in John 3:16

Are we ask to do other things, yes, many things. But as for a requirement of salvation there is only one...one that nothing else could compare to.  Not baptism, not walking door to door, nothing compares to what Jesus did on the cross. He did it ALL.
Of course we should do other things we have been commanded to do, and if we don't I don't believe we lose our salvation over it.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jul 28, 2009)

Wait.....

pretrib here


----------



## mtnwoman (Jul 28, 2009)

Country_Girl said:


> There are a lot of "unknowns" that people have come to question throughout their Walks, questions that they drum up in the parts of the Bible that are "silent".... but we tend to remind ourselves quite regularly how very little some of our pesky little questions are going to be when we are standing before the throne of God.  LOL



Right on!!


----------



## christianhunter (Jul 28, 2009)

mtnwoman said:


> I'm southern baptist...well independent baptist now.
> 
> Baptism is not a requirement for anything, and i've never heard another baptist say it was.
> 
> ...



AMEN Sister.


----------



## christianhunter (Jul 28, 2009)

mtnwoman said:


> Wait.....
> 
> pretrib here



Amen on this one too.


----------



## pigpen1 (Jul 28, 2009)

christianhunter said:


> I've avoided this Thread from the start.I'm going to give some of you some Brotherly advice,and unfortunately some of you are Pastors.Remember in some of your posts,that you are talking about THE HOLY WORD Of GOD.I would not dare type out some of the posts I have read.I would tread lightly,THE LORD is not concerned with our opinions.



1 Cor 13:9

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
KJV

1 Cor 13:12

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly ; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
KJV

Opinions are for the parts that we do not know.

 I think the Lord is concerned with our opinions. I think our opinions are part of our inner thoughts.


----------



## christianhunter (Jul 28, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> 1 Cor 13:9
> 
> 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
> KJV
> ...



Not when those opinions,would seem to contradict,and if we don't know we should say we don't know.Not add to or take away from.


----------



## post450 (Jul 28, 2009)

christianhunter said:


> I've avoided this Thread from the start.I'm going to give some of you some Brotherly advice,and unfortunately some of you are Pastors.Remember in some of your posts,that you are talking about THE HOLY WORD Of GOD.I would not dare type out some of the posts I have read.I would tread lightly,THE LORD is not concerned with our opinions.





christianhunter said:


> So why does condemnation come on those who would change one Jot or one tittle?



CH, I am not sure where you were directing these posts, but I will respond just in case I am the guilty party.

I am not trying to offend anyone here, including those who believe way different than I do. If any of my posts appeared irreverent towards God or His Holy Word, then I do apologize. If it was about my complaint with Baptists church attendance, then please PM me. You would have to tell me which post you found offensive or irreverent, because I did not see them that way.

As to the jot or tittle which you refer relates to the Law, not the Book of Revelation, because in that scripture Jesus goes on to say He came to fulfill the law, not destroy it. I would agree that the warning at the end of Revelation about adding or taking away from the book is the same principle. He gave John the visions like he gave the Law to Moses and had him record it for His purpose granting a blessing on those who read and study it and a warning to those who ignore or would have it removed from the Bible. Those who say Revelation doesn't apply or has already happened are most likely taking away from it but those who say it is allegory or metaphor are simply interpreting it their own way under their own convictions which they alone will answer for. 

In this post I have found out Ronnie T and Countrygirl are Church of Christ and Pigpen is an Amillennial Baptist who was raised in the CoC. With my Premillenial and Pre-Tribulation views, we differ greatly on the details of second coming but all believe Jesus Christ was the ultimate sacrifice for our sins, therefore I consider us to be brothers and sister's in Christ and part of the church, not separated by denomination. Did you read Ronnie's testimony? Those in this thread had been having a pretty civil discussion/debate, by this forum's standards, about Church of Christ Doctrine and it's origins. Reading through your's and Mtnwoman's amen corner it appears you are both Pre-Tribulation and Premillenial Baptists who have no connection to this specific doctrine. I by the way, have a whole family of in laws in another state who are Church of Christ. It is much easier to get answers here than from them.  

As to your assumption that the Lord is not concerned with anyone's opinion, that may well be true, but other than the actual scriptural quotes that are posted, this whole forum is nothing but opinions. I may be sorry I asked, but what is so wrong with the ones posted in this specific thread?


