Here, here - I have quickly found something that the NT Church did that Norm Fields and his C of C church have not done - the NT Church STOPPED being PHARISEES - Norm does not match!!
That 1st church that was led by the Apostles and still teaches the faith of the Apostles passed on from generation to generation is the Orthodox Church. Jesus said " On this rock I will build my church and THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT". The coc says they had to reform the church because it was corrupted. They must have missed that verse. Wasn't God powerful enough to protect his church ?
COC is close to the first Church. The church was here before the New Testament was put together. This first church followed what the Apostles taught. This is refered to as "Apostolic Tradition". The CHURCH existed for 1000 years. Then the great schism that formed the Roman catholic church. The 1st church survived just like Christ said. Mat 16:18. Then the reformation happened. Churches where created by men to get as far away from the roman catholic as possible. Never knowing of the 1st church.
The true church of Jesus Christ is a relationship, not a membership. It isn’t any particular protestant denomination or Roman catholic. It doesn't have a roof or an address. We are the Body of Christ, past, present and future from all around the world who have accepted Christ’s work on the cross for our sins 2000 years ago, once and for all. Our names have been written in the Book of Life from the beginning. 1 cross + 3 nails = 4 given.
Bro looks like you are contradicting yourself; the bible says that if you don't believe what the old testament teaches than you won't believe in what the new testament says(john: 5: 46,47), how can I be a member of a new testament church when its founder Jesus Christ is the author of the old and new testament...He is the same,yesterday,today and forever...He never changes
@naciamaJYute Acts 20:7 Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight. 1 Corinthians 16:2 On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.
First day of the week, i.e. Sunday.
Where did the CHRISTIANS (not the Jews) meet on the Sabbath for worship in the New Testament?
@knightd94 You should read ALL of ACTS you would have discovered the texts yourself "As Paul and Barnabas were leaving the synagogue, the people invited them to speak further about these things on the next Sabbath" ACTS 13:42 (Please read the entire chapter)
This BTW was in a Gentile church in Antioch. Both Jews and Gentiles worshiped God on the Sabbath
I repeat ACTS 20:7 says NOTHING about a church service or Hallowing Sunday THIS IS NOT FOUND ANYWHERE IN SCRIPTURE
@naciamaJYute You just said that the synagogue was a Gentile church in Antioch. The synagogue was a Jewish place of worship. The first people to preach to would have been those that knew something about the scripture, or the Jews. That was not a gathering of Christians. 5And when they arrived in Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews.
It says nothing about a church service, but it IS a direct command of something to be done on the first day.
@naciamaJYute Keep reading. They were in the church in Antioch, which then sent them away to preach. The synagogue was in Salamis. The message was preached to the Jews, and 42 So when the Jews went out of the synagogue,[j] the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. 43 Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
@knightd94 Brother Paul preached the word whenever he was in town. Whatever day it was. He was to leave the following day and was giving them parting counsel. But you could not say that this was a regular church service.Further this event took place on Saturday night. For the Jewish day began at sunset. Paul was to leave Sunday morning
There is no way you can use this to support the outrageous (and satanic) claim that the Sabbath, made and blessed by God, was suddenly changed by the apostles
@naciamaJYute The Christians sent them to other cities. In this city they taught in a Jewish synagogue. Upon leaving that synagogue the gentiles asked them to teach the message to them the next time. They were in the place of Jewish meeting on the Jewish day of worship. He preached whatever day it was, but congregational worship took place on sunday. Worship can happen on any day, but there are specific commands (giving for instance) that are to take place on Sunday.
@naciamaJYute The Sabbath was not changed by the apostles. When Jesus died, the old law passed away, and the new law came into power. The examples and commands to Christians are never to meet on the Sabbath, but there ARE commands to meet on Sunday. Teaching can happen whenever. Worship can happen whenever. But there are certain acts that have been commanded or shown from example to happen on Sunday. one of these is giving.
@naciamaJYute Disclaimer: The church in verse one is in Antioch of Syria. Paul went out to preach, and the synagogue of a few verses later is in Salamis. Paul then came to Antioch of Pisidia, which is where the synagogue we are speaking of now was.
@naciamaJYute Except that the examples I gave you did in fact say that they met on Sunday. He did preach whenever he was in town, which is opposed to your claim about the "blessed" Sabbath.
The Christians met on the first day of the week. The Apostles did not change this, Christ did.
@knightd94 Luke 4: 16 says that it was His custom to attend worship in the synagogue on the sabbath. His disciples at His death only visited His tomb after the Sabbath had past in respect and obedience of the Sabbath.
Another time Jesus warned of the coming destruction of Jerusalem, an event that took place long after his death. In his warning He told them to "pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the SABBATH day" Matt 24:20
@naciamaJYute The New Law began at Christ's death; The Testament could only be switched with the death of the Testator (Hebrews 9:16). Jesus was a Jew, and therefore followed Jewish customs of worship.
Yes, Jesus kept the Sabbath; Again, He was a Jew. The Christians--His followers after His death--gathered for worship on Sunday, as has already been pointed out multiple times. They observed the Lord's Supper--which Jesus instituted--on Sunday. The first day of the week. (John 20:19)
@knightd94 What does John 20:19 prove? THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE IN SCRIPTURE THAT CHRISTIANS MET REGULARLY FOR WORSHIP ON SUNDAY AS THEY DID ON SABBATH. NONE!
And please dump this silly argument that Jesus was a Jew and we are not. I don't know about you but Jesus is my example. I will do as He did.
Besides, the Commandments are for all men. Jew and Gentile. Old and New Testament. The new covenant DID NOT alter God's Law. Once again you have no scriptural backing for your claims.
@naciamaJYute I already gave the verse that the testaments changed at the death of the Testator. So yes, there is backing to that. A very large portion of Hebrews. It is also hard to be a Jew and a Christian at the same time. Again, Hebrews speaks out against the Christians returning to the Old Law and Apostacy. John 20:19 says that it is the day the disciples gathered. Acts 20:7 "Now on the first day of the week, the disciples..." 1 Cor 16:2, "On the first day of the week, let..."
@naciamaJYute No, Jesus was a Jew. The Old Law was meant to point us to Christ. At His death, the New Law came into power. Since He lived before His death, he was under the Old Law. To be the perfect sacrifice, He had to follow that law. As Hebrews said, there had to be the death of the Testator for there to be a NEW Testament.
@knightd94 The "Old" Law IS meant to point us to Christ. There is no new law. (probably you can point it out but i cant find it). By the "Old" Law we have a knowledge of sin. Thus the need for a savior. In other words if there is no law then there is no sin and therefore no need for a savior.
@naciamaJYute I already gave you a verse saying that at His death there was a new testament. Testament means law... it does point us to Christ, because it explains and gives a parallel of why He had to die, as well as prophecy and validation of the New Law, which is the testament that occurred at his death. Again, you say I use no Scripture when you have used... how much? And entirely AVOID the Scriptures stating clearly there is a new testament and the disciples met on Sunday...
@knightd94 Forgive me. Let me go through this patiently, step by step with you.
1. The word Testament does not at all mean Law. The word testament refers to a will, or inheritance. That is why Paul says in Heb 9:16 the testator - Jesus- had to die. He died so that we could inherit His possession: eternal life and sons and daughters of the father.
2. None of the texts you pointed to state that the disciples met regularly for worship on Sunday.
@naciamaJYute They took the collection, regularly, on Sunday in 1 Corinthians. It said in John 20:19 "being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled" That structure "being the first day..." Means that was their habit.
The modern form of Testament is someone's will; as in what they leave behind, clearly structured. The Biblical form is "covenant" which is a binding agreement. It is a self-imposed law. The text does not refer to inheritance but to
@naciamaJYute a covenant. It even says in verse one of chapter 9 "first covenant." When you made a covenant, something was killed to establish that covenant. For the New Covenant, Jesus had to die. If you read the chapter it clearly does not refer to our inheritance but to a binding agreement or "law."
@naciamaJYute Again, the "covenants" were established after death. He had to die in order for the new COVENANT (which is used interchangeably in this chapter) to come into effect. Read the WHOLE context, don't pick apart phrases ;)
@knightd94 Come on Brother. Forget your pride. The text is absolutely clear. Do not fight against the Holy Spirit.
1. A Covenant is a contract that does not require the death of anyone or anything for it to be valid. However a testament is only of use to the inheritor after the death of the testator. These are two simple English words.
