Quote:

---

The concept of before men is in verse 18: Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. - Works are a great way to show other people you are a serious Christian. The word "dead" is building upon the metaphor of "bearing fruit" meaning to get other people saved. If you don't preform works for the Lord, you will have a tough time getting other people to trust you and to allow you to convert them.

---

Where is there a single line in St James' epistle that talks about converting other people? The entire passage and about loving others at yourself. There's not a single word that says anything about "getting other people saved" or converting. There's no "bearing fruit" metaphor in St James' epistle, certainly nothing that "dead" can build on.

He says it five times:

faith by itself if it has not works, is dead
faith apart from works is worthless
a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone
Rahab the prostitute also justified by works
faith apart from works is dead

The word for justified and made righteous is the same word in Greek. People translate it sometimes one way and sometimes the other because we don't say "righteous" as a verb. But above you can substitute made righteous and justified, they're literally the same.

Quote:

---

If works are required for our salvation, how good is good enough? The same chapter we are discussing states in chapter 10: whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

If you have ever sinned in your life you are unworthy of salvation. Only through the belief that Jesus Christ paid the debts for our sins 100% on the cross can we achieve salvation. Nothing you or I could ever do would make us worthy.

---

Groundhog day.

The works which save are the saving works of the Lord. God works in us, and we either cooperate with Him or not. Which is why St Paul says we are God's co-workers. The works which do not save are the works of the Torah, because St Paul (speaking from experience) knows that following the Torah does not make you righteous. Keep one point or none, it doesn't fix you, and it never was given or meant to fix you.

On the other hand being faithful to God and trusting that He will carry out His promises toward us makes you righteous, fixes you.

Belief is intellectual assent - every single demon knows who Jesus Christ is and that He was Crucified. Every one, and probably know that in some ways better than we do. It means nothing. If you want to be a son of Abraham, the Lord tells you how - do what Abraham did. Was Abraham perfect? Was David perfect? No - both sinners. But both were faithful to the Lord.

There is no amount of works, no "enough" that saves a man. Only trust in the promise of the Lord - which is freedom from sin and death - can make a person righteous, set right, in our proper place, can fix the problems of sin and death in us. Being faithful to let Him do His Good works through and with him which is how the Lord continuously works in His creation is what makes a man righteous.

This is why James said - if your faith is not characterized by this work of love - by caring for widows and orphans, by showing mercy, by loving others as yourself - then your faith is dead and you are deceiving yourself.

aggiedad20 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I took at look at what Brazos Fellowship had to show on Baptism.

I don't think it's as bad as aggiedad20 is saying, but I do find some problems with what is written. I do think it makes it clear that Baptism is important.

For clarity, this is what I read:

Quote:

---

We believe baptism is an act of obedience shared in the context of the church to symbolize the change Jesus Christ has made in the new believer's life. Baptism was modeled by Jesus for all believers to follow as a testimony to the world that He is their Savior and Lord. Baptism is by completely immersing the professing believer underwater.

(Matthew 3:13-17; Romans 6; Colossians 2:12)

---

Assuming this is the correct church, I presume this means 2 things:

1. Baptism only takes place after someone "believes."

2. This would exclude infant baptism since they aren't "believers" yet.

Assuming I understood that correctly (and please correct me if I'm wrong), I'd argue that there are a couple misunderstandings going on.

1. Nowhere does Scripture exclude infants from baptism. I'd even argue that to exclude infants from baptism would be to exclude a group that was previously included.

2. I've listened to several apologists (from Catholic to Lutheran to Orthodox) and they all have a similar comment that the early church universally agreed with infant baptism. The comment phrase is they haven't found anybody who truly disagreed with it.


So I think there are some problems with it, but it's not near what aggiedad20 is claiming.

---

Since when is silence in Scripture permissive? That's a dangerous slippery slope. The Bible doesn't exclude putting jelly on the communion bread does it? So why not put a little jelly on it to make it taste better?

Ridiculous argument

Edit to say...infants aren't believers, can't repent, haven't heard the Gospel, can't confess Christ raised and most definitely haven't can't be baptized for remission of their sins. They're innocent. The denominational teachings of men on these issues alone are enough to discredit their "faith". It's a shame more people don't simply trust the God's Word.

