Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#61 Oct 21, 2013
xxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure: Josephus
ďNow some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against John called the baptist [the dipper]. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God, and having done so join together in washing. For immersion in water, it was clear to him, could NOT be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and ONLY if the soul was ALREADY thoroughly purified by right actions.Ē-Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.2 116-119 (emphasis added)
I am sorry. I didnt know you were a Jew. He was a Jewish historian. Are you Orthodox, Reformed, or others. Not quite as many as Prots.

The Church uses him a lot to prove that it was the only 1 that existed.
xxx

Nashville, TN

#62 Oct 21, 2013
Mike_Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sorry. I didnt know you were a Jew. He was a Jewish historian. Are you Orthodox, Reformed, or others. Not quite as many as Prots.
The Church uses him a lot to prove that it was the only 1 that existed.
No apology necessary. Iím an Internal Jew (Romans 2:29).

Obviously the One True Church of the first century also taught him his views on baptism as well. He had to pick it up from somewhere and since there werenít any low-end prots at that time, we canít go blaming them.
xxx

Nashville, TN

#63 Oct 21, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text> So you're an OT Christian?
Yes. I was saved the same way they were; itís just that I know the details of how we are saved, whereas they just believed and trusted God to take care of it. I didnít have to sacrifice any animals because thatís not how they were saved either. Itís why David says,ďFor thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offeringĒ(Psalm 50:16).
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text> Living under the old covenant?
No. The old covenant was done away with, and itís not how they were saved anyway. The blessings of the old covenant were of a physical nature and are listed in Deuteronomy 28.
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text> Ever hear "the sum of Thy word is truth"?
Yes, and itís an OT quote. You canít use an OT quote to prove that all of Godís word is legitimate and then in the same breath say that the OT no longer gives adequate instructions for salvation for us today.
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text> No additional light given by the NT scripture?
Yes, we are told HOW God redeemed man in detail, but the NT is really just an addendum to the OT, never meant to replace the way they accessed the blood of Jesus in their own time. The only real thing done away with by the NT are the ceremonial and dietary laws.
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text> And [you're] not stretching 2 Timothy beyond what it actually says are you?
No. Paul plainly tells Timothy WHY he should preach the OT and it was because it gave sufficient instruction as to how one is to become ď...wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ JesusĒ(v. 15).
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text> Thus both OT saints and believers today are saved the same way, although the terms of the new covenant may be changed.
We arenít saved by the covenants. We are saved by the Gospel (Romans 1:16). Again, the old covenant related to physical blessings to Israel as a whole. The new covenant relates to not only the same physical blessings of the old (Matthew 6:33), but the indwelling and freedom from the ceremonial and dietary laws of the old as well.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

#64 Oct 21, 2013
Address the last post or two I gave toward you xxx.
xxx

Nashville, TN

#65 Oct 21, 2013
Dave P wrote:
Address the last post or two I gave toward you xxx.
Which ones?#48,#50 and #52?

I combined my response to #46 and #47 in post #63.
Dave P

Dahlonega, GA

#66 Oct 21, 2013
50 and 52.
xxx

Nashville, TN

#67 Oct 21, 2013
I didnít really see anything that needed addressing in post #50. As far as laying down my hatchet, it was never raised against you to begin with. It was raised against those who think God looks at the church sign to determine who His children are. These same people by the way, would reject you because you are willing to accept me.
Dave P wrote:
Dave- I was raised in it. Imagine coming out of something you've known your whole life. That's my story. Then imagine trying to bring congregations out of decades of coc doctrine.
This was why I was surprised to see you speak up on this. Youíve been a witness to this dogmatism your whole life and say that you were once even a part of it.
Dave P wrote:
Dave- no I have never heard a sermon based on Campbellites. Denominationalism- yes.
Again, this shows that you have witnessed this dogmatism firsthand. I on the other hand cannot tell you of a single sermon I have heard where the whole basis of it was simply to talk about some other group. Yes, I have heard preachers make comments about other groups in passing while they were preaching, but it has never been even a main focal point of the sermon.
Dave P wrote:
Have you heard of the Duck Dynasty guys? Right now many Baptists are up in arms over them- they're coc.
Yes, I have heard of them. But did you also know that they have been invited to speak in other denominations as well? When was the last time you have heard of a ďdenomĒ preacher being invited to preach in a CoC?
Dave P wrote:
My friend at work was told he could never join the baptist church until he agreed to OSAS, although he doesn't believe it.
The issue here is one where one denomination views this as a salvation issue and another views it as one of fellowship.