2. There is however a new covenant. But a covenant is not a testament and a testament is not a law.
@naciamaJYute Covenant and Testament are used interchangeably in this passage. One of the definitions of Testament is also a covenant. In this context and greek usage, the testament is a covenant. If you read the whole chapter, it tells of the first covenant--animal sacrifices--and then compares it to the new testament--Jesus' sacrifice. The words "testament" and "covenant" are used interchangeably, and please give an example of a covenant in the Bible without death involved.
@naciamaJYute If you read past the verse 17 you quoted, after saying that the testament requires the death of a testator it continues on to say "not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood" There is no mention of a new covenant here, only a new testament, and IT requiring blood. The comparison is new testament (covenant) to old covenant (testament).
@knightd94 Let me see if I can explain this briefly:
1. The old COVENANT was an agreement between God and Israel that if they kept His LAWs (which included the sacrifices) He would grant them His TESTAMENT (much like a father would to his son).
2. They did not keep their end of the bargain so there needed to be a new COVENANT. And this time it wasn't made with the Israelites specifically but to whosoever will. Jer 31:31-35.
3. Please note there was nothing wrong with the Law nor the Testament per say. The fault was with the people.
4. However we have a new and better covenant. Whereas the old required faith in God's sacrifice represented by a Lamb for one to inherit the testament (which many of them did not understand) the new covenant is established on Christ the true lamb. They repeatedly had to slay lambs and bulls to express their faith, for us Christ died once and all we have to do is believe.
@naciamaJYute 5. Therefore the old covenant operated thus: Gods 10 commandments pointed out your sin, thru faith in God's sacrifice represented by a slain Lamb pardon and redemption was gained. Meaning you were now a part of the family of God and thus an Heir, or inheritor. However you had to do this every time you sinned (i.e. daily). The Problem with this covenant was the people forsook God (i.e. broke the agreement of obedience)
@naciamaJYute That is totally irrelevant to the point that blood is required for a covenant and that there is a new covenant/testament. All you did was very loosely outline your interpretation of a somewhat misinformed plan of salvation. Also, it was God's plan from the beginning that Christ would come, not a last resort or reaction to the people's failures. The animal sacrifices/Jesus' sacrifice were a planned type/antitype. (1 Peter 1:19-21, 2 Tim 1:8-10)
@naciamaJYute It was known that they could not keep the law, and that was used to show them why they needed Jesus as well as to understand the necessity of a blood sacrifice. You are simply continuing your pattern of jumping to a new topic, giving no backing for it, and then later returning to old topics ignoring all evidence I gave WITH scripture, opposed to your lack of scripture, for the falsehood of your previous claims.
@knightd94 Listen. The burden of proof is not with me. From Genesis to the Revelation the Bible is replete with proof of the 7th day Sabbath, that's undeniable. You say it was changed by the apostles or Jesus, I say you prove it. So far you've quoted a bunch of texts saying that the disciples assembled together on Sunday. I'm sure they assembled on Monday as well.
There is no text where anyone explicitly says the sabbath was changed to Sunday. Heb 4:8,9 says the exact opposite
@naciamaJYute The "Sabbath" was not changed; We do not follow all of the commands of the Sabbath. The day of Worship was. The Sabbath is no longer part of worship, because the day of worship is Sunday and there are no commands concerning the Sabbath in the New Testament. The texts I quoted did state regality. Why would Paul ask for a collection on the first day of the week in a continuous grammatical sequence, implying taking a collection EVERY first day, if they were to meet on the Sabbath?
@naciamaJYute Your example in Hebrews says NOTHING concerning the observation of the Sabbath. It compares our promised rest (eternal) to the rest resembled in the Sabbath, as the Old Law was entirely a type/antitype scenario to help the Jews to better understand the New Law. That verse has NO example of practice and only mentions God resting on the seventh day. The disciples, as I have showed you many times, regularly gathered for worship on Sunday.
@naciamaJYute further, out of spite you claim and capitalize "DENOMINATION"
the basic definition of a denomination is a division or class of a larger whole. in the religious sense, all denominations would then be an equally valid part of a whole. the church of Christ does not consider itself part of those, as the churches belonging to Christ teach that there is only one way to heaven, opposed to what denominations teach. So, even without scripture, the churches of Christ are not a denomination.
The Book of Acts is the model for what the Christian Church should be like. However, this preacherNorm does not believe in the baptism of the Holy Ghost for today so by default his church does not match the description of the New Testament Church. And let me say that I am not a Charismatic but an old fashioned Holiness oriented and sanctification believing Pentecostal.
The TRUE church is NOT a denomination, nor is it made of brick and morter! The word "catholic" means 'universal' in the original greek dialect. This DOES NOT mean Roman Catholic, because the Roman Catholic "Church" took that from the original greek dialect. The church is a certain body of belivers who bear His Name, and not in the term of denomination.
Since every church claims to go "by the bible" and yet still contradict one another, we need to look at the post biblical writtings of the church fathers and read what church is described;
@Mothman454 wrong, you need to search the scriptures as God says to do, and you will see the truth for yourself, and the catholic religion is not it. Far from it.
1 Tim 4 says that in latter times some will depart from the faith giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons and 2 Tim 3:5 says they will have a form of godliness but deny the power and from such people turn away- this is the churches of christ I was a Church of christ until I read my bible through and through with no preconvictions just listening to Holy Spirit .
The churches of christ does not match the description of the New Testament Church
They will speak with new tongues. Mark 16:16-18 They will cast out demons they will lay hands on the sick and they will recover . James 5:14 They will call for the elders of the church anoint them with oil and they will be healed
Some fail to understand the term "if" as used in Romans 11:22, 2 Peter 2:20-22, Colossians 1:22-23, 1 John 1:7, Hebrews 6:4-6, Hebrews 10:26-27, Hebrews 3:14, etc. We are saved eternally "if" we remain faithful and obedient. But "if" we become unfaithful and disobedient, we will die lost souls. "If" we fall into this state, we must confess our sins and repent for forgiveness.
Quite simply I grew tired of the sectarian spirit that existed within your denomination. I grew tired of the arrogance exhibited by preachers like PreacherNorm and Johnny Robertson. I grew tired of keeping people who loved our Lord and Savior as much as I do out of the Kingdom because of legalistic teachings. I grew tired of limited theology that picks and chooses verses to build a belief system while ignoring others that disprove it. I have more - how many do you want friend?
Jesus and the apostles never taught "belief only justification", "sinner's prayer salvation" or "once saved, always saved" in the new covenant. Doctrines of men teach "do nothing to be saved" and "nothing can be done to lose salvation". According to this error, all members of the Lord's church would be saved since we believe and could never be lost. Nice thought but wrong. It is no wonder some choose not to discuss/debate because it causes them to have to address what the Bible actually says.
I DO NOT debate people who refuse to read, consider, and interpret ALL of the NT, but rather "pick and choose" comfortable scripture based on convenience to support their false, errant and sectarian theology!
"I DO NOT debate people who refuse to read, consider, and interpret ALL of the NT"
That's all well and good, and nor should you; it saves one many headaches. However, the demands you place on those with whom you discuss you should also place on yourself.
For instance, did you not realize that you took Hebrews 7:25 out of context - picking and choosing it to fit your own theology? I'll let you take a look at that to see if you can find out what the "therefore" is there for before going on.
Yes you did. You tried to use the Hebrews verse to show that when someone is saved, Jesus saved them "forever," that they are eternally in a saved condition. This is not what the passage is saying, and you absolutely HAVE taken it out of context.
The passage in question is contrasting specifically the old priesthood and the priesthood of Christ. Where the old priests where numerous and died off, Christ is One and Eternal. Therefore, Christ forever stands as a mediator for all time.
Thank you for making my point - your words: "therefore Christ forever stands as a mediator for all time." Yes correct, and from the moment of salvation, not beginning at some point in the future - it is operational from the moment I believed!
I am now returning to my retirement from debating members of your denomination, as I must sadly admit that my "meekness" suffers as a result of the futility in debating ones who take their bias and then builds their theology out from there. GB & GL!
I can tell that you still haven't read the passage in question or else you would have not said that I made your point. And for your lack of desire to study for yourself, I'm done discussing this with you.
And I did not address 1 John 5:13 because I was addressing Hebrews 7:25 from the moment I began discussing with you. It is unrelated to the point I was trying to make about that specific passage.
The question is "what does Bible teach on assurance; and you won't address 1 John 5:13 because you obviously hate the doctrine of assurance....and like all other CofCers you run from verses that disprove your theology that is based on a limited number of scriptures.