----------



## pigpen1 (Jul 28, 2009)

post450 said:


> CH, I am not sure where you were directing these posts, but I will respond just in case I am the guilty party.
> 
> I am not trying to offend anyone here, including those who believe way different than I do. If any of my posts appeared irreverent towards God or His Holy Word, then I do apologize. If it was about my complaint with Baptists church attendance, then please PM me. You would have to tell me which post you found offensive or irreverent, because I did not see them that way.
> 
> ...



 I thought this thread had been going well, we had one person who doesn't normally post in this part of the forum say this about this thread....



hummerpoo said:


> If more threads were of the character of this one I would be a regular visitor, rather than a rare visitor.



 We have had a civil debate and study. We have poked fun at one another and ourselves, I have enjoyed the discussions. Ronnie and I in times past have disagreed, but have found some common ground and I have enjoyed hearing his belief and knowledge as well.  I have found out that Post 450 doesn't have a sense of humor . Since this thread has been bumped back up I do not think it has been disrespectful to anyone.

I do not think God is displeased with it, I have learned even more and I hope others have to. I believe country girl has learned a lot about doctrines that she hasn't heard of before. 

I ask you C.H., what has been said that we need to be in fear of blasphemy of the word of God???


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 28, 2009)

I've always felt that when biblical discussions are dealing with matters of opinions everyone should be willing to give-way to the opinion of others.  I think that most Christian at least try to do that.
But let's face it, sometimes my opinion is more accurate than anyone elses.  At least, to me.


----------



## christianhunter (Jul 29, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> I thought this thread had been going well, we had one person who doesn't normally post in this part of the forum say this about this thread....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No one Blasphemed Brother,and I consider myself Friends with everyone that has posted.There were a few posts that seemed on the edge of misquoting if you will.Who am I to judge?
I did feel compelled to write what I did though,with no malice,or insult intended.I avoided this Thread,because there were some things I didn't agree with the way they were presented.All is well,and I consider all of you my Brothers and Sisters.There still remains a few posts,that I personally would not have typed.I will reread them,and make sure I read them in the spirit,they were typed.I know I'am far from perfect,and request if I ever offend anyone especially a Pastor or Deacon to be PM'd and called on it.


----------



## christianhunter (Jul 29, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> I've always felt that when biblical discussions are dealing with matters of opinions everyone should be willing to give-way to the opinion of others.  I think that most Christian at least try to do that.
> But let's face it, sometimes my opinion is more accurate than anyone elses.  At least, to me.


----------



## Twenty five ought six (Jul 29, 2009)

mtnwoman said:


> I'm southern baptist...well independent baptist now.
> 
> _*Baptism is not a requirement for anything, and i've never heard another baptist say it was.*_
> 
> ...



Then you weren't very well versed in the tenets of your denomination, and must not have talked to many SB.

From the Southern Baptist Faith and Message, http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp



> *VII. Baptism and the Lord's  		          Supper* 		      Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the  		          name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of  		          obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried,  		          and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the  		          old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ  		          Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection  		          of the dead. Being a church ordinance, _*it is prerequisite to the  		          privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper*_.



From the Abstract of Principals in the charter of Southern Seminary, the first Southern Baptist Seminary,



> XV. Baptism.
> 
> Baptism is an ordinance of the Lord Jesus, obligatory upon every
> believer, wherein he is immersed in water in the name of the
> ...



From the Philadelphia Confession of 1742, considered the first statement of the Baptist Faith in the United States (which of course didn't exist).  This confession, and subsequent iterations, were one of the major points of contention for Campbell and his followers.



> * Chapter 29*
> 
> *Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper.* 1. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world.
> (Matt. 28:19, 20; 1 Cor. 11;26)
> ...



The foregoing was copied from the Second London Confession of Faith, 1689:



> Chapter 29: Of Baptism
> 
> 1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus          Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with          him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of          remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to          live and walk in newness of life.
> ( Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2;12; Galatians 3:27; Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16;          Romans 6:4 )
> ...



So for three hundred years, baptism by immersion has been a requirement for fellowship in a Baptist Church, and for participation in the Lord's Supper.

More recently, from a 2006 article in the Baptist Press;



> OKLAHOMA CITY (BP)--In three services over the weekend of July 29-30, members of Henderson Hills Baptist Church in Edmond, Okla., will vote on a proposal to eliminate baptism as a requirement for church membership. Announcement of the vote has sparked a flurry of debate -– a discussion reflected on the pages of The Baptist Messenger, newsjournal of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma.





> Church membership cannot be separated from baptism in the New Testament, argues R. Stanton Norman, an associate professor of theology at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, in another column on the Messenger site.
> 
> “The New Testament clearly teaches that a local church is only to be comprised of those persons whose allegiance belongs exclusively to Jesus Christ,” Norman writes. “Baptism was the divinely, publicly instituted ‘point of entry’ into the membership of a local congregation of believers.





