Skip to main content

Hi to my Forum Friends,

While folks are knocking heads with Jennifer and Chick in the discussion about the Salvation Army, begun by Contendah and titled "Did You Know THIS About" -- where Contendah is chastising the Salvation Army over their policy of not having Baptism and Communion -- I will just slip out the back door and take my discussion with Extra on this subject elsewhere.

Extra, you tell me, "Bill, I disagree with you bit.  While I agree Salvation is by faith in Christ without works, clearly Jesus commanded his followers to do two things, to both identify with Himself and act as a reminder of Him -- baptism and the Lord's Supper.  The Apostles were commanded to baptize and Paul passed that command to the church in 1 Corinthians 11 when he said  to "keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you."

The passage I believe you were thinking of when you wrote, "The Apostles were commanded to baptize and Paul passed that  command to the church in Corinthians 11 when he said to "keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you" -- is 1 Corinthians 11:23-24, when Paul tells the church of Corinth, "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, 'This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' "  Here, the apostle Paul is instructing us to keep the ordinance of Communion.

Extra, I agree with you completely that Baptism and Communion are very important in our Christian lives.  However, our salvation is not based upon either.  But, Jesus Himself did set the standard for baptism when He had John the Baptist baptize Him -- even though He was sinless.  And, He did tell us in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 to take Communion in remembrance of Him.

But, if you will look at 1 Corinthians 1:11-12, the apostle Paul is chastising the church at Corinth because they are arguing over who baptized them, i.e., "For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, 'I am of Paul,' and 'I of Apollos,' and 'I of Cephas,' and 'I of Christ.' "

And, in the following passage, Paul tells them, in 1 Corinthians 1:13-17, "Has Christ been divided?  Paul was not crucified for you, was he?  Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?  I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.  Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know  whether I baptized any otherFor Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so  that the cross of Christ would not be made void."

And, in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul is still admonishing the church of Corinth for the way it acts when taking the Lord's Supper.

1 Corinthians 11:17-22, "But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.  For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.  For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.  Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and  another is drunk.  What!  Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink?  Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing?  What shall I say to you?  Shall I praise you?  In this I will not praise you."

First, while Paul calls this the Lord's Supper -- I relate to this more as a Food Fellowship.  For they are actually eating their dinner/supper at this time.  To me, this is more like what we read in Acts 2:42 of the new Christian church, "They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer."

And, I can easily relate to this -- for the Filipino churches are infamous for our Food Fellowship.  After our worship service and before Sunday School, we have Food Fellowship -- most often lots of scrumptious Filipino food.  We take about 45 minutes to an hour to fellowship with one another, enjoy the company of our Christian brothers and sisters, and at the same time have great food.  Then, we finish the day in Sunday School -- studying and discussing God's Word.  This is the feeling I get from the passage above and Paul's admonition that some are hogging the food and leaving others to stay hungry.

Communion (or the true Lord's Supper), on the other hand, is the taking of unleavened bread/wafers which symbolize the body of Christ, broken for us.  And, it is the drinking of juice which symbolizes the blood of Christ, spilled for us.   And, we do this in remembrance of Him and what He has done for us.

But, this is very important.  Who is to take this symbolic body and blood of Christ in Communion with Him?  It is only meant for those in the family of God, those who are children of God through having been born-again into His body of believers.   


1 Corinthians 11:26-27, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.  Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.  But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup."   The non-believer should never take Communion.

Since Communion/the Lord's Supper is only for those who are already saved -- it cannot be a part of our salvation.   But, like  baptism, we do both in remembrance of Him and what He did to offer us salvation.  Neither is a condition of salvation.  Both are the  result of our being already saved.

Then, Extra, you tell me, "While I have no beef with the Salvation army, I don't recognize them as a church.  I see them more as an extension of the church.  That said, since they are not a church, and their clergy not ordained, they have no biblical authority to practice Baptism or Communion."

First, I believe any believer has the authority to baptize another or to serve Communion.  One does not have to be an ordained pastor to do this.

In Protestant churches, an ordained pastor is one who has a Master's degree from an accredited seminary.  However, a local church can commission a man to be pastor of that local church without the degree.  This most often happens when a commissioned pastor is also attending seminary.  Twelve years ago, the man who is pastor of our church in Corona was a seminary student at Biola University/Talbot  Seminary when our senior pastor commissioned him as pastor of our local church.  Two years later, when he finished seminary, he was ordained.  But, during that two years he functioned as our pastor and did a very good job.

Regarding the Salvation Army -- like you, I have never thought of it as a church.  But, there are people who do attend their services as though it is a church.  Why would you say that their clergy is not ordained?