Do you hate and deny this verse?
Eph. 4:30 And do not grieve the HS of God, with whom you WERE SEALED for the day of redemption.
Do you hate these verses as well: Phil. 1:6, Rom. 8:3539, John 10:2729, 1Pet. 1:45?
Heb 7:25 does speak to the old priesthood and the priesthood of Christ, BUT...one has to be a legalistic nut to not understand verse 7. He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. The KJV translates thus: He is able also to save them to the uttermost...
If you were really interested in context you would not take Eph. 5:19 out of context and add a piano, but you pick and choose your application like the rest.
...and the fact that you have chosen to focus on 1 verse that you wrongly, but incessantly claim is out of context WITHOUT addressing the plethora of verse I have offered up on assurance is quite telling. Your run and hide behavior reminds me of the Jehovah's Non-Witnesses and the Mormons - your fleeing behavior is "cultish" in nature!
I thought you said you were through speaking to me. If so, then it's interesting that you would keep jabbering on.
I am not running and hiding from anything. I have already given my simple reason for not discussing those verses, and so you can take it or leave it (though you seem to leave it and keep plugging away for some other non-existant answer): from the moment I commented on this video it was concerning your use of Hebrews, nothing more. That's what I was focusing on.
The Hebrews passage is not saying that when Jesus saves you, then He does so for eternity. It says that Jesus, in contrast to the priests of old who died, lives forever and is an available atonement for sin forever. You are placing the focus on the saved individual whereas the passage puts the focus on the eternality of Christ.
I'll do us both a favor by ending this insanity with my final word. Why don't you publish your own Bible and correct the verse - change "able to save forever those who draw near to God. TO: "POTENTIALLY save forever" OR "able to save forever those who maintain their salvation thru their own might". You could call your version the CofC Bible. In the meantime I will rest in HIS power to save. Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
I want to make sure I understand your stance. You are saying that once you are saved, you cannot sin and separate yourself from God? So... by that logic I could be saved and then do whatever I want like; drink and drive, murder, have sex outside of marriage, get married and cheat on her, beat her, and gamble, and still go to heaven? What sense does that make? Using the passages you used, in the way you used, is saying that you can do whatever... (continued in next)
... (continuing from comment #1) and be as evil as you want, and still get into heaven. Hebrews 10: 19-39 tells what happens to people who continues to sin after being saved. Verse 39 says "But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul." (NASB) Why would it even mention being a part of a group who falls back into destruction, if it wasn't possible. Also the entire chapter of ... (continued in next)
. (continuing from comment #2) 2 Peter 2 tells of falling out of grace. Verse 4 says God didn't spare angels when they sinned (aka Satan and his group). Verse 21-22 says "For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having know it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, "a dog returns to its own vomit," and "A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire." (NASB) (cont. in next)
... (cont. from #3) One more being 2 John 1: 8-9, "Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. Anyone" (and that means anyone, "Christian" or not) "who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son." (NASB) Also 1 John 1: 5-10, but you can look it up for yourself if you wish. (continued in last)
... (cont. from #4) I find it funny, that you supposedly dislike anyone who picks and chooses verse to support their beliefs; yet you yourself have done just that. You took all the verses you sighted from the middle of the paragraph. I also find it funny that, even though you said you dislike people who hate scripture because it disproves their beliefs; you refuse to comment on all passages that say you can fall out of grace. A little hypocritical don't you think? Have a good one, see ya!!!! :D
To answer your incessant question to save you from a stroke or heart attack:
I have no problem with any of those verses. We most certainly are sealed with the Spirit, and so on. But none of those verses say that we can never lose salvation through sin and disobedience. For them to do so would be contrary to a number of scripture (Acts 8:18-24; Rom. 13:8-14; 1 Cor. 5; 1 Cor. 9:24-27; Eph. 4:30-32; 1 Thess. 5:12-22; Heb. 10:23-31; 2 Pet. 1:10-11; 1 John 1:5-10; 1 John 2:17, 24; 2 John 9-11).
As I've said, I am not running or hiding from anything you are throwing at me. I believe very firmly in the blessed assurance offered through the blood that Christ spilled at the cross for my sins. But the "plethora of verse" that I've just offered you are precisely why I do not buy into your version of it (which is more correctly labeled "Perseverance of the Saints"). The apostles clearly warned against falling away and "quenching the Spirit".
Now, I've said my piece and am through discussing this with you. You may keep posting and ridiculing me for my stance - even after you've said that you were through - and you are perfectly within your right to do so. I will put and keep you in my prayers but, aside from that, I through arguing with you. Have a blessed day.
Let's just assume I took the Hebrew's text out of context - why not address: 1 John 5:13 "These things I have written to you who believe....so that you may KNOW that you HAVE (not get in the future) eternal life? Let's face it - you hate the doctrine of assurance - you prefer to boast about YOUR ABILITY TO MAINTAIN YOUR SALVATION - just admit it!
"I know in whom I have believed...and that HE IS ABLE TO KEEP that which I have committed against that day. Quit singing it if you don't believe
But had you actually gone back to review that entire passage - taking the verse in context of the greater theme - then you would have had no problem seeing the truth.
Instead, you proceeded to NOT check it out, and continue to lambaste me. Where you would say that the one verse shows Jesus putting people in an eternally saved state, the passage itself says something else altogether, and any honest person reading that passage in its entirety would not have had any trouble understanding it.
Ephesians 2:8-10: These words which the apostle Paul penned to the Ephesians (Eph. 1:1), were written to those who had ALREADY: (1) heard - Eph. 1:13; Romans 10:17 (2) believed - Eph. 1:13; Acts 19:5, 18 (3) repented - Acts 19:19; 20:21 (4) confessed - Acts 19:18; Romans 10:9-10, and (5) been baptized - Acts 19:5; 2:38. Through their obedience to the word of God (Heb. 5:9), these were saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9). Not a dead faith, but a living faith (James 2:20, 24, 26).
Forget if PreacherNorm's theology is correct. That's important. But the issue here is whether a church can be a "true" church if they don't DO everything the apostolic churches did. A very specific selection criteria is applied to the condition. Not everything the NT church is described as doing is considered; only the things PreacherNorm thinks important. The rest is ignored. But if PreacherNorm wants to make the description of the NT church the litmus test, he needs to consider *everything*.
Repenting alone doesnt save u, bc like i said, its a change of heart.....faith = hear & believe, confess, repent, baptized, & stay faithful until death.....it doesnt take a scholar or translations of Greek to undertsand that
Nobody said Baptism was not required for obedience; just not for salvation - I guess it does takes a scholar to understand that. So get baptized - do it every week like communion! The old-time Pharisees would have loved Baptism just like you do - they loved all the outward signs while having impure, dead, unloving, hearts - sound familiar? Just remember the words of Jesus "they will say did we not baptize and keep on baptizing in your name; and I will say depart from me, I never knew you!"
Nobody said baptism is for salvation? Jesus did in Mark 16:16; Peter did in Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21; Ananias did in Acts 22:16. Paul said burial in baptism destroys the body of sin in Romans 6:3-6 to mimic the death/burial/resurrection of Christ. Sir, you either do not believe the Bible or fail to understand the Bible. Salvation is in the Lord's church (Eph. 5:23). The Lord places one into the church (Acts 2:47) when one is baptized (1 Cor. 12:13). There is only one baptism (Eph. 4:4).
4But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. Titus 1:4-7
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. Eph. 2:8-10
I have retired from debating C. of Christ folk including the likes of PreacherNorm and Johnny Robertson because it is FUTILE.
"But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man LIKE PREACHERNORM and JOHNNY ROBERTSON are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned" Titus 3:9-11
If you are SPIRITUALLY DEAD according to Eph.2:1 until God MAKES YOU ALIVE, how do you recognize sin, confess it, or repent of it while you are DEAD?
"God has CHOSEN YOU from the beginning FOR SALVATION through sanctification BY THE HOLY SPIRIT." 2 Thes.2:13
"to them HE GAVE (GIFT) the right to become children of God....WHO WERE BORN NOT of blood, NOR THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR THE WILL OF MAN, but OF GOD. John 1:13
So God is NOT saving you - you are saving YOURSELF! I guess the Bible lied - His Grace IS NOT SUFFICIENT!
"knowing that a man is NOT justified by the WORKS of the Law but THROUGH FAITH in Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified BY FAITH in Christ Jesus and NOT BY THE WORKS of the Law; since by the works of the Law NO ONE will be justified.