In the CoC my understating is that to be a part of the universal church you also have to be a part of a local congregation. This, again, puts forth the idea that salvation is linked to the words on the church sign.

Itís not usually the same way in Baptist churches. Was your friend completely shunned by this church? Or was he told he could attend but not officially be a member? BTW, we have plenty of non-members who regularly attend where I goóincluding my mom who does more and is more faithful than 95% of the people officially on the church roll. About the only tangible benefit of officially being a member is that you would get voting rights in the business meeting, where such all-important matters as whether to get new carpet are decided.
Dave P wrote:
The reason I chimed in on this is because this nonsense needs to stop. Even the Campbells would not be welcome in the coc today- too "liberal". Most regard them as lost, most others ignore them entirely, like the coc on here. Those guys thought there were Christians in every group.
The Campbells I believe had the motto,ďWeíre Christians but not the only Christians.Ē
Dave P wrote:
Dave- correct. And that grand ayatollah has turned many people off. I don't buy JR's version of the doctrine. People out there need to know there are coc people out there who don't think, act, or teach the same things as the Ayatollah of rock and rolla.
Yes, but the Grand Ayatollah of Martinsville and the Texas Twit are more representative of the CoC as a whole than Westboro is of the Baptists.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#68 Oct 21, 2013
'Itís not usually the same way in Baptist churches. Was your friend completely shunned by this church? Or was he told he could attend but not officially be a member? "

It is absurd to use Baptist church in a collective way.

There are more variations of Baptists than any other community.

In my small town there are a 150 protestant churches and 1/2 are Baptist and not one, not one is related to the other in any way. In fact they probably have more members on their rolls than people in the town. All they do is switch butts in the pews. Some people are probably on 10 membership rolls and have been saved in each of them.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

#69 Oct 21, 2013
xxx- Yes, but the Grand Ayatollah of Martinsville and the Texas Twit are more representative of the CoC as a whole than Westboro is of the Baptists.

Dave- there's more in the "Restoration Movement" than Texas and southern style coc. Coc in this area is more free than those further south, although much of the dogmatic attitude does exist in certain congregations. The Disciples of Christ and Christian churches here are nothing like those coc of the Ayatollah.

xxx- These same people by the way, would reject you because you are willing to accept me.

Dave- exactly, already happened, will continue on. Would you say that they are making things harder on themselves at Judgment Day by having that attitude? I would, and that's one reason I gave up that judgmental attitude. Many people and groups need to do so. Mike's comments about baptists above is true. Killing brethren with friendly fire. We all need to put down that hatchet.

xxx- Yes, I have heard of them. But did you also know that they have been invited to speak in other denominations as well? When was the last time you have heard of a ďdenomĒ preacher being invited to preach in a CoC?

Dave- don't happen. Reason why many are reluctant to have coc preachers come to their "denom" church. Who wants to heap abuse upon themselves

xxx- Itís not usually the same way in Baptist churches. Was your friend completely shunned by this church? Or was he told he could attend but not officially be a member?

Dave- my friend was told he would need to be rebaptized and renounce the idea that a person can lose their salvation before becoming a member. This same group broke apart a relationship with a sister baptist church over OSAS. Said they weren't to be yoked together with "unbelievers".

I read some fundamentalist Baptist literature and according to them, no one hardly has a chance to be saved. KJV only people, everyone exect Billy Sunday is a false teacher, etc.

