Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#41 May 7, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
Is doctrinal error unrepentant sin? A simple misunderstanding? Does the motive of such doctrines matter? Perhaps the logical outcomes of having a doctrine should be explored before declaring doctrinal error to be a sin or not.
Some obviously are- the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, the teachings of Jezebel, etc. But were the Roman and Corinthian believers condemned for their different views on food, idols temples, etc? How about the ones from the Pharisees in Acts 15 that taught circumcision was necessary? Are all those who quote "where two or three are gathered together" in error condemned for that?
Universalism is false. As is the thought that imperfect people will come to 100% agreement on all doctrinal matters. We draw the line where God does. Without faith we can't please God, we cannot live in willful unrepentant sin. Being divisive is wrong. Having beliefs that destroy the faith of others is another idea. Any thoughts?
Dave: Is doctrinal error unrepentant sin?

Re: True, one can repent of doctrinal error.

Dave: A simple misunderstanding?

Re: Most doctrinal error is misunderstanding.

Dave: Does the motive of such doctrines matter?

Re: Yes, I think so. I know MANY people who misunderstand things [including me] yet they honest desire to know the truth.

Dave: Perhaps the logical outcomes of having a doctrine should be explored before declaring doctrinal error to be a sin or not.

Re: Yes, I would agree.

Dave: Some obviously are- the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, the teachings of Jezebel, etc. But were the Roman and Corinthian believers condemned for their different views on food, idols temples, etc? How about the ones from the Pharisees in Acts 15 that taught circumcision was necessary? Are all those who quote "where two or three are gathered together" in error condemned for that?

Re: Good points and points I have made with others I talk with on other forums.

Dave: Universalism is false. As is the thought that imperfect people will come to 100% agreement on all doctrinal matters. We draw the line where God does. Without faith we can't please God, we cannot live in willful unrepentant sin. Being divisive is wrong. Having beliefs that destroy the faith of others is another idea. Any thoughts

Re: I totally agree- universalism is false. My real point was: if doctrinal perfection is required, then we all are in BIG trouble. Each of us are on various levels of understanding. Everyone doesn’t grow at the same rate. New Borns in Christ are unaware of many thing yet are always excepted. I guess the hindering factor for me comes back to baptism- the purpose. If one can be mistaken on other doctrines yet be accepted, then why do we not take this to the doctrine of baptism. Most all progressive coc allow for error/misunderstanding of the purpose of baptism. It’s the conservatives who insist that baptism MUST be understood before God will do His work. So, if baptism MUST be understood, then after this would be the grading on the curve by God. However, if God can grade on the curve AFTER baptism, allowing the NEW BORN IN CHRIST to have error/misunderstanding of doctrines, why cannot God allow for error/misunderstanding of the purpose of baptism? If God truly allows error/misunderstanding, it seems He would also allow for error/misunderstanding of the purpose of baptism. Perhaps the REAL line in the sand is FAITH. Perhaps after one has faith in Jesus Christ, God allows for error from that point. If so, this allows for them awful denominational people who sincerely desire to follow Jesus Christ but lack insight/understanding regarding the purpose of baptism.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#42 May 7, 2013
We all agree that God “grades on the curve”- He accepts doctrinal imperfect as we grow in grace. The part I am trying to determine is when God begins to grade on the curve. If at the point of faith, this allows for all denominational churches. If at “understanding the purpose of baptism”, it means ONLY people who grasp the doctrine of baptism will be allowed to hold doctrinal error while growing in grace. However, this makes no sense if God allows for doctrinal error once IN CHRIST, why would he not allow doctrinal error on baptism BEFORE one is IN CHRIST. People do not purposely misunderstand the purpose of baptism; they honestly do not understand its connection to salvation. How can God hold their misunderstanding against them but then allow for doctrinal error of others on various doctrines.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#43 May 7, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
No, sir, you didn't challenge my direction of my thoughts, you told me where they were going. I simply responded in kind. Perhaps I simply thought that's where your thoughts are headed.
You didn't say "You or I don't make the call"-I did, and I stand by that. Not one of us here on this earth makes the final decision about the salvation of others, what doctrines condemn, etc. Sometimes we all needed reminded of this.
My thoughts and beliefs have been challenged many times. I do not mind that. Would like to see others defend their beliefs or explain them instead of constantly asking the others questions.
Yes sir. I did challenge here is the post that you either agreed with what I said or answer my challenge as to what I said you theology was.