U have to understand the 2 different Greek words "bapto" and "baptiizo" that were transliterated into 1 word "Baptize" to
see the true meaning of NT baptism - U choose 2 ignore it.
But, U finally stumbled onto something I agree with - YOUR WORDS: "it's a change of heart" - CORRECT - where does that occur? Repentence- NOT BAPTISM.
baptism (Immersion into Christ) now saves you- not the removal of dirt (water) from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience (repentence) 1 Pet 3:21
Well c now u get into faith alone, by saying repentance alone saves....once again ill say this, i can have all the faith in the world & tell evryone i have faith, but if i jus sit in a pew & never act on that faith, what good is it???.....Gal. 3:27 - "For as many of you as were BAPTIZED into Christ have PUT ON CHRIST"....Romans 6:3-4 - If we aren't baptized & aren't buried w/ Him, which = IMMERSION.....how are we to be raised to walk in newness of life?...we can't, when we are baptized we are ba
ptized into HIS DEATH......from verse 1 in Rom. 6...we see that Grace abounds but it clearly says that nobody can recieve grace unless they....& it tells us what to do in verses 2-4....its so obvious....how can u ignore these passages
e baptized....name calling is stupid....jus answer the question.....& yes, you can only b forgiven when u accept ALL of God's teachings....u can't jus stop at repentance....bc what are the words that follow it often...."repent AND BE BAPTIZED"....its more than jus saying "ok im wrong"....u must have a change of heart.....read the conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch....He said here's water, what hinders me from being BAPTIZED!!!!!....he knew he was wrong, but did it stop there????....NO!!!!
In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are several plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the Greek preposition eis--"because of," or "on the basis of," instead of "for." It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32.
It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins."
So ur sitting here saying....."IF" that is correct....once again, im gonna go w/ what I KNOW, rather than what I FEEL!!!!!!!!!!!!......lol ive heard this argument be4, but it doesnt work, bc the preacher at our congregation preached it, & i had an OPEN BIBLE not taking jus his word....as the denominational world accuses us of.....so we don't avoid this bc it doesn't work..."repent & be baptized FOR the remission of YOUR SINS"......PLURAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.....PLURAL!!!!!!!!!!!
Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief.
KEEP IGNORING THE WHOLE NT; AND CONTINUE TO HOLD TO THE VERSES THAT ONLY SUPPORT YOUR ERRANT THEOLOGY.
Believing is part of your acknowledgement that you know u must be baptized....Faith = 2 things, hearing & BELIEVING......i can have all the faith in the world, but if i jus sit on my butt at home what good does it do me????....answer = NONE!!!!!!!!
btw - Believe & BE BAPTIZED.....of course ur condemned if u dont believe, bc then how can u b baptized????.....u cant, DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....atleast not for the right reasons
Believeth: The term believeth is often misunderstood. In John 3:16, John 3:36a and Mark 16:16a, the Greek term pisteuo (strongs 4100) is used and means faith conjoined with obedience. The usage in John 3:36b is apeitheo (strongs 544) which means faith lacking obedience. The usage in Mark 16:16b is apisteo (strongs 569) which means no belief at all. The usage in John 3:36b and Mark 16:16b show a condemned faith. Only obedient faith saves.
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but OF GOD. John 1:12-13
Again, dickiebow nor veritas.sword have any intention of debating you and attempting to refute you GO-TO verses like Acts 2:38. You in the C of C only care to defend your limited and deep-rooted errant theology - you have no desire to know or understand the truth.
Yea buddy, OLD covenant....u can say that again....we're under wat is that???....mayb the NEW covenant......excuse me but if ur doing what God commands does that not DESCRIBE the duty of a Christian.....wat someone does describes them....Fear God & keep His COMMANDMENTS for this is man's all"....by the way, we're not being persecuted lol, ur ridiculous
Romans 3: 20 "For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight"
Gal. 2:15-17 "...nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
I'll pray that the HOLY SPIRIT will bring you into the knowledge of the TRUTH on GRACE and NOT WORKS!
You are more than welcome - I'll be anxiously waiting a apology for your unquestionable breach of etiquette and arrogant, sectarian spirit displayed below.
jimslater1234 (2 weeks ago)
If you aren't a member of the church of christ, you're going to hell, case closed. Deal with it.
Otherwise, I have located many more verses where you are mentioned by name!
Justified by the works of the law.....k, which law is that????.....OLD!!!!!!!!!!!......nobody could stay perfect under the OLD law, but now under the New must have a WORKING FAITH!!!!!!!!!!!......don't quote passages that talk ab the OLD law when we're under the NEW
Clearly, I was quoting the NT - New Testament! But without the Holy Spirit in your life you are too obtuse to understand I guess. "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are SPIRITUALLY APPRAISED. 1 Cor. 2:14.
For that reason you cannot understand Grace, Faith, Works, The Holy Spirit, and Assurance of Salvation.
GREAT IDEA: Try reading ALL of the NT and ask the Holy Spirit for Help
My friend you can quote New Testament scripture that points back towards the Old Testament.....DUH!!!!!!!!!!.....btw, a man can understand the word of God......bc We must what???.....Pray & Sing w/ the whats the magic word????....UNDERSTANDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have no idea what you are talking about most of the time. So you ripped the Old Testament from your Bible and threw it away - did you blackout the OT references in the NT as well - how moronic, but not surprising.
Here is your and Norms problem in a nutshell - you interpret scripture based on your errant theological perspective; instead of interpreting scripture to develop a sound theology.
I might as well debate a sack of hammers - I offer up scripture and you return with nonsensical BS.
I jus said u can find quotes in the NT that point back to the OT.....is that clear enough?????....look, i want to get to the heart of the problem bc our arguing is gettn us nowhere.....keep this in mind, ALL authority has been given to Christ on both Earth & in Heaven.....so based on that, where scriptually do u find the authority for the name of ur church????.....& show me one sign of denominationalism that Christ & the apostles praised in the Bible
I find authority to be a part of the body of Christ thru Salavation by Grace thru Faith Alone - For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. Eph.2
You want to think the local CofC is the onyy place the body of Christ meets regardless of the name on the Church - ABSURD. You are a LEGALIST - you obviousy DO NOT have the Holy Spirit - you cannot tolerate sound doctrine - you prefer error.
Hello???.....i jus said lets get to the heart of the problem, u didnt show me where u get authority for the name of the church.....u said i jus pick & choose, kinda sounds like u jus picked the name of where u worship out of mid-air
James 2:17.....Faith w/out works is DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!....Salvaation is given by God & yes i agree from ur passage we don't deserve it...after all it does say not from ourselves......but we must do something, how else r we to b saved???....sitting on the couch doesn
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith...it is the gift of God. SO WE MUST DO SOMETHING to receive "the Gift of GOD"?
I DIDN"T - I just recieved the gracious "GIFT OF GOD". What's your problem with understanding it is "the gift of GOD" - how more clear can it be -"GIFT OF GOD" - I am not making it up - it's in Eph.2 - GIFT OF GOD.
If you have to DO SOMETHING, other than receive it, IT IS NOT A GIFT ANYMORE!
And yes, Faith w/o Works proves you did not receive it..
Mark 16:16....HE THAT BELIEVES & IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED, HE THAT BELIEVETH NOT SHALL BE CONDEMNED!!!!!!!!!.........so yes we must do something to recieve the gift of God.....God sent his Son in order for us to recieve it, but if we don't obey His word fully then we can't have it....other wise evryone would go to heaven bc they already have it......so wait???...Faith w/out works proves you did not recieve it???....so w/ works proves you recieve it???....you jus killed ur position
Forgiveness is connected with repentance only in keeping with the teaching of the NT (Lk 24:47; Jhn 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Eph 5:26)
John 6:63 - The Spirit GIVES LIFE; the flesh counts for nothing. Give up your dogma, and even you can come to understand that Baptism is a symbol, NOT THE POINT OF SALVATION
Are YOU PROUD of YOUR LEGALISM & EXCLUSIVENESS?
Matt 23:13 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people"
LOL, ur position has been killed & u did it to urself....so enough w/ the name calling....you've called me a legalist, kool-aide follower, nonsensical...& judging from that passage....a pharisee.....is that all u have is name calling?...bc its truly sad
read Acts 2:37...the Jews recieved the Gift of the Holy Spirit when they what??....Repented & were Baptized....my friend jus read that & tell me how I'm wrong...how can it b a symbol when there are a number of accounts where ppl repented & wer
Hey jimslater1234 - what's it like having Romans 3:12-14 written especially for you?
ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER YOU HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, NOT EVEN jimslater1234. HIS THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH HIS TONGUE HE KEEPS DECEIVING HIMSELF, THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER HIS LIPS, HIS MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS"
WOW jimslater1234 - what is it like being FAMOUS - they are talking about you once again in Matthew 23:27
" Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness".
WOW jimslater1234, the Apostle Paul brought up your name in Ephesians too - WOW! Tell me - how many more times am I going to find your name mentioned in the Bible - you are almost as famous as Noah!
Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, UNLESS OF COURSE IF YOU ARE JIMSLATER 1234, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment. Eph. 4:29
God gave JIMSLATER1234 over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, and evil; full of envy, strife, deceit, malice; is a slanderer, insolent, arrogant, boastful, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful......" Romans 1:28-31
HOLY COW JIMSLATER1234 !! - they should have a picture of your mug by that scripture!!!
You are NOT the N.T. Church - you are a denomination, and you may be better described as a CULT. Yours is a CUT & PASTE theology. You pick and chose, and then ignore scriptures that compromise your errant theology; or you create some convoluted interpretation of scripture to support your errant belief system and false teaching.
The fact that you believe YOU ARE THE ONLY TRUE CHRISTIANS is the quintessential definition of a SELF RIGHTEOUS LEGALISTIC CULT.
Hey Norm, here's an idea - instead of trying to mirror the 1st Century Church with your legalism - MAYBE YOU SHOULD TRY TO MIRROR CHRIST - THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST - right now the only thing you have accomplished is DUPLICATING THE SPIRIT OF THE PHARISEES - THAT'S NOTHING TO BE PROUD OF, BUT IT CERTAINLY APPREARS YOU ARE THE PROUDEST OF THE PROUD!
But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people. Matt 23:13
The Church of Christ adheres to a "Cut & Paste" theology. They assume that every time you see "baptism" written in the Bible it refers to "water baptism" and that is error. Clearly John the Baptist spoke of the difference- "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I...He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." Matt 3:11. They sing of Amazing Grace, but their legalistic salvation by "works" is not Grace at all, and it is far from Amazing.
And Monkeesage, he's saying let's get back to the teachings of the NT church....not back to the original buildings or riding donkeys to an assembly.....thats ridiculous, & u kno exactlty what he means.....BIBLE DOCTRINE ONLY!!!!!!!!!.....no creed books of men.....ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY THE INSPIRATION OF GOD, the Catholic creed is def. not inspired by God...mayb the Pope, & last time I checked he's jus like any other person, except he wears that suit
What he says, exactly, is: "the question that we're asking is whether or not what we DO matches the description of what the New Testament church did..." He then goes on to talk about actions (not doctrine)--like "acts of worship." He's most definitely saying that unless what your church DOES matches what the NT church DID, you're not an NT church. Which, of course, excludes his church (assuming he's not miraculously escaping from Philippian jails on the weekends).
Watch the video. This pastor claims that unless you're DOING everything the NT church DID, you're not the a true church. But he can't pick and choose which things to do. The NT church also got in physical altercations with Jews (e.g., Saul before conversion, Paul at Jerusalem with Trophimus); met in catacombs; kept their Christianity secret (the icthus was originally a code symbol), &c. So his church is not an NT church, according to his own claims.
The point is that he is confusing the DEscription of the NT church, with the PREscription for what churches should do. This is the same errant reasoning used by polygamists: "Hey, the OT saints we DEscribed as having many wives..." The mark of a true church is that it follows the commands for what a church should do and preach, not that it matches the description of the NT church. If there's not a command (e.g., about using musical instruments), then it's not a matter of doctrine.
I would love to see where in the Bible you find the Catholic church.....the Catholic church has been reformed so many times im surprised that you can w/ all confidence say that Christ formed the Catholic church...ha!!!!
i dont recall reading about a catholic church in the bible. Perhpas if you would be so good as to provide some scripture saying the only church christ established was "Roman Catholic"
The churches that call themselves "Church of Christ" bear no resemblence to the church we find in the book of acts. Your doctrine bears this out as well.
You want to find the true church? Get off your arses and go apply the teachings. Go and find someone to help there are plenty out there. Then after you have posted a list of who and how you helped them you can stand all you want and blab on about who has the best way to pray.
As the pastor himself says at 0:11, he's confusing the DEscription of the NT church with the PREscriptions for the NT church. The NT church is variously DEscribed as being persecuted by Roman emperors, attacked by Jewish pharisees (like Paul), converting Ethopian Eunuchs, preaching on Solomon's Porch, living in communes, and so on. Unless his church is doing all that, by his own admission, it's not the NT church. Just because the Bible describes something doesn't mean it prescribes it.
Does the Church of Christ believe in the plan of salvation, as outlined in Acts 2, especially found in verse 38? That is,
1)repentance, 2) being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins, and 3)being filled with the Holy Ghost, with the evidence of speaking in other tongues as the Spirit of God gives utterance?
Is this what the Church of Christ teaches, believes and practices?
3 classes of people God dealt with..Jew Samaritan and Gentile..in each class..God sent his man with the keys..Peter..and He was present in each case..Acts 2,8,10..the same message was preached and the same results happened..
Why don't you show everyone how I do not follow the apostle's doctrine? You just make a claim with no evidence. That is not according to the apostle's doctrine!
You can say all day long that YOU are the NT church but unless you have been born again like the original church..and you practiced what they did..then you cannot say that you are..
'Catholic church'is so far from the bible its pathetic. musical instruments,holy water,pergatory,baby baptism,praying to mary,statues,etc.they will have to answer to God for this worship he had not commanded.Rev.22:18-19 Lev.10:1-2 we must have authority from God's word whatever we do in the church.not outside the bible. Gods word is final.speak where the bible speaks and remain silent where the bible is silent.
This dude belongs in a RUBBER ROOM.
CaliSweatpea 3 months ago
Here, here - I have quickly found something that the NT Church did that Norm Fields and his C of C church have not done - the NT Church STOPPED being PHARISEES - Norm does not match!!
veritassword 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That 1st church that was led by the Apostles and still teaches the faith of the Apostles passed on from generation to generation is the Orthodox Church. Jesus said " On this rock I will build my church and THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT". The coc says they had to reform the church because it was corrupted. They must have missed that verse. Wasn't God powerful enough to protect his church ?
Always love, Always forgive, Always have mercy
ddaley50 11 months ago
COC is close to the first Church. The church was here before the New Testament was put together. This first church followed what the Apostles taught. This is refered to as "Apostolic Tradition". The CHURCH existed for 1000 years. Then the great schism that formed the Roman catholic church. The 1st church survived just like Christ said. Mat 16:18. Then the reformation happened. Churches where created by men to get as far away from the roman catholic as possible. Never knowing of the 1st church.
grassyknollblues 1 year ago
The true church of Jesus Christ is a relationship, not a membership. It isn’t any particular protestant denomination or Roman catholic. It doesn't have a roof or an address. We are the Body of Christ, past, present and future from all around the world who have accepted Christ’s work on the cross for our sins 2000 years ago, once and for all. Our names have been written in the Book of Life from the beginning. 1 cross + 3 nails = 4 given.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
Bro looks like you are contradicting yourself; the bible says that if you don't believe what the old testament teaches than you won't believe in what the new testament says(john: 5: 46,47), how can I be a member of a new testament church when its founder Jesus Christ is the author of the old and new testament...He is the same,yesterday,today and forever...He never changes
Ms061066 1 year ago
1 Corinthians 16 says nothing about the church worshiping on Sunday!! Did you not think that someone would check!!
All over the New testament over and over again the church met on the Sabbath, i.e. Saturday.
If your DENOMINATION is wrong on this most basic and obvious truth how can it be the true church?
naciamaJYute 1 year ago
@naciamaJYute Acts 20:7 Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight. 1 Corinthians 16:2 On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.
First day of the week, i.e. Sunday.
Where did the CHRISTIANS (not the Jews) meet on the Sabbath for worship in the New Testament?
knightd94 1 year ago
@knightd94 You should read ALL of ACTS you would have discovered the texts yourself "As Paul and Barnabas were leaving the synagogue, the people invited them to speak further about these things on the next Sabbath" ACTS 13:42 (Please read the entire chapter)
This BTW was in a Gentile church in Antioch. Both Jews and Gentiles worshiped God on the Sabbath
I repeat ACTS 20:7 says NOTHING about a church service or Hallowing Sunday THIS IS NOT FOUND ANYWHERE IN SCRIPTURE
As for Denominations...
naciamaJYute 1 year ago
@naciamaJYute You just said that the synagogue was a Gentile church in Antioch. The synagogue was a Jewish place of worship. The first people to preach to would have been those that knew something about the scripture, or the Jews. That was not a gathering of Christians. 5And when they arrived in Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews.