> The distinctively Baptist understanding of the church as a body of believers baptized by immersion has a solid foundation in Scripture, William B. Tolar, retired dean of the School of Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes in another column.
> 
> “Our Baptist forefathers defined the church as being a body of baptized believers because of their interpretations and high concept of the divine inspiration of Scripture and their serious regard for the Lordship of Jesus Christ,” Tolar writes. “They understood Jesus' command in Matthew 28:19-20 should be followed in the sequence in which it is recorded: ‘make disciples ... baptizing them ... and ... teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.’
> 
> “Because the risen Lord had commanded them to immerse believers (and not to sprinkle or simply pour water on them), Baptist scholars were convinced that was the proper sequence and immersion was the biblical mode.”





> Baptism is a membership requirement in Southern Baptist churches because Jesus made baptism the norm for becoming a Christian in Matthew 28:19 and the apostles continued this practice in the early church, Rick Thompson writes.
> 
> “There is no question that baptism is the first step in our obedience to Christ and that obedience is the sign and signature of being a Christian,” Thompson writes. “The church is the bride and body of Christ, where people are challenged into discipleship. Making disciples is the primary role of the church of which baptism is the first step. This is why Baptists believe _*no one should be a member of the church *_who has not taken this step of obedience.”



So there you go with several notable Baptists that have said it.


----------



## christianhunter (Jul 29, 2009)

Brother,I believe you read something into mtnwomans post.Baptism is a commandment of THE LORD.It is a public profession of the faith that we have in The Death,Burial,and Ressurection of THE LORD.I know that mtnwoman,was not taking away from the importance of Baptism.All who are saved,should be Baptized as soon as possible.That is the way it is at my Church.I believe she was refering to the fact that there are some who are Baptized,that are not saved.That is what I got from it,and said Amen.


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 29, 2009)

post450 said:


> Country_Girl, free-will is apparently a very big can of worms as evident by the recent thread http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=379183
> I believe that one can willfully reject the offer of Salvation (as opposed to those of the Reformed or Calvinistic variety who accept predestination) and that one can leave the faith at any time during their life. I do accept eternal security, just not to the point of most Baptists.
> 
> As to the Premillennial, Amillennial, Postmillennial; here it is condensed without any rapture or tribulation implications.
> ...


 I have GOT to hold still long enough to dig that binder off the shelf!  I seem to recall a scripture or "something" that was touched on during our study that said something about Satan being bound... Yeah!  Rev. 20:1-3... and again in Rev. 20:7, 8.  We were talking about angels, so it was probably the first 3 verses we were reading... but the question that came to MY mind was.... "Why?"  Why, after binding Satan and throwing him in the bottomless pit, was he to be let back out "a little season"?  Why not just... leave him there?

Ah yes.... now you know one of my petty little questions that are not going to matter when I'm standing before God.   

I'm assuming all this prefixed-millenial stuff has to do with different interperetations of Rev. 20?


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 29, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> But let's face it, sometimes my opinion is more accurate than anyone elses.  At least, to me.


  Funny... I was just gonna say the same thing... 



christianhunter said:


> No one Blasphemed Brother,and I consider myself Friends with everyone that has posted.There were a few posts that seemed on the edge of misquoting if you will. Who am I to judge?
> I did feel compelled to write what I did though,with no malice,or insult intended. I avoided this Thread, because there were some things I didn't agree with the way they were presented. All is well,and I consider all of you my Brothers and Sisters.There still remains a few posts,that I personally would not have typed. I will reread them,and make sure I read them in the spirit, they were typed. I know I'am far from perfect, and request if I ever offend anyone especially a Pastor or Deacon to be PM'd and called on it.


  Oh now, wait a minute.... "especially a Pastor or Deacon"?  What about secretaries?  Why does no one ever acknowledge the secretary - unless there aren't enough bulletins on the table come Sunday morning? 

Messing with you, Brother.  

I encourage you to go back and read from when this thread got bumped up last week.... The spirit here has been good and we are enjoying ourselves while learning a bit.  Respectful comparisons, and no bickering.... Such a blessing!!!