With the type of arguments your putting forth all thoughts on any doctrinal teachings are ok. With that thought you have no right to say one thought is correct over another and all thoughts are ok. Give me a break. Next Step> All will be saved.

Your challenge would be to point out where I misrepresented your argument.

By the way I never said your response was in hate. but the NO SIR seems a little on edge. Did I miss that also.

I have never said I was a Judge and I never said that of you either.

Now which doctrinal views are life loosing? Which are life saving?

As one Man ask WHAT IS TRUTH.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

#44 May 7, 2013
http://oneinjesus.info/2012/01/acts-238-in-th...

Sproul
Martinsville, VA
Mar 26, 2010

The Greek word "hina" would have been used by Luke if he meant what the Catholic Church and Church of Christ teache.

hina hin'-ah = in order that (denoting the purpose or the result)--albeit, to the intent

However, Luke used the word *eis* which carries more than the meaning noted above, which means he was simply saying "in reference to" forgiveness of sin one must repent and be baptized. Forgiveness was provided on the cross thus we repent on the account of what Jesus done on our behalf. If Luke meant "in order that" we contact Jesus blood in water, he would have used the Greek word "hina", not "eis"

Since you mentioned baptism, here are a couple of points of interest. The blog above gives a description of eis in Acts 2:38. I believe it means into or unto. Sproul above does have a point about the hina clause-but I absolutely disagree with the idea that eis here means "because of".

Most translations use the word "for" in 2:38, but into or unto is a better translation, and is literal. Does this change the force of Peter's command?

I am looking deeper here, so I have no conclusion. Just some thoughts, and I thought these two were interesting.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

#45 May 7, 2013
JC, I am not here to get into a personal argument with you. I took your statment not as a challenge but as a declaration of where you thought I was. If I misunderstood your tenor I apologize.

Not angry with you-we both are passionate about the Lord. Sometimes it may seem we are upset. Just sincerely seeking truth, as you.

As far as which doctrines are doing what, that's the point of the discussions ongoing now. Share your beliefs, not just question that of others.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#46 May 7, 2013
if doctrinal perfection is required, then we all are in BIG trouble. Each of us are on various levels of understanding. Everyone doesn’t grow at the same rate. New Borns in Christ are unaware of many thing yet are always excepted. I guess the hindering factor for me comes back to baptism- the purpose. If one can be mistaken on other doctrines yet be accepted, then why do we not take this to the doctrine of baptism. Most all progressive coc allow for error/misunderstanding of the purpose of baptism. It’s the conservatives who insist that baptism MUST be understood before God will do His work. So, if baptism MUST be understood, then after this would be the grading on the curve by God. However, if God can grade on the curve AFTER baptism, allowing the NEW BORN IN CHRIST to have error/misunderstanding of doctrines, why cannot God allow for error/misunderstanding of the purpose of baptism? If God truly allows error/misunderstanding, it seems He would also allow for error/misunderstanding of the purpose of baptism. Perhaps the REAL line in the sand is FAITH. Perhaps after one has faith in Jesus Christ, God allows for error from that point. If so, this allows for them awful denominational people who sincerely desire to follow Jesus Christ but lack insight/understanding regarding the purpose of baptism.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#47 May 7, 2013
JesusCreed wrote:
We all agree that God “grades on the curve”- He accepts doctrinal imperfect as we grow in grace. The part I am trying to determine is when God begins to grade on the curve. If at the point of faith, this allows for all denominational churches. If at “understanding the purpose of baptism”, it means ONLY people who grasp the doctrine of baptism will be allowed to hold doctrinal error while growing in grace. However, this makes no sense if God allows for doctrinal error once IN CHRIST, why would he not allow doctrinal error on baptism BEFORE one is IN CHRIST. People do not purposely misunderstand the purpose of baptism; they honestly do not understand its connection to salvation. How can God hold their misunderstanding against them but then allow for doctrinal error of others on various doctrines.
I like what you are saying with one exception. God does not grade on the curve, he grades on the basis of the cross.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