---

Oh..you misunderstood me.

Scripture is very clear that infants have been included in the covenant with God going back to circumcision in the OT.

So for you to exclude them, without Scripture, is what is problematic. You're claiming that Jesus removed them from something they were already part of, yet you won't be able to cite a verse.

As I said above, you won't find any Church Fathers who were against infant baptism. So you're left having to claim that you figured something out that no other brilliant mind managed to see for 1500 years. That's certainly not a claim I'd want to make.

-----------------------------

The other ironic thing is that in reality, you and Derm both believe very similar things. Infant baptism isn't the issue, but it's simply a conclusion drawn from what I'd consider an incorrect understanding.

Both of you (though you more strongly) seem to hold that baptism is really something only a believer should do after he is a believer. So you're making baptism conditional on faith or said another way, it's a work/task we do once we believe.

But that's not what baptism is. Baptism is a gift from God. It's what I really like about the Lutheranism because they identify Sacraments as being directly related to gifts given by Jesus.

If you take the second view, why would you ever delay giving God's gift and promise to anybody? We should be racing to baptize people as soon as we can.

Finally, I'll end it with what the Augsburg Confession said since this was a rare situation where both Rome and the Reformers were in complete agreement.

Quote:

---

The Ninth Article has been approved, in which we confess that Baptism is necessary to salvation, and that children are to be baptized, and that the baptism of children is not in vain, but is necessary and effectual to salvation.

And since the Gospel is taught among us purely and diligently, by God's favor we receive also from it this fruit, that in our Churches no Anabaptists have arisen [have not gained ground in our Churches], because the people have been fortified by God's Word against the wicked and seditious faction of these robbers. And as we condemn quite a number of other errors of the Anabaptists, we condemn this also, that they dispute that the baptism of little children is profitable. For it is very certain that the promise of salvation pertains also to little children [that the divine promises of grace and of the Holy Ghost belong not alone to the old, but also to children]. It does not, however, pertain to those who are outside of Christ's Church, where there is neither Word nor Sacraments, because the kingdom of Christ exists only with the Word and Sacraments. Therefore it is necessary to baptize little children, that the promise of salvation may be applied to them, according to Christ's command, Matt. 28:19: Baptize all nations. Just as here salvation is offered to all, so Baptism is offered to all, to men, women, children, infants. It clearly follows, therefore, that infants are to be baptized, because with Baptism salvation [the universal grace and treasure of the Gospel] is offered.

Secondly, it is manifest that God approves of the baptism of little children. Therefore the Anabaptists, who condemn the baptism of little children, believe wickedly. That God, however, approves of the baptism of little children is shown by this, namely, that God gives the Holy Ghost to those thus baptized [to many who have been baptized in childhood]. For if this baptism would be in vain, the Holy Ghost would be given to none, none would be saved, and finally there would be no Church. [For there have been many holy men in the Church who have not been baptized otherwise.] This reason, even taken alone, can sufficiently establish good and godly minds against the godless and fanatical opinions of the Anabaptists.

---

Firstly, I have no "church fathers" nor do I recognize any of their musings as authoritative. Scripture is authorized by God, not man.

Secondly, I didn't misunderstand you at all. It seems to me you are confused about covenant relationship. Jews were physically born into the Abrahamic covenant and their souls were cut off from that covenant of they were uncircumcised. (Gen 17:14)

While the New Testament covenant is similar, NT baptism today doesn't parallel circumcision in the old covenant at all, other than without it you are cut off from Christ/God. Baptism symbolizes a new SPIRITUAL birth when our sins are remitted, which I guess you could say parallels the physical new birth of the Jews.

Jesus said he who believes and is baptized shall be saved.

Catholicism orthodox Lutherans etc say he who is baptized and then believes is saved.

Infants aren't candidates for NT baptism. Period.

There is no order implied. Both "believed" and "baptized" are aorist, which means theyre viewed as completed events as a whole without regard for particular time. It says one having believed / having had faith, and the one having been baptized will be saved. And the one having disbelieved / having not had faith will be condemned. It does not say this and then this or this and after this.