It says nothing about a church service, but it IS a direct command of something to be done on the first day.
knightd94 1 year ago
@knightd94 Brother verse 1 calls it a church (a christian place of worship).
Besides that look at v 42 - 44.
Were Paul and Barnabas Christians?
Were these Gentiles that met Paul @ the church Jews?
Then why are they bought meeting for service on the Sabbath!? Why didn't Paul explain that since he was a Christian they ought to meet on Sunday?
To the unbiased reader the answer is obvious
naciamaJYute 1 year ago
@naciamaJYute Keep reading. They were in the church in Antioch, which then sent them away to preach. The synagogue was in Salamis. The message was preached to the Jews, and 42 So when the Jews went out of the synagogue,[j] the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. 43 Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
knightd94 1 year ago
@naciamaJYute You also did not comment on the actual example of them meeting on the first day, and Paul teaching them until midnight.
knightd94 1 year ago
@knightd94 Brother Paul preached the word whenever he was in town. Whatever day it was. He was to leave the following day and was giving them parting counsel. But you could not say that this was a regular church service.Further this event took place on Saturday night. For the Jewish day began at sunset. Paul was to leave Sunday morning
There is no way you can use this to support the outrageous (and satanic) claim that the Sabbath, made and blessed by God, was suddenly changed by the apostles
naciamaJYute 1 year ago
@naciamaJYute The Christians sent them to other cities. In this city they taught in a Jewish synagogue. Upon leaving that synagogue the gentiles asked them to teach the message to them the next time. They were in the place of Jewish meeting on the Jewish day of worship. He preached whatever day it was, but congregational worship took place on sunday. Worship can happen on any day, but there are specific commands (giving for instance) that are to take place on Sunday.
knightd94 1 year ago
@naciamaJYute The Sabbath was not changed by the apostles. When Jesus died, the old law passed away, and the new law came into power. The examples and commands to Christians are never to meet on the Sabbath, but there ARE commands to meet on Sunday. Teaching can happen whenever. Worship can happen whenever. But there are certain acts that have been commanded or shown from example to happen on Sunday. one of these is giving.
knightd94 1 year ago
@naciamaJYute Disclaimer: The church in verse one is in Antioch of Syria. Paul went out to preach, and the synagogue of a few verses later is in Salamis. Paul then came to Antioch of Pisidia, which is where the synagogue we are speaking of now was.
knightd94 1 year ago
@naciamaJYute Except that the examples I gave you did in fact say that they met on Sunday. He did preach whenever he was in town, which is opposed to your claim about the "blessed" Sabbath.
The Christians met on the first day of the week. The Apostles did not change this, Christ did.
knightd94 9 months ago
@knightd94 Luke 4: 16 says that it was His custom to attend worship in the synagogue on the sabbath. His disciples at His death only visited His tomb after the Sabbath had past in respect and obedience of the Sabbath.
Another time Jesus warned of the coming destruction of Jerusalem, an event that took place long after his death. In his warning He told them to "pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the SABBATH day" Matt 24:20
The evidence is clear. Jesus kept the SABBATH.
naciamaJYute 9 months ago
@naciamaJYute The New Law began at Christ's death; The Testament could only be switched with the death of the Testator (Hebrews 9:16). Jesus was a Jew, and therefore followed Jewish customs of worship.
Yes, Jesus kept the Sabbath; Again, He was a Jew. The Christians--His followers after His death--gathered for worship on Sunday, as has already been pointed out multiple times. They observed the Lord's Supper--which Jesus instituted--on Sunday. The first day of the week. (John 20:19)
knightd94 9 months ago
@knightd94 What does John 20:19 prove? THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE IN SCRIPTURE THAT CHRISTIANS MET REGULARLY FOR WORSHIP ON SUNDAY AS THEY DID ON SABBATH. NONE!
And please dump this silly argument that Jesus was a Jew and we are not. I don't know about you but Jesus is my example. I will do as He did.
Besides, the Commandments are for all men. Jew and Gentile. Old and New Testament. The new covenant DID NOT alter God's Law. Once again you have no scriptural backing for your claims.
naciamaJYute 9 months ago
@naciamaJYute I already gave the verse that the testaments changed at the death of the Testator. So yes, there is backing to that. A very large portion of Hebrews. It is also hard to be a Jew and a Christian at the same time. Again, Hebrews speaks out against the Christians returning to the Old Law and Apostacy. John 20:19 says that it is the day the disciples gathered. Acts 20:7 "Now on the first day of the week, the disciples..." 1 Cor 16:2, "On the first day of the week, let..."
knightd94 9 months ago
@naciamaJYute And by "hard to be a Jew and Christian at the same time" I was using a figure of speech for "impossible"
knightd94 9 months ago
@knightd94 'sigh'
Was Jesus Christian?
naciamaJYute 9 months ago
@naciamaJYute No, Jesus was a Jew. The Old Law was meant to point us to Christ. At His death, the New Law came into power. Since He lived before His death, he was under the Old Law. To be the perfect sacrifice, He had to follow that law. As Hebrews said, there had to be the death of the Testator for there to be a NEW Testament.
knightd94 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knightd94 MY WORD! What does the word Christian mean!?
naciamaJYute 9 months ago
@knightd94 The "Old" Law IS meant to point us to Christ. There is no new law. (probably you can point it out but i cant find it). By the "Old" Law we have a knowledge of sin. Thus the need for a savior. In other words if there is no law then there is no sin and therefore no need for a savior.
naciamaJYute 9 months ago
@naciamaJYute I already gave you a verse saying that at His death there was a new testament. Testament means law... it does point us to Christ, because it explains and gives a parallel of why He had to die, as well as prophecy and validation of the New Law, which is the testament that occurred at his death. Again, you say I use no Scripture when you have used... how much? And entirely AVOID the Scriptures stating clearly there is a new testament and the disciples met on Sunday...
knightd94 9 months ago
@knightd94 Forgive me. Let me go through this patiently, step by step with you.
1. The word Testament does not at all mean Law. The word testament refers to a will, or inheritance. That is why Paul says in Heb 9:16 the testator - Jesus- had to die. He died so that we could inherit His possession: eternal life and sons and daughters of the father.
2. None of the texts you pointed to state that the disciples met regularly for worship on Sunday.
naciamaJYute 9 months ago
@naciamaJYute They took the collection, regularly, on Sunday in 1 Corinthians. It said in John 20:19 "being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled" That structure "being the first day..." Means that was their habit.
The modern form of Testament is someone's will; as in what they leave behind, clearly structured. The Biblical form is "covenant" which is a binding agreement. It is a self-imposed law. The text does not refer to inheritance but to
knightd94 9 months ago
@naciamaJYute a covenant. It even says in verse one of chapter 9 "first covenant." When you made a covenant, something was killed to establish that covenant. For the New Covenant, Jesus had to die. If you read the chapter it clearly does not refer to our inheritance but to a binding agreement or "law."
knightd94 9 months ago
@knightd94 Read Heb 9:17
naciamaJYute 9 months ago
@naciamaJYute Again, the "covenants" were established after death. He had to die in order for the new COVENANT (which is used interchangeably in this chapter) to come into effect. Read the WHOLE context, don't pick apart phrases ;)
knightd94 9 months ago
@knightd94 Come on Brother. Forget your pride. The text is absolutely clear. Do not fight against the Holy Spirit.
1. A Covenant is a contract that does not require the death of anyone or anything for it to be valid. However a testament is only of use to the inheritor after the death of the testator. These are two simple English words.
2. There is however a new covenant. But a covenant is not a testament and a testament is not a law.
naciamaJYute 9 months ago
@naciamaJYute Covenant and Testament are used interchangeably in this passage. One of the definitions of Testament is also a covenant. In this context and greek usage, the testament is a covenant. If you read the whole chapter, it tells of the first covenant--animal sacrifices--and then compares it to the new testament--Jesus' sacrifice. The words "testament" and "covenant" are used interchangeably, and please give an example of a covenant in the Bible without death involved.
knightd94 9 months ago
@naciamaJYute If you read past the verse 17 you quoted, after saying that the testament requires the death of a testator it continues on to say "not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood" There is no mention of a new covenant here, only a new testament, and IT requiring blood. The comparison is new testament (covenant) to old covenant (testament).
knightd94 9 months ago
@knightd94 Let me see if I can explain this briefly:
1. The old COVENANT was an agreement between God and Israel that if they kept His LAWs (which included the sacrifices) He would grant them His TESTAMENT (much like a father would to his son).
