Posted on 05/01/2006 7:14:29 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
***In the absent of another person what you intended as a farce would be entirely scriptural.***
So if I tell someone to go jump in the lake that would save them?
***Better read I Pet 3:21 (Baptism now saves us)***
Who got wet? Not Noah or his family. They were safe in the Ark, a type of Christ.
Must go. Work tomorrow.
I'm speaking from personal, life-long, multi-generational experience, a member of the church of Christ all my life, as were my parents and grandparents.
I can guarantee you that none of us gals, and none of the multitude of female Christian friends I've had as a member of seven different congregations in three states, has any problem whatsoever piling on the makeup.
There are pentecostal groups that frown upon such adornments (and cutting women's hair), but the mainstream churches of Christ are not among them.
If this is something you've encountered, it's probably just a local thing. As stated in the article that began this thread, the churches of Christ really don't have any central authority other than scripture, so local customs certainly vary.
Funny how all my denominational friends are amazed by the singing.
And my wife wears makeup.
There are a few fundamental differences between the denominational world and the church that go well beyond squabbling about baptism and instrumental music.
One big thing being the necessity and role of obedience in salvation. Denominational churches are almost universally Calvinist, and have a huge aversion to the notion that any action a person might take could have an effect on their salvation. They believe quite erroneously that obedience precludes faith and only after you are firmly esconced in irreversible salvation can the o-word be mentioned, and then always with the qualifier that it can never affect your salvation.
Disagree with that basic tenet in any way, and "legalist" will simply be the most polite epitaph hurled in your direction. I do so enjoy certain denominational preachers going on national television shows and characterizing members of the church of Christ as wild-eyed cultists swapping wives on compounds down in Texas and use only pig dung as a hair care product. It's really quite entertaining. And I suppose calling the church of Christ a cult is a lot easier than trying to explain to a bunch of atheist reporters why the monotonous religious disagreement you have with these people makes them servants of Lucifer.
In truth, God requires obedience, but that is not to say that being obedient earns your salvation. Most denominationalists are unwilling in the extreme to acknowledge that fact in debate, prefering to deal with a universe of only two possibilities: Faith only vs. hair-splitting legalism. Again, its that boogeyman everyone loves to shoot vs. the actual debate the boors most people.
Baptism and instrumental music are merely the favorite whipping boys of the faith-only crowd, the effigy they burn to make their point, the theater the masses "get."
Explaining to those who are misinformed is beneficial. Trying to argue with those who are only here to castigate is a waste of time.
You can usually tell which is which by the tone and depth of their comments.
So answer the honest questions and ignore the ranting of the others. Just remember that our Lord and His apostles faced the same attitudes and ridicule in the first century. (Matt. 5:11-12)
Worth repeating...
It is my hope that this will in some way show to those who wonder, why the churches of Christ believe and teach that baptism is the vehicle through which we receive the Grace of God. This isn’t something that we made up. It is from God.
I will attempt to give you a more thorough interpretation of I Peter 3. Beginning in verse 18 and following.
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.
I will start with verse 18. 18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God. One cannot escape the conclusion that the apostles of our Lord were Christ-intoxicated men. It is highly significant that they did not write on any theme associated with redemption without being immediately reminded of and alluding to, their matchless leader and guide. Peter’s reference to suffering wrongfully for righteousness sake brought immediately to his mind the one who, above all others, suffered in this manner; and he is offered as in I Pet 2:21-25, as a pattern for other innocent suffers.
Each word in this text is vitally significant. Christ “suffered”; and he suffered “for” our sins. The Greek word translated as “for” is the word peri; meaning “concerning”. He suffered concerning our sins once and for all, it not being necessary to make continual offerings as under the old Law of Moses; and the design of his offering was “that he might bring us to God”. Through his suffering we now have access to God (Rom 5:2), and are privileged to come boldly to the throne of grace (Heb 10:19); through once afar off (Eph 2:17), we have been brought near by the blood of Christ (Eph 2:13). It is significant that there is no article before the words “just” and “unjust” (some translations have “righteous” and “unrighteous”) in the original text. The meaning is, a just person suffering for or on behalf of an unjust person, a fact without which the blood of Jesus would have been no more effective than any other man.