Also word order in Greek has no particular syntax value. You can rearrange the words in a sentence in almost any order and accomplish the same meaning because of the inflections in Greek. In English word order is incredibly important.

However in general Greek is often arranged in order of importance. The degree of importance goes down in the order of the clause, and the last thing in the clause is generally the least important from a rhetorical stand point.

Hope you have a nice time at church this morning.

Wrong emoji, meant thumbs up. Seriously, have a great day with your family. I am looking forward to lunch after church with mine and some friends.

Quote:

---

Firstly, I have no "church fathers" nor do I recognize any of their musings as authoritative. Scripture is authorized by God, not man.

---

First, you do in fact have "church fathers." There's a reason you recognize things like the Trinity or the Two Natures of Christ. It's because of those fathers you don't recognize who helped to define what orthodox (small o) christianity is today. There's very little if anything that is actually original and can't be found in what the Fathers realized.

Quote:

---

Secondly, I didn't misunderstand you at all. It seems to me you are confused about covenant relationship. Jews were physically born into the Abrahamic covenant and their souls were cut off from that covenant of they were uncircumcised. (Gen 17:14)

---

This is just silly and doesn't actually say anything.

Quote:

---

While the New Testament covenant is similar, NT baptism today doesn't parallel circumcision in the old covenant at all, other than without it you are cut off from Christ/God. Baptism symbolizes a new SPIRITUAL birth when our sins are remitted, which I guess you could say parallels the physical new birth of the Jews.

---

The only way you can take this stance is if you believe in "Once saved always saved" which isn't Scriptural. Because you want to claim this is some grand event, yet we know people who are baptized fall away.

Scripture gives ample evidence of a Triune God. You nor I need to be fascinated that some cave dwelling 3rd century monk somehow deserves praise for telling us the obvious. The Trinity is clearly scriptural, unlike OSAS and infant triple dipping and rock concert style "worship" and salvic sinners prayer and NT incense worship and countless other denominational fantasies

Who came up with congregation? It's no where in Scripture? But the underlying message is there.

This whole idea of honoring dead "fathers" is perfect silliness and absurd. Yes we can appreciate some of their teachings but the BIBLE is the only inspired source we have and need.

Anyhow, I'm done here. Hopefully the OP isn't blinded by all the man-made nonsense skewing God's plan of salvation.

He's obviously church of Christ. I was fifth generation church of Christ. They believe no one ever got it right until the Stone Campbell movement. I am so glad I read daily over the years. Study, study, study. I agree with scripture only. That's why I believe that once you are truly saved, Jesus keeps you saved. The church of Christ believes you have to keep yourself saved once you've been baptized. Romans three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and nine completely disagree with that. If they want to live under law, and not under grace, that's their business. They hang their hat on two scriptures that are pulled out of context. I finally left that theology three years ago. So glad I did. It's so much better when you know that Jesus saves you, is saving you, and will keep you saved. My poor saintly mother is constantly worried that Jesus won't take her in. She's been a devout Christian her whole life (76 years coC), and is still worried. It is a horrible theology. It sadly robs you of any joy, or confidence in your salvation.

I know the church of Christ reads these words, they don't just necessarily trust in them. These aren't even HALF of the scriptures that prove my point:

John 10:27-29 ESV

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

John 6:37 ESV

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

John 10:28 ESV

I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

John 5:24 ESV

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.


Romans 11:29 ESV

For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

Romans 8:38-39 ESV

For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Jude 1:24 ESV

Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy,

2 Corinthians 1:22 ESV

And who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.

Ephesians 2:8 ESV

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

1 John 5:13 ESV

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

Philippians 1:6 ESV

And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 4:30 ESV

And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

Romans 11:6 ESV

But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

Hebrews 10:14 ESV

For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

If you're so enlightened, why is Acts 2:38 your signature? You don't really believe that verse do you? I mean, Acts 2 is basically considered heretical in most denominations.

Interesting post tho. Sorry about your mom. Sounds like there's other issues there to me.

aggiedad20 said:

---

If you're so enlightened, why is Acts 2:38 your signature? You don't really believe that verse do you? I mean, Acts 2 is basically considered heretical in most denominations.