From the Salvation Army "About Us" Web Site: http://www.salvationarmysouth.org/about.htm


Salvation Army officers are ordained ministers serving in The Salvation Army in a professional capacity and on a full-time basis.  They are members of The Salvation Army who commit their lives to doing God's will and serving others.

 

However, I did learn one thing from this web page which surprised me.  It appears that the Salvation Army is Arminian in their beliefs.  For, in their "What The Salvation Army Believes" section, we are told:


Repentance toward God, faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and regeneration by the Holy Spirit, are necessary to salvation.

We are justified by grace, through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and that he that believeth hath the witness in himself.

Continuance in a state of salvation depends upon continued obedient faith in Christ.

It is the privilege of all believers to be wholly sanctified, and that their whole spirit and soul and body may be preserved  blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

This is the Arminian belief that a person once truly saved -- can lose his/her salvation.   This doe not agree with Ephesians 1:13, 4:30 which tells us that a person who believes is sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption.  If that person is sealed by  the Holy Spirit -- how can he/she be drawn away from God?  And, Jesus tells us in John 6:47, "He who believes HAS eternal life"  This does not say, "Has eternal life if. . ." or "Still has eternal life if. . ."  No, it says, "He who believes HAS eternal life"

And, we are assured in John 10:28-29 that NO ONE (and that No One is all inclusive, also including the believer himself) can snatch the believer from the hands of Jesus Christ and God the Father.

So, since the Holy Spirit has sealed me in Christ -- and Jesus Christ Himself has assured me that NO ONE can snatch me out of  His hands -- I feel very secure in Christ.  That is eternal security -- and anyone who is always looking over his shoulders, afraid of losing his salvation -- cannot possibly have eternal security.

So, Extra, I suppose in summary, I must say that although I had not looked at the Salvation Army as a church before -- it does appear that they are a church, with ordained pastors.  And, while I do not necessarily agree with them on their practice of no baptism and no Communion -- that does not stop them from being a very effective Christian church.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

1 Corinthians 1-8

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1 Corinthians 1-8
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Missing the mark big time, Bill.  You submit the following in attempted support of your position on the non-necessity of baptism:

 

<<<And, in the following passage, Paul tells them, in 1 Corinthians 1:13-17, "Has Christ been divided?  Paul was not crucified for you, was he?  Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?  I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know  whether I baptized any other.  For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so  that the cross of Christ would not be made void.">>>


That passage ( For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel) and its context actually demonstrate that baptism is part of the sinner's obedient response that brings him/her into fellowship with Christ. The obvious answers to the rhetorical questions posed by Paul are as follows:

 

"Has Christ been divided? No, therefore your loyalty is to Christ, not to Paul or any other man.  


"Paul was not crucified for you, was he?"  No--it was Christ who was crucified for you; therefore you are Christ's, and not Paul's


"Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"  No, you were baptized in the name of Christ; therefore you belong to Christ and your ultimate loyalty is to Him, not to Paul or any other man.

 

Paul was addressing a question posed by the divided loyalties of the Corinthians. The question may be fairly stated as,  "Who do you belong to?" He chose two things to illustrate to these confused Christians where their loyalty was owed.  One was the crucifixion.  Christ was crucified for them; therefore they belonged to Christ.  The second was baptism.  They were baptized in the name of Christ; therefore they belonged to Christ.


It was apparently Paul's custom to entrust the physical act of baptizing converts to an assistant such as John Mark, Silas or Timothy. There were occasions, however, when he found it necessary to do the actual baptizing with his own hands, as in the cases here cited. He, in this passage, viewed it as providential that he had baptized so few of them, thus denying them any excuse for connecting his name with a party. Both Crispus and Gaius were prominent Christians, Crispus having been the ruler of a synagogue. Paul did, in fact, baptize both of these men.

 

When Paul says,   "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel," he was by no means denigrating the significance or necessity of baptism.  The construction of this sentence is akin to that used by John in I John 3:18: "My little children, let us not love in word, neither with the tongue, but in deed and truth." Certainly, John was not saying that Christians should not vocally utter expressions of love; he was saying that words alone are not enough to prove one's love for another, that deeds are the real confirmation of brotherly love. Similarly, Paul was sent both to preach the Gospel and to baptize--or to see to the baptism--of. those who accepted Christ.  In doing so, he, as with the other apostles, was following Jesus' command in  Matthew 28:20--"Go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...."   The inclusion of baptism in this Commission dispels any view that it can be considered optional or permissive; it is commanded, not for one or for a few, but for all, "every creature" (Mark 16: 15 & 16).

Bill,

 The scripture i referenced in Chapter 11 was verse 2, "Now i praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and that you keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you."