#48 May 8, 2013
JesusCreed wrote:
<quoted text>
Re: I totally agree- universalism is false. My real point was: if doctrinal perfection is required, then we all are in BIG trouble. Each of us are on various levels of understanding. Everyone doesn’t grow at the same rate. New Borns in Christ are unaware of many thing yet are always excepted. I guess the hindering factor for me comes back to baptism- the purpose. If one can be mistaken on other doctrines yet be accepted, then why do we not take this to the doctrine of baptism. Most all progressive coc allow for error/misunderstanding of the purpose of baptism. It’s the conservatives who insist that baptism MUST be understood before God will do His work. So, if baptism MUST be understood, then after this would be the grading on the curve by God. However, if God can grade on the curve AFTER baptism, allowing the NEW BORN IN CHRIST to have error/misunderstanding of doctrines, why cannot God allow for error/misunderstanding of the purpose of baptism? If God truly allows error/misunderstanding, it seems He would also allow for error/misunderstanding of the purpose of baptism. Perhaps the REAL line in the sand is FAITH. Perhaps after one has faith in Jesus Christ, God allows for error from that point. If so, this allows for them awful denominational people who sincerely desire to follow Jesus Christ but lack insight/understanding regarding the purpose of baptism.
Randy, I have been kind of a "tweener" on Topix since I started here. I am a non-instrumental coc preacher, who was raised in the CC/Instrumental churches. They were certainly less "rigid" than the hardline non-instrumentals. But, my understanding of Acts 2:38 was always that people had to realize exactly that baptism was FOR remission of sins, and reception of the indwelling Spirit. The word FOR in English always seems to tell us the purpose.

My dad, who also is a coc preacher (with many of the same beliefs, but not all),always mentioned that we are baptized UNTO remission of sins, but never really explained what that could mean. My Greek professor had a list of quotes from over a dozen Greek scholars that all state that eis means "into" and has a fundamental idea of motion towards.

Into remission of sins and for remission of sins could have two different meanings. Into could make remission of sins the first of two things obtained in baptism, along with reception of the Spirit. For obviously makes the purpose of baptism the remission of sins, with the reception of the Spirit the thing received.

I am going to look deeper into this, I have made no decision on it. But we must examine before making any kind of conclusion on a topic. PS-I have always believed it was possible that there were Christians in other organizations besides mine, and that as long as they obeyed the gospel, God forgave their sins because He promised He would. There are at least two Pentecostal churches within an hour of here that believe in baptism as the coc does. They also speak in tongues in those places. I believe that those people very well could be saved. Other people didn't agree with me that much.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#49 May 9, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
Randy, I have been kind of a "tweener" on Topix since I started here. I am a non-instrumental coc preacher, who was raised in the CC/Instrumental churches. They were certainly less "rigid" than the hardline non-instrumentals. But, my understanding of Acts 2:38 was always that people had to realize exactly that baptism was FOR remission of sins, and reception of the indwelling Spirit. The word FOR in English always seems to tell us the purpose.
My dad, who also is a coc preacher (with many of the same beliefs, but not all),always mentioned that we are baptized UNTO remission of sins, but never really explained what that could mean. My Greek professor had a list of quotes from over a dozen Greek scholars that all state that eis means "into" and has a fundamental idea of motion towards.
Into remission of sins and for remission of sins could have two different meanings. Into could make remission of sins the first of two things obtained in baptism, along with reception of the Spirit. For obviously makes the purpose of baptism the remission of sins, with the reception of the Spirit the thing received.
I am going to look deeper into this, I have made no decision on it. But we must examine before making any kind of conclusion on a topic. PS-I have always believed it was possible that there were Christians in other organizations besides mine, and that as long as they obeyed the gospel, God forgave their sins because He promised He would. There are at least two Pentecostal churches within an hour of here that believe in baptism as the coc does. They also speak in tongues in those places. I believe that those people very well could be saved. Other people didn't agree with me that much.
I agree with the point on baptism. I believe it clearly shows purpose. However, everyone doesn't/cannot "understand" this. My point being, if God allows for misunderstandings after one is baptized, why not before one is baptized? If God truly permits the believer to hold error/misunderstandings yet be saved, then it seems this would also apply to misunderstandings on the purpose of baptism. Will God not do His work Col 2:11-12 IN BAPTISM just because a sinner fails to connects all of the dots? This means Gods work IN BAPTISM hinges upon understanding the purpose of baptism and not on the sinner coming to God by faith in Jesus Christ.
xxx