2. They did not keep their end of the bargain so there needed to be a new COVENANT. And this time it wasn't made with the Israelites specifically but to whosoever will. Jer 31:31-35.
naciamaJYute 9 months ago
@naciamaJYute
3. Please note there was nothing wrong with the Law nor the Testament per say. The fault was with the people.
4. However we have a new and better covenant. Whereas the old required faith in God's sacrifice represented by a Lamb for one to inherit the testament (which many of them did not understand) the new covenant is established on Christ the true lamb. They repeatedly had to slay lambs and bulls to express their faith, for us Christ died once and all we have to do is believe.
naciamaJYute 9 months ago
@naciamaJYute 5. Therefore the old covenant operated thus: Gods 10 commandments pointed out your sin, thru faith in God's sacrifice represented by a slain Lamb pardon and redemption was gained. Meaning you were now a part of the family of God and thus an Heir, or inheritor. However you had to do this every time you sinned (i.e. daily). The Problem with this covenant was the people forsook God (i.e. broke the agreement of obedience)
naciamaJYute 9 months ago
@naciamaJYute That is totally irrelevant to the point that blood is required for a covenant and that there is a new covenant/testament. All you did was very loosely outline your interpretation of a somewhat misinformed plan of salvation. Also, it was God's plan from the beginning that Christ would come, not a last resort or reaction to the people's failures. The animal sacrifices/Jesus' sacrifice were a planned type/antitype. (1 Peter 1:19-21, 2 Tim 1:8-10)
knightd94 9 months ago
@naciamaJYute It was known that they could not keep the law, and that was used to show them why they needed Jesus as well as to understand the necessity of a blood sacrifice. You are simply continuing your pattern of jumping to a new topic, giving no backing for it, and then later returning to old topics ignoring all evidence I gave WITH scripture, opposed to your lack of scripture, for the falsehood of your previous claims.
knightd94 9 months ago
@knightd94 Listen. The burden of proof is not with me. From Genesis to the Revelation the Bible is replete with proof of the 7th day Sabbath, that's undeniable. You say it was changed by the apostles or Jesus, I say you prove it. So far you've quoted a bunch of texts saying that the disciples assembled together on Sunday. I'm sure they assembled on Monday as well.
There is no text where anyone explicitly says the sabbath was changed to Sunday. Heb 4:8,9 says the exact opposite
naciamaJYute 9 months ago
@naciamaJYute The "Sabbath" was not changed; We do not follow all of the commands of the Sabbath. The day of Worship was. The Sabbath is no longer part of worship, because the day of worship is Sunday and there are no commands concerning the Sabbath in the New Testament. The texts I quoted did state regality. Why would Paul ask for a collection on the first day of the week in a continuous grammatical sequence, implying taking a collection EVERY first day, if they were to meet on the Sabbath?
knightd94 9 months ago
@naciamaJYute Your example in Hebrews says NOTHING concerning the observation of the Sabbath. It compares our promised rest (eternal) to the rest resembled in the Sabbath, as the Old Law was entirely a type/antitype scenario to help the Jews to better understand the New Law. That verse has NO example of practice and only mentions God resting on the seventh day. The disciples, as I have showed you many times, regularly gathered for worship on Sunday.
knightd94 9 months ago
@naciamaJYute Thus, the testament is then a covenant, and the covenant also requires blood, merely from this passage.
knightd94 9 months ago
@naciamaJYute further, out of spite you claim and capitalize "DENOMINATION"
the basic definition of a denomination is a division or class of a larger whole. in the religious sense, all denominations would then be an equally valid part of a whole. the church of Christ does not consider itself part of those, as the churches belonging to Christ teach that there is only one way to heaven, opposed to what denominations teach. So, even without scripture, the churches of Christ are not a denomination.
knightd94 1 year ago
The Book of Acts is the model for what the Christian Church should be like. However, this preacherNorm does not believe in the baptism of the Holy Ghost for today so by default his church does not match the description of the New Testament Church. And let me say that I am not a Charismatic but an old fashioned Holiness oriented and sanctification believing Pentecostal.
A0n79fRtW 1 year ago
heresy
gerryboy101 1 year ago
The TRUE church is NOT a denomination, nor is it made of brick and morter! The word "catholic" means 'universal' in the original greek dialect. This DOES NOT mean Roman Catholic, because the Roman Catholic "Church" took that from the original greek dialect. The church is a certain body of belivers who bear His Name, and not in the term of denomination.
ShadowOfElisha 1 year ago
Since every church claims to go "by the bible" and yet still contradict one another, we need to look at the post biblical writtings of the church fathers and read what church is described;
And you will find it is the Catholic church.
Mothman454 1 year ago
@Mothman454 wrong, you need to search the scriptures as God says to do, and you will see the truth for yourself, and the catholic religion is not it. Far from it.
bigbob1122 1 year ago
The New Testament Church is full of power and Glory to point people to Jesus and his kingdom if it is not doing that it may not be the Church of God
JoshS07 1 year ago
1 Tim 4 says that in latter times some will depart from the faith giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons and 2 Tim 3:5 says they will have a form of godliness but deny the power and from such people turn away- this is the churches of christ I was a Church of christ until I read my bible through and through with no preconvictions just listening to Holy Spirit .
JoshS07 1 year ago
The churches of christ does not match the description of the New Testament Church
They will speak with new tongues. Mark 16:16-18 They will cast out demons they will lay hands on the sick and they will recover . James 5:14 They will call for the elders of the church anoint them with oil and they will be healed
JoshS07 1 year ago
no such thing as a true church, all of them are false, all of them man made.
olh1152 2 years ago
Some fail to understand the term "if" as used in Romans 11:22, 2 Peter 2:20-22, Colossians 1:22-23, 1 John 1:7, Hebrews 6:4-6, Hebrews 10:26-27, Hebrews 3:14, etc. We are saved eternally "if" we remain faithful and obedient. But "if" we become unfaithful and disobedient, we will die lost souls. "If" we fall into this state, we must confess our sins and repent for forgiveness.
vhopson 2 years ago
dickiebow2003
Why did you leave the church of christ?
christnow1 2 years ago
Quite simply I grew tired of the sectarian spirit that existed within your denomination. I grew tired of the arrogance exhibited by preachers like PreacherNorm and Johnny Robertson. I grew tired of keeping people who loved our Lord and Savior as much as I do out of the Kingdom because of legalistic teachings. I grew tired of limited theology that picks and chooses verses to build a belief system while ignoring others that disprove it. I have more - how many do you want friend?
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
You are not the New Testament Church - there were no Pharisees like you in the AD 30 Church!
FALSE TEACHER BIG TIME !!!!!!!
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
Jesus and the apostles never taught "belief only justification", "sinner's prayer salvation" or "once saved, always saved" in the new covenant. Doctrines of men teach "do nothing to be saved" and "nothing can be done to lose salvation". According to this error, all members of the Lord's church would be saved since we believe and could never be lost. Nice thought but wrong. It is no wonder some choose not to discuss/debate because it causes them to have to address what the Bible actually says.
vhopson 2 years ago
"Therefore He is able also to SAVE FOREVER those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them." Hebrews 7:25
"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that YOU MAY KNOW that YOU HAVE eternal life."
1 John 5:13
I DO NOT debate people who refuse to read, consider, and interpret ALL of the NT, but rather "pick and choose" comfortable scripture based on convenience to support their false, errant and sectarian theology!
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
"I DO NOT debate people who refuse to read, consider, and interpret ALL of the NT"
That's all well and good, and nor should you; it saves one many headaches. However, the demands you place on those with whom you discuss you should also place on yourself.
For instance, did you not realize that you took Hebrews 7:25 out of context - picking and choosing it to fit your own theology? I'll let you take a look at that to see if you can find out what the "therefore" is there for before going on.
jrutled3 2 years ago
Friend I have not taken Heb 7:25 out of context anymore than I take these out of context:
John 6:37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may KNOW that you have eternal life.
I have my assurance, if you choose to wait until the end so be it. Lastly, quit keeping others out of the Kingdom and I won't call you a cult.