 

 The ordinances were delivered to the Apostles during the earthly ministry of Christ, and they delivered them to the Churches during their ministries. The ordinances, while not necessary for salvation are indeed commands of Christ to be kept. It would be laughable for one to call themselves a church or body of Christ and then not even observe the basic commands of Christ.

 

 As for the ordinantion of the Salvation Army clergy, I had no idea they were ordained. I was wrong on that one, thanks for correcting me.

 

 The purpose of ordination is the symbolic transferral of authority. In the early church, only those ordained Baptized and administered the Communion. Frankly said, if someone is baptizing and they are not ordained, they are not administering Bible Baptism, but is and always was considered the Baptism of heretics. The Bible says that "there is safely in a multitude of councellors". The purpose of the ordination by a presbytery is the thurough examination of the person to be ordained to prevent false doctine and false teachers. In this modern world, church polity has been dispensed with for modern methods. This attitude that anyone can go start a church and baptize and administer the ordinances has given us all the tv rip off evangelists, who when caught in their sins, we find there is no structure of accountability behind them.

 Give me an ordained clergy anyday.

 

 

Hi Extra,

You tell me, "Bill,  The Scripture I referenced in Chapter 11 was verse 2, 'Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all  things, and that you keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you.'

The ordinances were delivered to the Apostles during the earthly ministry of Christ, and they delivered them to the Churches during their ministries. The ordinances, while not necessary for salvation are indeed commands of Christ to be kept.  It would be laughable for one to call themselves a church, or body of Christ, and then not even observe the basic commands of Christ."

You are using the King James Bible, and I have no problem with that.  In my Bible studies and writings I normally use the NASB, NKJV, and KJV -- in that order.  In my writings, sometimes I will use the NIV.  And, at rare times, I may even use a paraphrase version such at the New Living Bible if it helps me better explain the point I am trying to make.

In the NASB translation, Paul speaking in 1 Corinthians 11:2, "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold  firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you."

This word, in the twelve English Bible translations found in the Blue Letter Bible web site (http://www.blueletterbible.org), comes from the same Greek word "paradosis" and only the King James and the Webster translation, done by Noah Webster in 1833, which, at that time he most likely used the KJV as his source -- translates the word as "ordinance."  The other ten translations, including the NASB and the NKJV, translate the word as either "traditions" or "teachings."   So, it would seem that the majority of Bible translators see this as meaning traditions or teachings passed down by Jesus Christ.

In Strong's Concordance, the Greek word "paradosis" means: "A giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e.  tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc. (a) objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching, (b) of the body of  precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken  succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written Law, as they did were to be  obeyed with equal reverence."  

So, it is easy to see how the word "paradosis" could be translated as either ordinances, traditions, or  teachings.   In such cases, one needs to take into consideration the context of the passage in which the word is found.

In the NASB the word "ordinances" is found 78 times; all except one are found in the Old Testament and refer to the Law.


The one instance in Ephesians 2:15 (nasb) reads, "By abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of  commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace."


In the NKJV the word "ordinances" is found 28 times; all except one are found in the Old Testament and refer to the Law.


The one instance in Luke 1:6 (nkjv) reads, "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."  This verse is referring to Zacharias, the Judaic priest, and his wife, Elizabeth -- the parents of John the Baptist.

 

In the KJV the word "ordinances" is found 26 times.  Of these, 8 times the word is translated "ordinances" in the New Testament --  all of which refer back to the Law of Moses.


This passage in Ephesians is a good example of that use of the word "ordinances" -- when the apostle Paul is teaching about how God, through Jesus Christ, is bringing both the Jews (them that were nigh) and the Gentiles (you which were afar off) into the family of God.

Ephesians 2:13-17 (kjv), "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of  Christ.  For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us];  Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the Law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in  himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the  cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh."


So, I am comfortable in believing that, what we in the Christian world refer to as the Two Ordinances left to us by Jesus Christ, Baptism and Communion, to do in remembrance of Him until He returns -- are teachings we have adapted as ordinances from our study of the Bible.  Yet, which I believe we should do because we love Him.   But, I do not view these as firm law or commands given  to us.

Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 1:8, and Mark 16:15 I do view as firm COMMANDS given to all believers by Jesus Christ -- that we should all feel a burden to obey.   However, Baptism and Communion we do, voluntarily, for several reasons:  first, because we want the world to know that we are Christ Followers, children of God; second, because we love Him and want to honor Him; and, third, because He asked us to do these things in remembrance of Him.

But, when we get down to the nitty-gritty -- our salvation is not based upon us obeying Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 1:8, Mark 16:15 -- or our following the church ordained traditions of Baptism and Communion.  Our salvation is fully attained by the grace of God, through faith in Jesus Christ -- plus nothing else.  These things, baptism and communion, are not the cause of our salvation -- but, are the fruit, the effect, of our salvation.