None of that stuff helps the cause. If we can get people to see that, one at a time, some of us can put differences aside and be one in Christ, maybe we can make a bigger difference in the world.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#70 Oct 22, 2013
xxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldnít be knocking one-verse salvation too hard if I were you because at the end of the day if you believe you have to be water-baptized to be saved then that is exactly what you are left with, one-verse salvation.
If you want to see how the apostles preached salvation read acts and it is clear how all of those one verse salvations were preached.
xxx

Nashville, TN

#71 Oct 22, 2013
Iíve read Acts. It didnít exist at the time Timothy was a child, so itís not part of the scripture that Paul told Timothy to preach in II Timothy 3:14-15.
William

Sylacauga, AL

#72 Oct 22, 2013
Luke was with Paul and recorded the events in Acts corresponding to the timeframes of Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, and Romans. Timothy is around during some of this period so I would not make any assumptions about what Paul, Luke, and Timothy didn't talk and converse about, regardong OT scriptures.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#73 Oct 22, 2013
xxx wrote:
Iíve read Acts. It didnít exist at the time Timothy was a child, so itís not part of the scripture that Paul told Timothy to preach in II Timothy 3:14-15.
If you read acts then go over those conversions and tell us how those happened. Its a good study.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#74 Oct 22, 2013
xxx wrote:
Iíve read Acts. It didnít exist at the time Timothy was a child, so itís not part of the scripture that Paul told Timothy to preach in II Timothy 3:14-15.
Who told Paul what to tell timothy?
xxx

Nashville, TN

#75 Oct 22, 2013
JustChristian wrote:
<quoted text>Who told Paul what to tell timothy?
God told Paul to tell Timothy to preach the OT.
William

Sylacauga, AL

#76 Oct 22, 2013
xxx wrote:
<quoted text>
God told Paul to tell Timothy to preach the OT.
Why would the OT scriptures matter to an Ephesian or Colossian gentile? They were not part of anything having to do with Israel.

They didn't have the God of Abraham to point to, and were strangers from the covenants between God and Israel.
xxx

Nashville, TN

#77 Oct 22, 2013
William wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would the OT scriptures matter to an Ephesian or Colossian gentile? They were not part of anything having to do with Israel.
They didn't have the God of Abraham to point to, and were strangers from the covenants between God and Israel.
Because Paul says the OT scriptures,ď...are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ JesusĒ(v. 15).

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#78 Oct 22, 2013
xxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Because Paul says the OT scriptures,ď...are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ JesusĒ(v. 15).
Who taught you all of this crap?
Annoying Proxy

Manassas, VA

#79 Oct 22, 2013
William wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would the OT scriptures matter to an Ephesian or Colossian gentile? They were not part of anything having to do with Israel.
They didn't have the God of Abraham to point to, and were strangers from the covenants between God and Israel.
The eunuch apparently was interested and could be considered a gentile in Acts 8. Some gentiles may have been interested in spiritua; things and salvation as they are today.
Annoying Proxy

Manassas, VA

#80 Oct 22, 2013
Mike_Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Who taught you all of this crap?
You and Mark have to be the two most biblical ignorant Catholics I have ever come across. Here is someone that has a copy of the Old testament book of Isaiah. Kinda blows a hole in some of the crap you spew doesn't it? xxx is right on the money with what the scripture said. He doesn't need a Pope to explain it because there are no Popes or Catholics in the scripture explaining things. Philip was not Roman Catholic and he did very well, don't you think?

Acts 8:30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
Acts 8:31 And he said, "Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bassett Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Johnny paying millions to bisexual (Mar '11) 2 min Note 37
What Does Johnny Robertson Say (Sep '14) 10 min Note 67
Johnny Robertson hates Chris Knight (Dec '12) 25 min Note 49
water baptism debate 3 hr William 239
fan dies at race??? 4 hr curious 1
News Interfaith panel aims to unite, not divide 7 hr Thinking 104
How to be saved? Mar 27 Mike_Peterson 17
Bassett Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Bassett People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]