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 29, 2009)

mtnwoman said:


> Never heard of the campbellites either...I was thinking...aaahhhhhh another tribe in the OT that I didn't know about...LOL



You know what?  I hadn't either!!  LOL


----------



## christianhunter (Jul 29, 2009)

The BIBLE is very clear to me.There will be a literal 1,000 year reign Of our LORD JESUS.The angels told The Apostles,at HIS Ascension that HE would return,as HE left, in the clouds.Satan will be bound by The Arch-angel,and cast into the bottomless pit,for a literal 1,000 years and released to tempt the flesh of those who did not receive the mark of the beast.Some will follow him as did 1/3 of the angels at his fall.THE LORD will send fire from HEAVEN to devour them,as HE did to Sodom and Gomarrah.This is not symbolic,it is literal.This is for future events,not past events.The anti-christ is yet to come.There will be no more sea's and THE LORD JESUS will Reign in The New Jerusalem forever.


----------



## christianhunter (Jul 29, 2009)

Country_Girl said:


> Funny... I was just gonna say the same thing...
> 
> Oh now, wait a minute.... "especially a Pastor or Deacon"?  What about secretaries?  Why does no one ever acknowledge the secretary - unless there aren't enough bulletins on the table come Sunday morning?
> 
> ...



And secretaries.I love our secretary at Church,she is very busy,and the wife of a good friend.I have no problem with the Thread or anyone in it.All is well thanks to PM's.


----------



## Tim L (Jul 29, 2009)

mtnwoman said:


> I'm southern baptist...well independent baptist now.
> 
> Baptism is not a requirement for anything, and i've never heard another baptist say it was.
> 
> ...



But thats not what Peter said......I'm not trying to be arguemenative here, but it's scary how these revisionist denomenations and liberals have twisted the word of the lord to suit their tastes.  Nothing is a better example than how baptism has been regulated to being something one does when they join a church (according to some of todays churches)....the bible is very clear and blunt here...After Peter preached to the masses, they asked him straight up in Acts 2:37 what must we do???

And Peter was very clear and I have a feeling ol Peter may have known what he was talking about.  He said in Acts 2:38 that you must repent AND BE BAPTIZED, everyone of you, for the forgiveness of sins and to receive the gifts of the holy sprit...For whatever reason, these biblical revisionists and liberals will argue till their blue in the face that he may have said that but that is not what he meant.....Lord only knows why.....But ask yourself this, of all the apostles, who had the reputation of being blunt, plain, and honest and saying what he meant and not speaking in riddles....PETER thats who....The man was asked point blank after he preached what must a person do to be saved and he answered in a straight forward, plain, clear, easy to understand way.  Now, the biblical revisionsts can believe their denomenational dogmas and creeds and say up is down and black is white and everything is something other than what it really is....There will always be folks that deny the word of god.  Well, the bible is enough for me and I think ol Peter knew what he was talking about when he said you have to repent and be baptized to be saved.  There may come a day when the revisionists and liberals will come up with a bible that takes it out, but praise the lord that days not today..Now there will always be tricksters that will come back with something like "what about the thief on the cross", he wasn't baptized and christ told him he would see him later that day in paradise...Well christ was still alive at that time and could grant whatever he wanted!  It's scary how we have been conditioned not to accept the word of the lord and how so much of the world has twisted baptism...Am I saying you have to be baptized to go to heaven?  I'm not going to be so bold as to try to answer that....But I know what ol Peter said and it drives these denomenational churches crazy!


----------



## christianhunter (Jul 29, 2009)

Rouster said:


> But thats not what Peter said......I'm not trying to be arguemenative here, but it's scary how these revisionist denomenations and liberals have twisted the word of the lord to suit their tastes.  Nothing is a better example than how baptism has been regulated to being something one does when they join a church (according to some of todays churches)....the bible is very clear and blunt here...After Peter preached to the masses, they asked him straight up in Acts 2:37 what must we do???
> 
> And Peter was very clear and I have a feeling ol Peter may have known what he was talking about.  He said in Acts 2:38 that you must repent AND BE BAPTIZED, everyone of you, for the forgiveness of sins and to receive the gifts of the holy sprit...For whatever reason, these biblical revisionists and liberals will argue till their blue in the face that he may have said that but that is not what he meant.....Lord only knows why.....But ask yourself this, of all the apostles, who had the reputation of being blunt, plain, and honest and saying what he meant and not speaking in riddles....PETER thats who....The man was asked point blank after he preached what must a person do to be saved and he answered in a straight forward, plain, clear, easy to understand way.  Now, the biblical revisionsts can believe their denomenational dogmas and creeds and say up is down and black is white and everything is something other than what it really is....There will always be folks that deny the word of god.  Well, the bible is enough for me and I think ol Peter knew what he was talking about when he said you have to repent and be baptized to be saved.  There may come a day when the revisionists and liberals will come up with a bible that takes it out, but praise the lord that days not today..Now there will always be tricksters that will come back with something like "what about the thief on the cross", he wasn't baptized and christ told him he would see him later that day in paradise...Well christ was still alive at that time and could grant whatever he wanted!  It's scary how we have been conditioned not to accept the word of the lord and how so much of the world has twisted baptism...Am I saying you have to be baptized to go to heaven?  I'm not going to be so bold as to try to answer that....But I know what ol Peter said and it drives these denomenational churches crazy!