Then, Extra, you write, "As for the ordination of the Salvation Army clergy, I had no idea they were ordained.  I was wrong on that  one, thanks for correcting me."

Quite honestly, I was not sure myself until I looked at their web site.  Like you, and most people, I have always viewed the Salvation Army more as a great worldwide charity -- and, as I believe you wrote, an extension of our Christian outreach ministry to the world.

You tell me, "The purpose of ordination is the symbolic transferal of authority.  In the early church, only those ordained (could) Baptize and administer Communion.  Frankly said, if someone is baptizing and they are not ordained, they are not administering Bible Baptism, but is and always was considered the Baptism of heretics.  The Bible says that 'there is safety in a multitude of counselors.' "

Here, I am not sure if you are quoting our Forum Friend, Frankly.  Or, if you the one saying, "Frankly (meaning sincerely), I believe this."

But, consider this, what if we limit the administering of baptism and communion to only those who are ordained, only those with a Master's degree from a seminary -- and, someone is alone with only Christian lay friends who are witnessing to him.  Let's stretch the scenario a wee bit and say that this person is hurt, may die, and wants to be baptized and to receive communion.

Would you say it is okay for those lay Christians to administer baptism and communion to their newly regenerated Christian brother?   If it is okay under those circumstances -- why not in other circumstances where no clergy is available?  Or, when only commissioned, but not yet ordained, clergy is available?

And, as you know, some of our Christian brothers believe that a person who is not baptized is not saved.  What happens to this person, alone with only lay Christians, who desires to become a believer, invite Jesus into his heart, and be saved?  Can he not be saved -- because there is no clergy available to baptize him?

Extra, do you see the limitations we put on God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit -- when we begin to wrap our faith in too many restrictions, traditions, and laws?  The Gospel of Jesus Christ and salvation are simple, easy for all to attain.  Why limit them by adding the burden of traditions, dogmas, and laws?

Next, you tell me, "The purpose of the ordination by a presbytery is the thorough examination of the person to be ordained to prevent false doctrine and false teachers.  In this modern world, church polity has been dispensed with for modern methods.  This attitude that anyone can go start a church -- and baptize and administer the ordinances -- has given us all the TV rip-off evangelists, who when caught in their sins, we find there is no structure of accountability behind them.  Give me an ordained clergy any day."

While the growing number of false teachers and false doctrines bother me also; we both know this is Biblical prophesy -- that these cancers will grow, more and more, as we get closer to the day when He will come again to claim His body of believers out of this world, i.e., the Rapture.  The restoration of Israel as a nation and the growing apostasy are two of the signs that His return is growing  closer.

And, I, too, am a strong supporter of our clergy being well educated.  However, even though we have educated clergy; I still believe the admonition of Paul in Acts 17:11 is well advised -- test the teachings of all teachers -- against the Written Word of God.  You and I both know that there are even accredited seminaries which teach false teachings and false doctrines.  Where else could the false teachers have learned it and honed their skills of deception?

So, yes, I respect a pastor/teacher, i.e., clergy, who is well educated.  But, I will look to see where he was educated.  And, I will not discount those pastor/teachers who do not yet have a degree from a seminary.  I have studied under excellent pastor/teachers who were commissioned by the local church -- but, did not yet have a degree, and were not yet ordained.

A wonderful example of a less educated pastor, with no seminary degree, doing great things for the body of Christ -- is the pastor of a small Baptist church in Columbus, Ohio, who led the teenage Ergun Caner -- from a Sunni Muslim family, the son of an Islamic leader -- to Christ.

Today, he is is Dr. Ergun Caner and according to his writings, the pastor who led him to Christ only had an eighth grade education -- but, this pastor knew the Word of God and he had the love of God working through him.  As a result, Ergun Caner became a Christian believer, then led his two Muslim brothers, i.e., siblings, to Jesus Christ.  As Dr. Caner tells us, "This man and his church loved me all the way to the cross."

Today, both Ergun Caner and his brother, Emir, have their Ph.d. and are leaders of Christian schools.  Dr. Ergun Caner is the past dean of the seminary at Liberty University in Virginia.  He has recently accepted the position of Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs at Arlington Baptist College (Southern Baptist) in Arlington, Texas.  Dr. Caner will also teach Theology, Church History, and Apologetics.

His brother, Dr. Emir Caner, is president of Truett-McConnell College, a Christian College in Cleveland, Georgia.