Interesting post tho. Sorry about your mom. Sounds like there's other issues there to me.

---

I believe in all Scripture. The only Baptists that I know now, where I do go to church, believe baptism is necessary. You cannot join the Baptist church if you've not been baptized. Baptism is a commandment, not an alternative suggestion. I don't disagree with a lot of church of Christ teachings. I just disagree that I have anything to do with my ongoing salvation. It's all the work of Jesus Christ, and it was finished at the cross. The only thing I bring to the equation was my sin that he forgave. That's all.

As for my mother, I'm working on her, and she's getting better. Growing up, I've known a lot of beautiful Christians in the church of Christ. I just couldn't sit there Sunday after Sunday and listen to the same erroneous teaching on having to keep your salvation. It drove me crazy, and I had to leave.

Of course Scripture has it...hence what it's accepted teaching...but neither you nor your Pastor and so forth came to this sort of conclusion in vacuum. They came to it by being taught it by others until we track it back to the Fathers.

Why is honoring your elders "perfect silliness and absurd?" Every teaching you have is a product of their prior understanding and you could have a little humility and realize just how much you owe them. This doesn't mean you have to venerate them in the way of the EO or RC, but certainly honor them for the great things they did and the sacrifices they made.

So if they believe that the Stone/Campbell movement is what they are based on, where were they for all those years? Where is the apostolic succession? Where are the CofC churches in the home of Christianity?

dermdoc said:

---

So if they believe that the Stone/Campbell movement is what they are based on, where were they for all those years? Where is the apostolic succession? Where are the CofC churches in the home of Christianity?

---

The claim is that they reclaimed the first Church theology and doctrine. Scripture only, absolutely. No musical instruments, understandable. Must be baptized, scriptural. But having to work your way in sanctification, no bueno. They are actually closer to Catholic doctrine than they realize with that one. I personally believe it's because they don't fully understand how wretched, filthy, and disgusting we are in this fleshly tent. One would have to have an Isaiah experience to completely understand that. No matter how devout we think we are, we are disgustingly sinful. Once you realize that, you cling to Christ as hard as you can. Then trust in Him to complete His work.

I have no problem with them saying they reclaimed the original theology. But it goes beyond that. They believe they are actually descended from the original church. And they are not.

dermdoc said:

---

I have no problem with them saying they reclaimed the original theology. But it goes beyond that. They believe they are actually descended from the original church. And they are not.

---

Well, all you have to do it's find the original version, which was derived from the Anabaptists. Not the church in Corinth. So yes.

dermdoc said:

---

So if they believe that the Stone/Campbell movement is what they are based on, where were they for all those years? Where is the apostolic succession? Where are the CofC churches in the home of Christianity?

---

There are numerous historical references of the churches of Christ long before Campbell or Stone were even born.

Your attempts to prop up your weak minded attacks on those who simply have worshiped as the early church are fodder for the itchy ears of the denominational folk here but rather absurd to anyone who knows and embraces the truth.

Nice try doc, but you're either uninformed or liar. Period

AgLiving06 said:

---

Of course Scripture has it...hence what it's accepted teaching...but neither you nor your Pastor and so forth came to this sort of conclusion in vacuum. They came to it by being taught it by others until we track it back to the Fathers.

Why is honoring your elders "perfect silliness and absurd?" Every teaching you have is a product of their prior understanding and you could have a little humility and realize just how much you owe them. This doesn't mean you have to venerate them in the way of the EO or RC, but certainly honor them for the great things they did and the sacrifices they made.

---

My pastor? Which one? A pastor is an elder, not a minister as you ignorantly insinuate.

Elders, bishops and pastors are all the same biblically speaking, but I'm sure that's news to you

Pierow said:

---

aggiedad20 said:

---

If you're so enlightened, why is Acts 2:38 your signature? You don't really believe that verse do you? I mean, Acts 2 is basically considered heretical in most denominations.

Interesting post tho. Sorry about your mom. Sounds like there's other issues there to me.