Nashville, TN

#50 May 9, 2013
So basically I can obey in water baptism and still be lost because I didn’t understand its “proper purpose.”

What else do I have to know for my baptism to be valid?

If I believe that the WATER is the one actually washing away my sins instead of contacting the blood of Jesus, does that invalidate my baptism?

Do I also have to understand that the descent into the water is representative of His death, that the submersion is representative of His burial and that the raising is representative of His resurrection? If I don’t understand these things, does my baptism not count?
hutaer

Pittsburgh, PA

#51 May 9, 2013
youtube.com/watch... ……
the Church is just another Hole in the Ground
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#52 May 9, 2013
JesusCreed wrote:
if doctrinal perfection is required, then we all are in BIG trouble. Each of us are on various levels of understanding. Everyone doesn’t grow at the same rate. New Borns in Christ are unaware of many thing yet are always excepted. I guess the hindering factor for me comes back to baptism- the purpose. If one can be mistaken on other doctrines yet be accepted, then why do we not take this to the doctrine of baptism. Most all progressive coc allow for error/misunderstanding of the purpose of baptism. It’s the conservatives who insist that baptism MUST be understood before God will do His work. So, if baptism MUST be understood, then after this would be the grading on the curve by God. However, if God can grade on the curve AFTER baptism, allowing the NEW BORN IN CHRIST to have error/misunderstanding of doctrines, why cannot God allow for error/misunderstanding of the purpose of baptism? If God truly allows error/misunderstanding, it seems He would also allow for error/misunderstanding of the purpose of baptism. Perhaps the REAL line in the sand is FAITH. Perhaps after one has faith in Jesus Christ, God allows for error from that point. If so, this allows for them awful denominational people who sincerely desire to follow Jesus Christ but lack insight/understanding regarding the purpose of baptism.
Good points. I have another view, what if the coc are all together wrong on their baptismal regeneration view, can they still be saved. My answer is yes, because they do believe in the death burial and resurrection of Christ. But, what if they did not really believe he actually died-only swooned? I guess they just did not understand that part. Will God overlook that?

Or what if we will not believe Jesus is risen unless we can see him and place our hand in his side?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#53 May 9, 2013
xxx wrote:
So basically I can obey in water baptism and still be lost because I didn’t understand its “proper purpose.”
What else do I have to know for my baptism to be valid?
If I believe that the WATER is the one actually washing away my sins instead of contacting the blood of Jesus, does that invalidate my baptism?
Do I also have to understand that the descent into the water is representative of His death, that the submersion is representative of His burial and that the raising is representative of His resurrection? If I don’t understand these things, does my baptism not count?
How could one think that water physically washes away sins in light of I Peter 3:21

1 Peter 3:21

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God [a]for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#54 May 9, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>

Or what if we will not believe Jesus is risen unless we can see him and place our hand in his side?
Once Christ left the earth He will not return with a physical body, and Denying the fact as put forth by the Holy Spirit is blaspheming the Holy Spirits words which if very serious. Denying Christ while on earth is one thing, but denial after he was risen and gone back to heaven to rule is a totally different thing.
xxx

Nashville, TN

#55 May 9, 2013
JustChristian wrote:
<quoted text>
How could one think that water physically washes away sins in light of I Peter 3:21
1 Peter 3:21
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God [a]for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
How could they you ask? Maybe the sermon that day focused on Titus 3:5 without mentioning I Peter 3:21:

“...according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”

Basically your answer would be that even if somebody got baptized for the right reason that their baptism would still not count because they mistakenly thought that the water was saving them.