These men are the fruit of the Christian teachings of a Baptist pastor with only an eighth grade education.   So, we cannot discount the power of God when He is working through men and women who love and follow His teachings.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Be Still - Know I Am God

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Be Still - Know I Am God
quote: Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:

Are Baptism And Communion Requirements For Salvation?   No, and neither is anything else.  Next question.


Hi Jimi,

 

Then, tell us WHAT is required to have eternal salvation?  We would love to have your take on how to attain eternal life.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

quote:   Originally Posted by prince albert:

According to the Bible Baptism and Communion is set forth as a requirement to everyone but Bill Gray, he is saved by Ephesians 2:8&9


Hi Albert,

 

Don't just tell us what the Bible says -- SHOW US!  Show us where, in the Bible, Baptism and Communion are given as a command from Jesus and declared as ordinances.

 

Did you bother to read my post discussing this?  Or did you just put on your Legalistic Glasses and refuse to even consider what I have written?

 

Either way, my Friend, we are both saved and will spend eternity with Christ.  The only difference is that you are walking through this life -- with a big load of Legalistic Bricks on your back.  

 

Salvation, eternal life in Christ -- is simple.    "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves -- it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast"  (Ephesians 2:8-9) . 

 

Sweet and simple.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Saved By Grace

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Saved By Grace

I'm not taking the time to read all the long posts preceding mine but the answer is no, Baptism and/or Communion is not a requirement, the only thing that can provide salvation is the grace of God which is there for the asking. For lack of a better comparison I would liken Baptism to a marriage ceremony and Communion with the reception as neither are required for two people to be married but it's still the traditional thing to do. Likewise with Baptism and Communion, neither are required for salvation but are only symbolic gestures but I believe that it's pleasing to God for Christians to do both.

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
quote:   Originally Posted by prince albert:

According to the Bible Baptism and Communion is set forth as a requirement to everyone but Bill Gray, he is saved by Ephesians 2:8&9


Hi Albert,

 

Don't just tell us what the Bible says -- SHOW US!  Show us where, in the Bible, Baptism and Communion are given as a command from Jesus and declared as ordinances.

 

Did you bother to read my post discussing this?  Or did you just put on your Legalistic Glasses and refuse to even consider what I have written?

 

Either way, my Friend, we are both saved and will spend eternity with Christ.  The only difference is that you are walking through this life -- with a big load of Legalistic Bricks on your back.  

 

Salvation, eternal life in Christ -- is simple.    "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves -- it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast"  (Ephesians 2:8-9) . 

 

Sweet and simple.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Saved By Grace

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

                                        "THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME"

 

Bill, when Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, he said, "This DO in remembrance of me." When the Lord Himself said to DO something, what is it about that that compels you to consider it something other than a COMMAND?

 

Your lengthy rambling sortie into etymological implications of "commandments", "ordinances," "tradition," etc.  fades into insignificance in the face of this FACT: Jesus said to DO IT. We are therefore commanded by Jesus to DO it.  Occam's razor applies here in spades.

 

One of your favorite dodges, Bill, is to accuse your opponents of "legalism" when you are faced with CHALLENGING, detailed and cogent arguments that dispute your beliefs.  In this case, Bill, it is YOU who are wallowing chin deep in legalism in your shabby attempt to diminish a commandment of the Lord Jesus Himself.   You own Jesus an apology.

 

                                            "THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME"

Last edited by Contendah
quote:   Originally Posted by Contendah:
                                                    "THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME"

 

Bill, when Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, he said, "This DO in remembrance of me." When the Lord Himself said to DO something, what is it about that that compels you to consider it something other than a COMMAND?


Hi BeterCon,

 

Then, based upon YOUR logic -- when you tell someone to, "Have a Merry Christmas!" -- that IS A COMMAND -- not a wish for them to have a wonderful Christmas celebrating the birth of Christ.  Right? 

 

This is not a command, only a suggestion:  Take off your hairy shirt of Legalism -- and search for the true meaning of God's Word, not what some Legalistic church has taught you.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day (wish, not command)

 

Bill

Daily To Do List

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Daily To Do List
quote:   Originally Posted by BFred07:

I'm not taking the time to read all the long posts preceding mine but the answer is no, Baptism and/or Communion is not a requirement, the only thing that can provide salvation is the grace of God which is there for the asking.  For lack of a better comparison I would liken Baptism to a marriage ceremony and Communion with the reception as neither are required for two people to be married but it's still the traditional thing to do.  Likewise with Baptism and Communion, neither are required for salvation but are only symbolic gestures but I believe that it's pleasing to God for Christians to do both.


Hi Fred,

 

That is an excellent analogy!  Thank you.  I will use that in our Bible Study this afternoon, for we are discussing Colossians 2:16-23 which is about false teachers and false teachings. 