I'm in full agreement,Yet I have never been to a Church of any denomination that I know of that takes away the Commandment to be Baptized.Or doesn't hold it in the highest regard.Who are these "Liberals"?


----------



## pigpen1 (Jul 29, 2009)

Country_Girl said:


> I have GOT to hold still long enough to dig that binder off the shelf!  I seem to recall a scripture or "something" that was touched on during our study that said something about Satan being bound... Yeah!  Rev. 20:1-3... and again in Rev. 20:7, 8.  We were talking about angels, so it was probably the first 3 verses we were reading... but the question that came to MY mind was.... "Why?"  Why, after binding Satan and throwing him in the bottomless pit, was he to be let back out "a little season"?  Why not just... leave him there?
> 
> Ah yes.... now you know one of my petty little questions that are not going to matter when I'm standing before God.
> 
> I'm assuming all this prefixed-millenial stuff has to do with different interperetations of Rev. 20?



 Matt 12:24-29

24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.

28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
KJV

These verses explain the binding of Satan. Satan is the strong man, Jesus is the stronger. Jesus came into Satan's kingdom and bound him with the work that was done on the Cross. He defeated Satan's temptations when he was in the 40 days in the wilderness.

 Jesus conquered Death, H E L L, and the Grave. He also took the keys of death and H E L L.

 Satan has no power over the Holy Spirit, thus the Spirit of God binds him. Is he powerless No. He is like a pit bull on a chain and the chain that hold him at bay is the Holy Spirit.

 If we stay in the Spirit, Satan can not have power over us. But if we do not have the Spirit or we walk in the Flesh, we get into Satan's reach and he can devour us.

 For someone to say Satan is not bound, they are saying he has all power. That belief takes from the Power of God and the work that Christ has already came and done here on this earth.


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 29, 2009)

christianhunter said:


> All who are saved, should be Baptized as soon as possible. That is the way it is at my Church. I believe she was referring to the fact that there are some who are Baptized, that are not saved. That is what I got from it,and said Amen.


In the true spirit in which this thread was brought back to light, I will not inundate you with scripture after scripture concerning the purpose or importance of baptism.  You are intelligent enough to look up "Baptism", "baptize", and "baptized" in your concordance and read the references from your own Bible - and the verses before and after to ensure proper context - and come to your own conclusions.  Don't have one handy?  I offer one for you... http://www.biblestudytools.com/Concordances/StrongsExhaustiveConcordance/   It is exactly as it's titled: exhaustive!  Whatever you do, don't look up the word "the".  LOL

I DID want to say that I agree with the fact that not everyone who is baptized is saved.  God knows your heart.  First and foremost.  You must obey FROM THE HEART.  

If you are going through the motions simply to join a specific congregation, your heart is not in the right place.  You are not being baptized in the name of the "Community Baptist Church".

If you are not truly confessing that Jesus is the Son of God who died for YOUR sins, your heart is not in the right place.  If you are not truly repentive, your heart is not in the right place.

Your sins are not washed away by the Blood of the Lamb if your heart is not in the right place... you will not rise up in "newness of life".  You are simply getting wet.


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 29, 2009)

christianhunter said:


> And secretaries.I love our secretary at Church,she is very busy,and the wife of a good friend. I have no problem with the Thread or anyone in it. All is well thanks to PM's.


  Good!  Glad to hear it!  Also glad to hear that church secretaries are now among your "honoraries"! ... Or else I woulda had to....   LOL

That being said... I really "do" need to get back to work...


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 29, 2009)

I do believe the peaceful, joyous existence of our thread is fixin' to be overthrown................. 

If you're gonna bicker, please do so somewhere else.  Is this "really" the only thread that wasn't tainted?


----------



## Tim L (Jul 29, 2009)

christianhunter said:


> I'm in full agreement,Yet I have never been to a Church of any denomination that I know of that takes away the Commandment to be Baptized.Or doesn't hold it in the highest regard.Who are these "Liberals"?