What if they didn’t understand the second part of my post? That the descent into the water represents His death, etc.?
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#56 May 9, 2013
JustChristian wrote:
<quoted text>
Once Christ left the earth He will not return with a physical body, and Denying the fact as put forth by the Holy Spirit is blaspheming the Holy Spirits words which if very serious. Denying Christ while on earth is one thing, but denial after he was risen and gone back to heaven to rule is a totally different thing.
I think it takes more faith to believe in Jesus without having seen him.

Speaking to Thomas: 29 Then Jesus told him,“Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

And by the way I do believe Jesus will return with a physical body.

In the early church some were denying that Jesus actually came in the flesh-he came only as a spirit. Paul and John spoke extensively about this.

Acts 1:11"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."

Jesus left in a physical resurrected body that could both seen and touched.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#57 May 9, 2013
xxx wrote:
<quoted text>
How could they you ask? Maybe the sermon that day focused on Titus 3:5 without mentioning I Peter 3:21:
“...according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”
Basically your answer would be that even if somebody got baptized for the right reason that their baptism would still not count because they mistakenly thought that the water was saving them.
What if they didn’t understand the second part of my post? That the descent into the water represents His death, etc.?
I guess I missed something in your question or from another post. If a person is taught the Gospel it does not start with baptism, or repentance or even confession. It start with the Christ and what happened and what that means. If a person is taken to the water for immersion then they would already understand the difference in the water without Christ and the Water with Christ. There in lies the difference. sorry if I missed your point or your question. I also Think Titus passage is speaking of baptism and is similar to Eph 5:26.
xxx

Nashville, TN

#58 May 9, 2013
JustChristian wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess I missed something in your question or from another post. If a person is taught the Gospel it does not start with baptism, or repentance or even confession. It start with the Christ and what happened and what that means. If a person is taken to the water for immersion then they would already understand the difference in the water without Christ and the Water with Christ. There in lies the difference. sorry if I missed your point or your question. I also Think Titus passage is speaking of baptism and is similar to Eph 5:26.
Certainly they would go to the water understanding that Jesus died, was buried and resurrected. But if they did not understand that being submersed was representative of His death, that immersion was representative of His burial and that the raising from the water represented His resurrection, would their baptism still count?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#59 May 9, 2013
xxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Certainly they would go to the water understanding that Jesus died, was buried and resurrected. But if they did not understand that being submersed was representative of His death, that immersion was representative of His burial and that the raising from the water represented His resurrection, would their baptism still count?
So your addressing the Romans 6 passage which is almost always taught by those whom believe the baptism is essential as a condition of the Grace given by God. Yes they would understand if properly taught. The real Question is, Can false teaching produce a disciple of Christ? What do you think?
xxx

Nashville, TN

#60 May 9, 2013
JustChristian wrote:
<quoted text>
Can false teaching produce a disciple of Christ?
Yes, I would say that God would overlook error in such a case. Otherwise, He is holding error-filled teaching against the person trying to follow Him in baptism, not the teacher of the error.

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.

Martinsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Identifing the Early Church 4 hr Bobby 394
THE BLOOD of JESUS CHRIST Dec 19 Chayei Olam 3
Catholics (Feb '14) Dec 17 Bobby 1,996
Sola Scriptura (Jun '13) Dec 10 Mike_Peterson 157
Queen Mother-Ever Virgin Dec 10 Mike_Peterson 109
“Thus Saith Johnny” (Jul '12) Dec 8 Ernie 116
Unlicensed contractor allowed to work and conti... Dec 7 Amazing 2
Martinsville Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Martinsville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Martinsville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Martinsville

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:54 pm PST