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
quote:   Originally Posted by BFred07:

I'm not taking the time to read all the long posts preceding mine but the answer is no, Baptism and/or Communion is not a requirement, the only thing that can provide salvation is the grace of God which is there for the asking.  For lack of a better comparison I would liken Baptism to a marriage ceremony and Communion with the reception as neither are required for two people to be married but it's still the traditional thing to do.  Likewise with Baptism and Communion, neither are required for salvation but are only symbolic gestures but I believe that it's pleasing to God for Christians to do both.


Hi Fred,

 

That is an excellent analogy!  Thank you.  I will use that in our Bible Study this afternoon, for we are discussing Colossians 2:16-23 which is about false teachers and false teachings. 

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

*********

You go right ahead and adapt Fred's theologically corrupt opinion into your Bible Study, Bill.  It is you who are the false teacher when you classify as optional something Jesus plainly instructed His followers to DO! 
This DO in remembrance of me."  His words, Bill, not mine.  Your interpretation would be something like, "This do if you want to, but otherwise never mind." 

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
quote:   Originally Posted by Contendah:
                                                    "THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME"

 

Bill, when Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, he said, "This DO in remembrance of me." When the Lord Himself said to DO something, what is it about that that compels you to consider it something other than a COMMAND?


Hi BeterCon,

 

Then, based upon YOUR logic -- when you tell someone to, "Have a Merry Christmas!" -- that IS A COMMAND -- not a wish for them to have a wonderful Christmas celebrating the birth of Christ.  Right? 

 

This is not a command, only a suggestion:  Take off your hairy shirt of Legalism -- and search for the true meaning of God's Word, not what some Legalistic church has taught you.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day (wish, not command)

 

Bill

Daily To Do List

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

 

You have gravitated from the absurd to the asinine with that flabby, irrelevant attempt at diminishing a command of the Lord Jesus Christ, Bill. Anyone, with the possible exception of you or someone else with an adamantine resistance to obvious truth, would know that a casual wish  to someone for a "Merry Christmas" has NOTHING like the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself setting forth instruction (and yes--a COMMAND) to his Apostles concerning the manner in which He wishes his redeeming death to be remembered. Your cheap attempt at drawing a parallel between the mundane and the sacred is an insult in the face of God.  You should be ashamed.

 

Again, Bill, you resort to the deranged accusation that insistence on DOing that which Jesus plainly instructed His followers to DO is somehow "legalistic." That kind of illogical, warped accusation is just another example of how far you will stretch and strain the truth in order to defend your own false doctrine!

 

Once more, Bill--When the Lord Himself said to DO something, what is it about that that compels you to consider it something other than a COMMAND?  What is the difference between what He said here and a "command"? None, Bill, and I believe you know that, but you feel obliged to deny it, since it contradicts your diluted and depauperate soteriology.

 

Bill, as I've stated many times before, needs to give up on analogies.  To liken himself wishing a Merry Christmas to Jesus instructing the disciples is either just a massive fail, or Bill equating himself with Jesus.  One shows Bill's ignorance, the other his narcissism. 

 

BFred's analogy fails when he tries to lump three sacraments with a party.  

 

Bill must serve some freaking, awesome donuts to get people to come listen to him in Sunday school.

quote:   Originally Posted by Contendah:
Once more, Bill--When the Lord Himself said to DO something, what is it about that that compels you to consider it something other than a COMMAND?  What is the difference between what He said here and a "command"?  None, Bill, and I believe you know that, but you feel obliged to deny it, since it contradicts your diluted and depauperate soteriology.

Hi BeterCon,

 

You and Lex seem to have missed the whole point of the question which began this discussion:   "Are Baptism And Communion Requirements For Salvation?"

 

I have never said that we should NOT be Baptized and take Communion.  By all means, we most certainly should be declaring our faith in, and our love for, Jesus Christ -- by following Him in baptism.  Absolutely we should do this.

 

And, we absolutely should be keeping remembrance of Him through regularly receiving Communion; symbolizing His body broken for us and His blood spilled for us.  No Christian believer ever should miss an opportunity to honor Him, and remember Him, this way.

 

But, the point of my question was and is:  Is our salvation affected by whether or not we are Baptized or take Communion?  And, the answer is a resounding NO!  These are things that all BELIEVERS are instructed to do.  What is a believer?  This is one who has ALREADY been saved, who has already been indwelled and sealed by the Holy Spirit. 

 

The same is true of the Great Commission given to ALL Christian believers in Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 1:8, and Mark 16:15.   This is a command given to all believers.   What is a believer?  This is one who has ALREADY been saved, who has already been indwelled and sealed by the Holy Spirit.