It's not that they take it away, but they twist it into something else...usually it's called an outward profession of faith or simply it's something done when you join a church....some churches will not "recognize" the baptism of another faith; I have heard accounts of folks that have moved from one denomnetation to another and before they could "join" the other church they had to be baptised again......


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 29, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Matt 12:24-29
> 
> 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
> 
> ...



OK... I think I get the "bound" part now..... But why is he to be let loose, knowing what would happen??  I mean, seriously.... Was there a "deal" somewhere??   

Yes, I know... yet another pesky little question pertaining to where the Bible is silent....


----------



## Tim L (Jul 29, 2009)

Country_Girl said:


> I do believe the peaceful, joyous existence of our thread is fixin' to be overthrown.................
> 
> If you're gonna bicker, please do so somewhere else.  Is this "really" the only thread that wasn't tainted?




I stayed away from this one for a long time; this is a topic that really bothers me, the way the world has twisted christian baptism...But I hope it doesn't break down into a free for all and that's not my intent; it's just that some times the truth has to come out, especially on a subject as important as this.  However, I know the harm that can result if it just breaks down into endless bickering..I'll stay off this one now, I have said what needed saying.


----------



## pigpen1 (Jul 29, 2009)

Country_Girl said:


> OK... I think I get the "bound" part now..... But why is he to be let loose, knowing what would happen??  I mean, seriously.... Was there a "deal" somewhere??
> 
> Yes, I know... yet another pesky little question pertaining to where the Bible is silent....



 The Holy Spirit is in the hearts of the believers, thus Satan has no power over that, but as there are fewer and fewer believers that means fewer people walking in the Light on this earth. If there are fewer people with the Spirit this means more people in darkness, Less Light = more darkness, thus Satan is being turned loose more and more as this world becomes filled with more wickedness and this is a Sign of the times about us. We are drawing closer to the end.


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 29, 2009)

Rouster said:


> I stayed away from this one for a long time; this is a topic that really bothers me, the way the world has twisted christian baptism...But I hope it doesn't break down into a free for all and that's not my intent; it's just that some times the truth has to come out, especially on a subject as important as this.  However, I know the harm that can result if it just breaks down into endless bickering..I'll stay off this one now, I have said what needed saying.



We are learning from each other here... There is no malice, no Bible bashing, no dead-set determination to convert someone over to another religion.... nothing.  We are simply sizing up our differences, and doing it amicably.

You are more than welcome to stay and do the same!


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 29, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> The Holy Spirit is in the hearts of the believers, thus Satan has no power over that, but as there are fewer and fewer believers that means fewer people walking in the Light on this earth. If there are fewer people with the Spirit this means more people in darkness, Less Light = more darkness, thus Satan is being turned loose more and more as this world becomes filled with more wickedness and this is a Sign of the times about us. We are drawing closer to the end.



Hey... let me ask you a question.  Personal experience being called upon here, not scripture.  Have you been baptized?

that's the first question.  I'll ask the 2nd depending on your answer.


----------



## pigpen1 (Jul 29, 2009)

Country_Girl said:


> Hey... let me ask you a question.  Personal experience being called upon here, not scripture.  Have you been baptized?
> 
> that's the first question.  I'll ask the 2nd depending on your answer.



 Yes, twice.


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 29, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Yes, twice.



Twice??  LOL

OK, no fair!  You're just adding more questions to the mix now!  LOL


----------



## pigpen1 (Jul 29, 2009)

Country_Girl said:


> Twice??  LOL
> 
> OK, no fair!  You're just adding more questions to the mix now!  LOL



 I was Baptized at 9yrs old at the Christian Church but when I was 23 is when my heart was convicted and I realized I was lost. I went to a little Baptist Church for the first time in my life. I was very broken hearted and knew if I was to die h e ll would be my home. The invitation was given and I  fell on my knees and surrendered my heart to God. I then felt all the condemnation leave and a great peace within, my life has never been the same since that day. I realized then what being Born Again truely is. I then followed through with water Baptism, but the Spiritual one was the greatest. Remember where John said I baptize you with water, but there comes one after me who is greater than me and he shall Baptize you with the Holy Ghost...

 A peace that passes all understanding.


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 29, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> I was Baptized at 9yrs old at the Christian Church but when I was 23 is when my heart was convicted and I realized I was lost. I went to a little Baptist Church for the first time in my life. I was very broken hearted and knew if I was to die h e ll would be my home. The invitation was given and I  fell on my knees and surrendered my heart to God. I then felt all the condemnation leave and a great peace within, my life has never been the same since that day. I realized then what being Born Again truely is. I then followed through with water Baptism, but the Spiritual one was the greatest. Remember where John said I baptize you with water, but there comes one after me who is greater than me and he shall Baptize you with the Holy Ghost...
> 
> A peace that passes all understanding.