being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit- Two things are affirmed of the Lord in this statement; (1) he was put to death in flesh (there is no article before either “flesh” or “spirit” in this affirmation); and (2) he was made alive in spirit. “In flesh” (sarki) and “in spirit” (Pneumati) are locatives, indicative of the sphere in which the action occurred. “Put to death” and “made alive” are aorist passive participles, thus pointing to a definite occasion when these events happened. The meaning is, the sphere of death, for our Lord, was in the flesh; the sphere in which he was made alive was in the spirit. Death affected only his flesh; for from dying in the spirit, here he was made alive. The “spirit” alluded to in this verse is, therefore that divine spirit which Jesus possesses in common with all men, and which was not affected by the death which he suffered. Why should it be asserted that in this spirit he was made alive? It should be remembered that it was Peter’s purpose to show that though Christ suffered death this, far from terminating his existence or destroying his influence, merely enabled him to be energized, brought to active life in the realm of the spirit. His spirit, instead of perishing in death, was clothed with renewed and enhanced powers of life. At death, this spirit passed into a new sphere of existence, hence was said to have been made alive.
by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison - In this spirit he preached. What was preached is not stated. This preaching was done to “spirits in prison”. They are called “spirits” because they were in a disembodied state when Peter wrote; and they were “in prison” i.e. under restraint as wicked beings. “In Prison” is of frequent usage to denote the state or condition of those spirits which because of disobedience await condemnation at the last day. (2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6; Rev. 20:7). It should be noted that Peter does not declare that these who were the objects of this preaching were in a disembodied state and in prison when the preaching was done; such was their condition when he wrote. The period in which such lived in the flesh, and the time when this preaching was done is clearly stated in the verse which follows.
20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, - These spirits were once in the flesh; they were once upon a time disobedient; the period of their disobedience was “while the ark was being prepared”; and during this period Christ preached to them. What one does through an authorized agent, he is said to do himself (1 John 4:1), hence Christ, in the person of Noah, preached to the antediluvians during the period in which the ark was being constructed; and these, having rejected this preaching died in disobedience, and were under restraint in the spirit realm when Peter wrote. The meaning of the passage, simply and briefly put, in this: Christ preached; he preached “in spirit: to “spirits in prison”. These spirits in prison were wicked persons who lived while the ark was “being prepared”. The preaching which Christ did was through Noah. Those to whom the preaching was done were bound in the prison house of disobedient spirits at the time the letter Peter wrote was penned.
Demonstrated in the events associated with the ark and the flood was the “Devine longsuffering”, that is the longsuffering of God. One hundred and twenty years were especially designated as the probationary period afforded men (Gen 6:3). During this period there must have been many opportunities afforded the antediluvian world to turn in penitence to the Lord. These were, for the most part, rejected.
in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. - into the ark, in order to be saved the eight souls went. Being saved in it through the means of water. They were saved in the ark, and by the water; the ark protected them from the flood, and the water bore up the ark, the means of their salvation from the old world. The eight souls saved were Noah, his wife, their sons and their wives. Noah was a preacher of righteousness. (2 Pet 2:5). Though he continued his preaching through the period in which the ark was being constructed, only those of his family were finally induced to avail themselves of the protection it afforded. Those saved in the ark were “saved through water”.
There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism - The antecedent of “antitype” is the “water” alluded to in verse 20, not, however the water of the flood, but water generally, and in this clause identified as the water of baptism. The apostle thus affirms that water, utilized in baptism, “an antitype” of that characteristic of the deliverance of Noah and his family from the old world, now saves. “An antitype which now saves us-baptism” is literally in the Greek text, “which antitype is now saving you, even baptism”. The salvation of Noah and those with him is thus made a type of the deliverance which a sinner receives in passing through the waters of baptism. The “antitype” obtains in the following manner: (1) the waters of the flood bore up the ark and delivered its occupants from the destruction of the antediluvian world; (2) these waters separated those who were saved from those who were drowned in them; and (3) the flood destroyed the evils of the old world and enabled Noah and his family to emerge into a new existence. In like fashion (antitype) (1) baptism is the final condition in the plan through obedience to which one is enabled to escape the condemnation of the lost. (Mark 15:15, 16), (2) Baptism designates the line of demarcation between the saved and the lost. (3) In baptism the “old man of sin” is buried, and from its watery grave one comes forth to “walk in newness of life”. (Rom 6:4)
The conclusion is inescapable that the deliverance promised is salvation from sin; and the statement is in exact harmony with one earlier made by this same Apostle when, in response to the query of the multitude on the day of Pentecost “”brethren what shall we do?” he answered “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”. (Acts 2:37-38)
The mention of water in connection with Noah’s deliverance from the old world immediately suggested to Peter a resemblance which exists in the water of our salvation, “baptism”. It should be noted that Peter does not affirm that Noah and his family were saved “by” water, nor “in” water, nor “from “water; they were saved THROUGH water, i.e. the water was the means through which God exercised his saving power. Following, the “antitype”- “baptism” saves NOW, not of course as a Savior, but as an instrument through which God exerts his saving power. When Naaman was led to finally dip in the river Jordon to be cleansed of his leprosy, he did not attribute miraculous efficacy to it muddy waters; this power resided in God only. Yet it was not until he dipped that he was cleansed (II Kings 5:14). Similarly when one is properly and intelligently baptized today, he knows that the power of forgiveness does not resided in the water, instead, the power of forgiveness resides IN God; and that the baptism is a condition precedent to receiving salvation from God’s hand.