 

Therefore, neither the Great Commission, nor Baptism, nor Communion are required for one to be saved.  These are all actions, i.e., fruits, of our salvation.   And, that, my Friends, is the whole point of my question and this discussion. 

 

Yes, EVERY believer should be Baptized, take Communion, and be active in the Great Commission -- after they become believers.  None of these things mean anything to a non-believer.

 

I pray that I have made the issue more clear to both of you.  

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
quote:   Originally Posted by Contendah:
Once more, Bill--When the Lord Himself said to DO something, what is it about that that compels you to consider it something other than a COMMAND?  What is the difference between what He said here and a "command"?  None, Bill, and I believe you know that, but you feel obliged to deny it, since it contradicts your diluted and depauperate soteriology.

Hi BeterCon,

 

You and Lex seem to have missed the whole point of the question which began this discussion:   "Are Baptism And Communion Requirements For Salvation?"

 

I have never said that we should NOT be Baptized and take Communion.  By all means, we most certainly should be declaring our faith in, and our love for, Jesus Christ -- by following Him in baptism.  Absolutely we should do this.

 

And, we absolutely should be keeping remembrance of Him through regularly receiving Communion; symbolizing His body broken for us and His blood spilled for us.  No Christian believer ever should miss an opportunity to honor Him, and remember Him, this way.

 

But, the point of my question was and is:  Is our salvation affected by whether or not we are Baptized or take Communion?  And, the answer is a resounding NO!  These are things that all BELIEVERS are instructed to do.  What is a believer?  This is one who has ALREADY been saved, who has already been indwelled and sealed by the Holy Spirit. 

 

The same is true of the Great Commission given to ALL Christian believers in Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 1:8, and Mark 16:15.   This is a command given to all believers.   What is a believer?  This is one who has ALREADY been saved, who has already been indwelled and sealed by the Holy Spirit.

 

Therefore, neither the Great Commission, nor Baptism, nor Communion are required for one to be saved.  These are all actions, i.e., fruits, of our salvation.   And, that, my Friends, is the whole point of my question and this discussion. 

 

Yes, EVERY believer should be Baptized, take Communion, and be active in the Great Commission -- after they become believers.  None of these things mean anything to a non-believer.

 

I pray that I have made the issue more clear to both of you.  

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

My, my, hsw very soon you forget!  It was YOU,  Bill who demanded THIS of Prince Albert:

 

"Don't just tell us what the Bible says -- SHOW US!  Show us where, in the Bible, Baptism and Communion are given as a command from Jesus and declared as ordinances.

 

I have shown you, above, (1) where Jesus commanded communion ("This DO....")  and (2)

where you misused and misapplied I Corinthians 1:17 ("For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel") in an effort to denigrate the significance placed upon baptism by the Apostle Paul.  

  

Thus far, you have not attempted to address either of these points.  Instead, you have reverted to an argument that is basically this:  Since one can never ever be lost after one has been saved, nothing one does or does not do after being saved will cause one to be lost, i.e. the old "once saved, always saved" stuff that you continue to insist upon, despite the huge body of scripture to the contrary.

 

For so long as you continue to embrace that core tenet of Calvinism, Bill, you will continue to seek devious and artful means of rejecting the necessity of baptism in salvation and of arguing that a saved person can, with impunity,  brazenly refuse to observe the Lord's Supper in defiance of His COMMAND and still be in mighty fine standing with God and Christ.

 

You really need to re-think these things, Bill.  Meanwhile, do not accuse Albert or me or anyone else of missing the point.  Again, as to "commandments," it was neither I nor Albert who made the demand, ""Don't just tell us what the Bible says -- SHOW US!  Show us where, in the Bible, Baptism and Communion are given as a command from Jesus and declared as ordinances." Having done so,   you come off a bit silly by objecting to my SHOWING you just what you yourself DEMANDED!

 

As to the matter of something being "declared as ordinances," I am not sure what you are asking for that would add to the matter of something being "commanded". If something is "commanded" and if the command comes from Jesus Himself, that might not be enough for you, but it suffices for me.

 

Hi BeterCon,

 

Sweet and simple.   Are we saved through baptism and communion?  Or are baptism and communion what is expected of us AFTER we have become believers?  Can a non-believer take communion in your church?  If not, then, if communion is a requirement of salvation -- how can anyone be saved?

 

Can you not see that you are creating a Catch 22?   Communion is required to become a believer.  But, anyone who is not a believer cannot receive communion.  How do you get around this problem?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi BeterCon,

anyone who is not a believer cannot receive communion. 

 Bill

_________________________

Bill, I'm curious about your take on those people that's  a believer but not a Christian? I don't mean those that say they're a Christian but don't live it, but those that believe but have never been saved. Can they receive communion? Even those in a backsliden state, can they?