  Yeah, it really does....

I received my peace and lifted burden as soon as I came up out of the water.  I swear, I thought I was FLOATING, I felt so light!

Now let me ask you this... based on your personal experiences after you were actually baptized (the second time!  LOL).... did you endure your 40 days?  Maybe I should start a thread on this... Seriously!

After Jesus was baptized, he endured 40 days of Satan doing everything he possibly could to tempt Him.  Based on my own experience - and the experiences of many others - there are many that believe we ALL go through our 40 days of just absolute aggravation after being baptized while Satan is trying to turn us away from our salvation.  Fluke things happen, one after the other after the other... things you have just never encountered for!  It just seems far too "coincidental" to be coincidence, ya know?  

Does that sound like a bunch of hooey to you?


----------



## pigpen1 (Jul 29, 2009)

Country_Girl said:


> Yeah, it really does....
> 
> I received my peace and lifted burden as soon as I came up out of the water.  I swear, I thought I was FLOATING, I felt so light!
> 
> ...



 No it doesn't sound like a bunch of hooey. I believe after we are saved is when Satan tries to still our joy by tempting us, but that's where we get to learn how to use our new tool [The Holy Spirit] to subdue Satan and deliver us from the temptations. The trials we face are not from Satan, but from God. He uses the trials to make stronger soldiers out of us and to teach us patience...Tribulation worketh patience.

 And to answer you, I do not think it was only 40 days, I think it contiunes daily.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Jul 29, 2009)

Country_Girl said:


> Yeah, it really does....
> 
> I received my peace and lifted burden as soon as I came up out of the water.  I swear, I thought I was FLOATING, I felt so light!Amen Sister, Nothing like having the old washed away and new coming in! It felt so good to be free, It was hard for me to get a huge grin of my face for a few days
> 
> ...




I agree with Pigpen, Doesn't sound like hooey at all, If the Lord didn't expect us to have to battle a bit He wouldn't have given us the full Armour and instructions on what to do.

Ephesians 6:
10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. 
 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. 

 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places

13Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything,* to stand firm*.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 29, 2009)

Great discussion on here tonight.

Thanks guys........... and gals.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jul 30, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Great discussion on here tonight.
> 
> Thanks guys........... and gals.



Yes, I agree.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jul 30, 2009)

Swamp Runner said:


> If the Lord didn't expect us to have to battle a bit He wouldn't have given us the full Armour and instructions on what to do.



I agree.
It makes me search the word and pray for answers. I've learned a lot on forums. I've come to view some things differently and hope I've helped someone else look at things differently, too.

I think most of us agree on one thing... and that is who we believe Jesus is. 

I believe baptism is a part of our salvation process, and don't know of a single person who rejected that...in 60 yrs I've never known a person to refuse to be baptized.

But I don't think a deathbed or a prison or an injured soldier that surrenders to Christ, must be baptized or else they are lost. 


My ex husband thinks he is saved because he was baptized...he isn't saved. He thinks baptism washed his sins away and he's a pretty good guy and he's saved.
That's what making baptism top notch priority in salvation will do to your thinking.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jul 30, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> I was Baptized at 9yrs old at the Christian Church but when I was 23 is when my heart was convicted and I realized I was lost. I went to a little Baptist Church for the first time in my life. I was very broken hearted and knew if I was to die h e ll would be my home. The invitation was given and I  fell on my knees and surrendered my heart to God. I then felt all the condemnation leave and a great peace within, my life has never been the same since that day. I realized then what being Born Again truely is. I then followed through with water Baptism, but the Spiritual one was the greatest. Remember where John said I baptize you with water, but there comes one after me who is greater than me and he shall Baptize you with the Holy Ghost...
> 
> A peace that passes all understanding.



Amen!!


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 30, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> No it doesn't sound like a bunch of hooey. I believe after we are saved is when Satan tries to still our joy by tempting us, but that's where we get to learn how to use our new tool [The Holy Spirit] to subdue Satan and deliver us from the temptations. The trials we face are not from Satan, but from God. He uses the trials to make stronger soldiers out of us and to teach us patience...Tribulation worketh patience.
> 
> And to answer you, I do not think it was only 40 days, I think it continues daily.


  Oh, you are SO right on that!  And it seems the tribulations just continue to get tougher as we continue to grow!  