(not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, - to guard against any misunderstanding that should arise as a result of a misinterpretation of the first clause of this verse, Peter explains that baptism does not put away “the filth of the flesh”. “Filth” (rupos) refers to that which is dirty, physically defiled. Baptism does not wash sin from the skin, and is not to be confused with a bath for the body or a ceremonial cleansing of the flesh. It is a condition precedent to the forgiveness which God alone exercises. (Mark 16:15-16; Rom. 6:3-4).
Having explained what baptism is not, Peter tells what it is: “the answer of a good conscience toward God”. Baptism thus becomes an act through which an individual seeks to manifest a good conscience. One submitting sincerely to baptism follows the promptings of a good conscience; indicates thereby that his conscience is sensitive, and that he is desirous of doing exactly what the Lord has commanded.
Baptism derives its benefits “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” which it symbolizes. Baptism “which now saves us” does so only because Jesus was raised from the dead. (See also Romans 6)
the are several 'varieties' of Church of Christ. One needs to be careful to distinguixh them when making observations about them.
How do you know that God didn't batpize you when you were stuck in that last torrential rainstorm without an umbrella? Or when you were minding your own business sitting on the beach and a rogue wave came up from nowhere and knocked you over?
Would it be safe to say that all drowning victims have been baptized?
I used to go to a Church of Christ in high school, for about a year. No instruments, no makeup. The singing was nice, but not everyone can carry a tune, which blows the harmonies right out of the water.
The real crime was that they never told me about believing Jesus for salvation. It was all about getting water baptized, (dunked of course) acting the right way, going to the right church, bla bla bla. It took me four years and a lot of self inflicted pain to finally get born again.
Now, I go to a non-denominational church, and I'm in the worship band. We play mostly Vineyard type stuff with a hymn thrown in every now and then- and we've been known to throw the entire planned service out the window and just 'waste' the whole time on Jesus instead. It's a blast!
And the women that need to, wear makeup.
BWAHAHAHAHA
I take it you don't get out much?
Pot, meet kettle.
Reminds me of some luminary with dark skin who decided to study Christianity, so he visited a Christian church in South Aftrica, and promptly reported that all Christians were racist.
I've never heard of a church of Christ that was so strict, and one so strict would be ostracized by the mainstream. And only in a church with less than twenty members does the musical ability of the individuals have much of an impact.
Besides, we aren't supposed to be there to please ourselves anyway.
Which church was this? Where is it located?
Salvation by faith alone is the intellectual descendent of Calvinism.
Assuming ovrtaxt wanted to answer it (and I would caution him to avoid providing that sort of personal info on any public board), of what use would that info be to you?
Huh??? You obviously haven't been out on these threads much and do not understand the Reformed belief. And, like Alex stated, Protestant churches are NOT universally Calvinists.
It is true that the water itself has no power. However, your claim that baptism is nothing more than an outward symbol of an inner transformation is not being honest with the Word of God. In Acts 2:38, we are taught that repentance and baptism are necessary in order to have sins forgiven. In Acts 22:16, we are taught that baptism is the point at which sins are washed away. In Romans 6:3 and Galatians 3:27, we are taught that we are baptized into Christ. Can one be a child of God without being in Christ?
I agree that there is not an example of someone being baptized by a non-Christian. And I would say that if at all possible, baptism by a Christian would be the proper course to take. However, I don't believe that it is ultimately necessary for the person doing the baptizing to be a Christian.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.