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi BeterCon,

 

Sweet and simple.   Are we saved through baptism and communion?  Or are baptism and communion what is expected of us AFTER we have become believers?  Can a non-believer take communion in your church?  If not, then, if communion is a requirement of salvation -- how can anyone be saved?

 

Can you not see that you are creating a Catch 22?   Communion is required to become a believer.  But, anyone who is not a believer cannot receive communion.  How do you get around this problem?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

********

 

No Catch-22 at all, Bill.

 

A person who has been saved was saved before that person ever scripturally partook of the Lord's Supper. The Lord's Supper very obviously was intended to be for those who have been saved.  Baptism, however, is something that the lost sinner submits to in order to receive the blessings of the death and blood of Jesus, as clearly described in Romans 6, a passage you prefer not to forthrightly address because it so powerfully describes the necessity of baptism in salvation.

 

Those who have been saved and who have partaken of the Lord's Supper may, nevertheless, subsequently become lost, as did those formerly saved insidious false teachers described in 2 Peter 2, another text you seem to be allergic to. Those described in Hebrews 6:1-8 similarly were formerly saved persons who later apostatized.  In no  way can the clear teachings of these scriptures be rationally shown not to be describing the possibility and reality of apostasy.

 

Now, Bill, back to your assertion that communion and baptism are not commandments.  My last post before this one showed you that they ARE commandments, but you have ignored this.  It was YOU who demanded scriptural proof that they are commandments.  I provided that.  What is there about what I showed you that you deny? When Jesus said "This DO..." was that a "commandment or not? Or was it just some kind of "ordinance" that Christians could observe if they wanted to or, alternatively, refuse to do if that suited them?

Originally Posted by semiannualchick:
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi BeterCon,

anyone who is not a believer cannot receive communion. 

 Bill

_________________________

Bill, I'm curious about your take on those people that's  a believer but not a Christian? I don't mean those that say they're a Christian but don't live it, but those that believe but have never been saved. Can they receive communion? Even those in a backsliden state, can they?

===================================

don't worry about asking him semi Bill has nulled any requirements

Originally Posted by BFred07:

Judging from the talk about commands, obedience, etc I am assuming that we have some Church of Christ members here? Well anyway, I don't agree. Salvation would come before Baptism or taking communion.

_________________

_________________

 

So we don't need baptism in order to be saved?  It did not work out that way for Paul. Here is what he was told to do:

 

"And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16)

 

Many believe that Paul was saved on the Damascus Road (See Acts 9:1-9).  That flies in the face of the clear teaching of scripture.  If he was in his sins when Ananias issued the above-quoted instructions (AFTER the Damascus Road events had already occurred), then his sins had not been forgiven on the Damascus Road. And if his sins had not been forgiven, then he had not been saved. If Paul had called upon the name of the Lord on the Damascus road, there would have been no need for Ananias to later instruct him to call upon the name of the Lord. The clear facts are that Paul was NOT saved on the Damascus road.  Rather, he was told where to go to find out what he needed to do to be saved, and he was told by Ananias what he must do:  "Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

 

Paul's salvation did not come before baptism and neither does yours or mine.

Do you still disagree, BFred07?  Is your salvation obtained via some other way than was Paul's?

Last edited by Contendah
Originally Posted by Contendah:
 

 

Paul's salvation did not come before baptism and neither does yours or mine.

Do you still disagree, BFred07?  Is your salvation obtained via some other way than was Paul's?

Since Paul was actually saved by grace on the road to Damascus, I guess we were saved in the same way as I was also saved by grace before I was baptized.

Originally Posted by BFred07:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
 

 

Paul's salvation did not come before baptism and neither does yours or mine.

Do you still disagree, BFred07?  Is your salvation obtained via some other way than was Paul's?

Since Paul was actually saved by grace on the road to Damascus, I guess we were saved in the same way as I was also saved by grace before I was baptized.

___

Saying that he was saved by grace on the road to Damascus does not make it so. From  your reckoning, it is apparent that you believe that Paul was saved by grace before his sins were washed away and before he called upon the name of the Lord.  Care to make some substantive answer to that?   Read Acts 22; 6-22 and Acts 9:1-19.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Contendah, do you celebrate christmas?

___

I do not observe Christmas as any kind of religious observance.  I and my family do some of the secular things that are done during the holiday period. We exchange gifts and eat turkey and all that good stuff.  We do not find in the Bible any authority for singling out any particular one-day-of-the-year on which to take special note of the birth of Jesus or of His resurrection (i.e. "Easter").  Such "religious holidays" are purely the product of human tradition.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×