I do believe, in a sense, that we are like Job in this case -God allows Satan to tempt us, especially in the first 40 days.  Much like a newborn hatchling, we are weak prey... at our most defenseless.  Satan is "allowed" to test us, even as the most newborn of babe, to see what we're made of.  God already knows...   Even at our weakest, we are stronger than Satan, especially if we are made aware of the fact that Satan *will* try to turn us away from our new-found salvation.  I know that may sound a bit silly, but it's the "Kindergarten" way of thinking that even the youngest of Christians can understand, and that tends to be my approach.

OH - and whatever you do..... NEVER pray for patience!    LOL



Swamp Runner said:


> I agree with Pigpen, Doesn't sound like hooey at all, If the Lord didn't expect us to have to battle a bit He wouldn't have given us the full Armour and instructions on what to do.
> 
> Ephesians 6:
> 10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might.
> ...


  I agree whole-heartedly!  It takes a bit ot time to build up that armor, though.... I guess that's why the tribulations get tougher over time.  As the armor builds up, Satan has to try harder. 



mtnwoman said:


> I believe baptism is a part of our salvation process, and don't know of a single person who rejected that... in 60 yrs I've never known a person to refuse to be baptized.
> 
> But I don't think a deathbed or a prison or an injured soldier that surrenders to Christ, must be baptized or else they are lost. In the cases of a deathbed or an injured soldier in a foxhole, no, I don't either... but situations like that "do" open the doors to uncertainty.  In the end, it will be by the grace of God as to whether or not people in situations like that will be allowed to enter the Kingdom.  God is merciful and just.
> 
> ...


  If your ex believes that he is saved by his baptism alone, he is definitely wrong.  There is so much more to it than that - work to be done afterward, as well!  Should you not continue to grow in grace and knowledge, you can fall from grace.  Much like a bonfire, you have to keep adding wood once you get the flames going in order for it to keep burning.  Stop adding wood... and eventually the flames will die.  



Ronnie T said:


> Great discussion on here tonight.
> 
> Thanks guys........... and gals.


  Really?  Not sure what all we discussed that was so interesting, but... you're welcome??    LOL

Hey... can we get back to the original context of this thread now?  I would like that pre-trib and post-trib, and whatever the other trib was, explained to me.  I have never heard of anything by this name before.

Course..... I didn't know I was supposed to be considered a "Campbellite", either!


----------



## christianhunter (Jul 30, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Yes, twice.



Me too,I wasn't saved the first time.


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 30, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> The Holy Spirit is in the hearts of the believers, thus Satan has no power over that, but as there are fewer and fewer believers that means fewer people walking in the Light on this earth. If there are fewer people with the Spirit this means more people in darkness, Less Light = more darkness, thus Satan is being turned loose more and more as this world becomes filled with more wickedness and this is a Sign of the times about us. We are drawing closer to the end.


  Are you sure he's not just being given "more slack" in his line?  If he were actually completely loose.... we would be dealing with a whole lot more than we're dealing with now.

But my question has remained unanswered.... Why let him loose AT ALL??  To weed out the weak or unfaithful for God?  I know God "allows" Satan to tempt us... but why would He just let him completely run loose to devour?  What is y'all's take on that??


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 30, 2009)

Swamp Runner said:


> I agree with Pigpen, Doesn't sound like hooey at all, If the Lord didn't expect us to have to battle a bit He wouldn't have given us the full Armour and instructions on what to do.
> 
> Ephesians 6:
> 10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might.
> ...



Oh... and that big ole smile you couldn't wipe off your face for several days??  I had one, too!  HA!!


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 31, 2009)

Country_Girl said:


> Are you sure he's not just being given "more slack" in his line?  If he were actually completely loose.... we would be dealing with a whole lot more than we're dealing with now.
> 
> But my question has remained unanswered.... Why let him loose AT ALL??  To weed out the weak or unfaithful for God?  I know God "allows" Satan to tempt us... but why would He just let him completely run loose to devour?  What is y'all's take on that??



It is my take that Satan is a spirit. We are indwelled by spirits Holy and unholy. Not knowing the way of the Lord is letting ourselves free  for "Satan" to pray on or to devour us...even if we think ourselves SAVED. Especially if we think ourselves saved, and not know the way...

God leads mankind, Satan manages them. God is a leader, Satan is a manager. God leads with moral authority, truth and justice. Satan takes care of himself and his kin first...and foremost. Satan is a social climber. God is tops.

So I suppose we are of free will, some of us prefer to be managed, others led.


----------