---

I believe in all Scripture. The only Baptists that I know now, where I do go to church, believe baptism is necessary. You cannot join the Baptist church if you've not been baptized. Baptism is a commandment, not an alternative suggestion. I don't disagree with a lot of church of Christ teachings. I just disagree that I have anything to do with my ongoing salvation. It's all the work of Jesus Christ, and it was finished at the cross. The only thing I bring to the equation was my sin that he forgave. That's all.

As for my mother, I'm working on her, and she's getting better. Growing up, I've known a lot of beautiful Christians in the church of Christ. I just couldn't sit there Sunday after Sunday and listen to the same erroneous teaching on having to keep your salvation. It drove me crazy, and I had to leave.

---

Care to elaborate on the erroneous teachings or are just slinging stuff against the wall?

Baptist don't believe baptism is necessary for salvation, unless it's to get oneself into their denomination. They believe baptism comes after a new believer is saved to show the public/outward sign of an inward change. How rich is it that a denomination names itself after a religious act they don't even believe essential for salvation?? It's really unbelievable if you think about it. According to baptists or anabaptist, It's actually harder to get into the baptist church than into God's kingdom.

Denominationalism is a wreck.

You basically assert that the churches of Christ had no historical remnant until Stone or Campbell and when challenged on the truthfulness of said assertion, you get your denominational panties in a wad and storm off to the wine cellar...lol

Typical

Id be interested in seeing evidence of the historical remnant. Can you go century by century, perhaps?

Zobel said:

---

Id be interested in seeing evidence of the historical remnant. Can you go century by century, perhaps?

---

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1542-the-indestructible-church-of-christ

Interesting article on Campbell...he was a baptist initially, just like you Zoe

https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/the-legacy-of-campbells-error/

I'm glad that the churches I attended within the Church of Christ denomination were not as arrogant and hateful as others in the denomination.

Thst is literally the argument from silence.

PacifistAg said:

---

I'm glad that the churches I attended within the Church of Christ denomination were not as arrogant and hateful as others in the denomination.

---

As I mentioned earlier, I have CofC friends who are nothing like what has been posted here. Humble, Christ like, fruits of the Spirit, etc.

It is a worthy denomination.

dermdoc said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

I'm glad that the churches I attended within the Church of Christ denomination were not as arrogant and hateful as others in the denomination.

---

As I mentioned earlier, I have CofC friends who are nothing like what has been posted here. Humble, Christ like, fruits of the Spirit, etc.

It is a worthy denomination.

---

Definitely. I truly met Jesus for the first time at a Church of Christ. Some of the most loving, kind, and compassionate people I've ever met.

Zobel said:

---

No, I haven't seen anything that suggests this. The link you said point to some nondenominational churches without any evidence that they believe what you believe. Lots of non-denoms today aren't CoC. It also says something along the lines of "history is hard."

Argument from silence is the opposite of evidence.

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

An old minute book has been found of the year 1669 and it shows that they called themselves by the name church of Christ, practiced baptism by immersion, celebrated the Lord's Supper each Lord's Day, and had elders and deacons

---

You surely realize this describes a huge range of churches including Orthodox ones?

But at any rate. Cool, let's take for granted that this church in 1669 was identical in structure, belief, practice to yours.

What about 1500?
1400?
700?
400?

---

Exactly. I was raised in the church of Christ but they could never show me any proof of the church in that form, calling themselves the churches of Christ ever existed prior to the 1700s. They can't. It didn't exist under that nomenclature. And like I said before, some of the most Christian, sweet people on the planet I have ever known were members of the Church of Christ. But also, some of the most pharisaic people I've ever met who call themselves Christians were also members of that denomination. They even consider the term "denomination" a pejorative.

Waiting for the obligatory bourbon or wine "allegation". And I am not the one who needs a drink.

The next step aside from time is geography. Where were these people in France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Russia, Africa, etc?

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

An old minute book has been found of the year 1669 and it shows that they called themselves by the name church of Christ, practiced baptism by immersion, celebrated the Lord's Supper each Lord's Day, and had elders and deacons

---

You surely realize this describes a huge range of churches including Orthodox ones?

But at any rate. Cool, let's take for granted that this church in 1669 was identical in structure, belief, practice to yours.

What about 1500?
1400?
700?
400?

---

The church isn't mine, kind sur