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
Yes you did. You tried to use the Hebrews verse to show that when someone is saved, Jesus saved them "forever," that they are eternally in a saved condition. This is not what the passage is saying, and you absolutely HAVE taken it out of context.
The passage in question is contrasting specifically the old priesthood and the priesthood of Christ. Where the old priests where numerous and died off, Christ is One and Eternal. Therefore, Christ forever stands as a mediator for all time.
jrutled3 2 years ago
Thank you for making my point - your words: "therefore Christ forever stands as a mediator for all time." Yes correct, and from the moment of salvation, not beginning at some point in the future - it is operational from the moment I believed!
I am now returning to my retirement from debating members of your denomination, as I must sadly admit that my "meekness" suffers as a result of the futility in debating ones who take their bias and then builds their theology out from there. GB & GL!
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
I can tell that you still haven't read the passage in question or else you would have not said that I made your point. And for your lack of desire to study for yourself, I'm done discussing this with you.
And I did not address 1 John 5:13 because I was addressing Hebrews 7:25 from the moment I began discussing with you. It is unrelated to the point I was trying to make about that specific passage.
Have a good day.
jrutled3 2 years ago
The question is "what does Bible teach on assurance; and you won't address 1 John 5:13 because you obviously hate the doctrine of assurance....and like all other CofCers you run from verses that disprove your theology that is based on a limited number of scriptures.
Do you hate and deny this verse?
Eph. 4:30 And do not grieve the HS of God, with whom you WERE SEALED for the day of redemption.
Do you hate these verses as well: Phil. 1:6, Rom. 8:3539, John 10:2729, 1Pet. 1:45?
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
Heb 7:25 does speak to the old priesthood and the priesthood of Christ, BUT...one has to be a legalistic nut to not understand verse 7. He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. The KJV translates thus: He is able also to save them to the uttermost...
If you were really interested in context you would not take Eph. 5:19 out of context and add a piano, but you pick and choose your application like the rest.
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
...and the fact that you have chosen to focus on 1 verse that you wrongly, but incessantly claim is out of context WITHOUT addressing the plethora of verse I have offered up on assurance is quite telling. Your run and hide behavior reminds me of the Jehovah's Non-Witnesses and the Mormons - your fleeing behavior is "cultish" in nature!
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
I thought you said you were through speaking to me. If so, then it's interesting that you would keep jabbering on.
I am not running and hiding from anything. I have already given my simple reason for not discussing those verses, and so you can take it or leave it (though you seem to leave it and keep plugging away for some other non-existant answer): from the moment I commented on this video it was concerning your use of Hebrews, nothing more. That's what I was focusing on.
jrutled3 2 years ago
The Hebrews passage is not saying that when Jesus saves you, then He does so for eternity. It says that Jesus, in contrast to the priests of old who died, lives forever and is an available atonement for sin forever. You are placing the focus on the saved individual whereas the passage puts the focus on the eternality of Christ.
jrutled3 2 years ago
I'll do us both a favor by ending this insanity with my final word. Why don't you publish your own Bible and correct the verse - change "able to save forever those who draw near to God. TO: "POTENTIALLY save forever" OR "able to save forever those who maintain their salvation thru their own might". You could call your version the CofC Bible. In the meantime I will rest in HIS power to save. Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
I want to make sure I understand your stance. You are saying that once you are saved, you cannot sin and separate yourself from God? So... by that logic I could be saved and then do whatever I want like; drink and drive, murder, have sex outside of marriage, get married and cheat on her, beat her, and gamble, and still go to heaven? What sense does that make? Using the passages you used, in the way you used, is saying that you can do whatever... (continued in next)
NZComfort 2 years ago
... (continuing from comment #1) and be as evil as you want, and still get into heaven. Hebrews 10: 19-39 tells what happens to people who continues to sin after being saved. Verse 39 says "But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul." (NASB) Why would it even mention being a part of a group who falls back into destruction, if it wasn't possible. Also the entire chapter of ... (continued in next)
NZComfort 2 years ago
. (continuing from comment #2) 2 Peter 2 tells of falling out of grace. Verse 4 says God didn't spare angels when they sinned (aka Satan and his group). Verse 21-22 says "For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having know it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, "a dog returns to its own vomit," and "A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire." (NASB) (cont. in next)
NZComfort 2 years ago
... (cont. from #3) One more being 2 John 1: 8-9, "Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. Anyone" (and that means anyone, "Christian" or not) "who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son." (NASB) Also 1 John 1: 5-10, but you can look it up for yourself if you wish. (continued in last)
NZComfort 2 years ago
... (cont. from #4) I find it funny, that you supposedly dislike anyone who picks and chooses verse to support their beliefs; yet you yourself have done just that. You took all the verses you sighted from the middle of the paragraph. I also find it funny that, even though you said you dislike people who hate scripture because it disproves their beliefs; you refuse to comment on all passages that say you can fall out of grace. A little hypocritical don't you think? Have a good one, see ya!!!! :D
NZComfort 2 years ago
To answer your incessant question to save you from a stroke or heart attack:
I have no problem with any of those verses. We most certainly are sealed with the Spirit, and so on. But none of those verses say that we can never lose salvation through sin and disobedience. For them to do so would be contrary to a number of scripture (Acts 8:18-24; Rom. 13:8-14; 1 Cor. 5; 1 Cor. 9:24-27; Eph. 4:30-32; 1 Thess. 5:12-22; Heb. 10:23-31; 2 Pet. 1:10-11; 1 John 1:5-10; 1 John 2:17, 24; 2 John 9-11).
jrutled3 2 years ago
As I've said, I am not running or hiding from anything you are throwing at me. I believe very firmly in the blessed assurance offered through the blood that Christ spilled at the cross for my sins. But the "plethora of verse" that I've just offered you are precisely why I do not buy into your version of it (which is more correctly labeled "Perseverance of the Saints"). The apostles clearly warned against falling away and "quenching the Spirit".
jrutled3 2 years ago
Now, I've said my piece and am through discussing this with you. You may keep posting and ridiculing me for my stance - even after you've said that you were through - and you are perfectly within your right to do so. I will put and keep you in my prayers but, aside from that, I through arguing with you. Have a blessed day.
jrutled3 2 years ago
Let's just assume I took the Hebrew's text out of context - why not address: 1 John 5:13 "These things I have written to you who believe....so that you may KNOW that you HAVE (not get in the future) eternal life? Let's face it - you hate the doctrine of assurance - you prefer to boast about YOUR ABILITY TO MAINTAIN YOUR SALVATION - just admit it!
"I know in whom I have believed...and that HE IS ABLE TO KEEP that which I have committed against that day. Quit singing it if you don't believe
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
But had you actually gone back to review that entire passage - taking the verse in context of the greater theme - then you would have had no problem seeing the truth.
Instead, you proceeded to NOT check it out, and continue to lambaste me. Where you would say that the one verse shows Jesus putting people in an eternally saved state, the passage itself says something else altogether, and any honest person reading that passage in its entirety would not have had any trouble understanding it.
jrutled3 2 years ago
Ephesians 2:8-10: These words which the apostle Paul penned to the Ephesians (Eph. 1:1), were written to those who had ALREADY: (1) heard - Eph. 1:13; Romans 10:17 (2) believed - Eph. 1:13; Acts 19:5, 18 (3) repented - Acts 19:19; 20:21 (4) confessed - Acts 19:18; Romans 10:9-10, and (5) been baptized - Acts 19:5; 2:38. Through their obedience to the word of God (Heb. 5:9), these were saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9). Not a dead faith, but a living faith (James 2:20, 24, 26).
vhopson 2 years ago
Forget if PreacherNorm's theology is correct. That's important. But the issue here is whether a church can be a "true" church if they don't DO everything the apostolic churches did. A very specific selection criteria is applied to the condition. Not everything the NT church is described as doing is considered; only the things PreacherNorm thinks important. The rest is ignored. But if PreacherNorm wants to make the description of the NT church the litmus test, he needs to consider *everything*.
MonkeeSage 2 years ago
False Teacher !!
Self -deceived by the Father of All Lies!
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
Repenting alone doesnt save u, bc like i said, its a change of heart.....faith = hear & believe, confess, repent, baptized, & stay faithful until death.....it doesnt take a scholar or translations of Greek to undertsand that
1tim31617 2 years ago
Nobody said Baptism was not required for obedience; just not for salvation - I guess it does takes a scholar to understand that. So get baptized - do it every week like communion! The old-time Pharisees would have loved Baptism just like you do - they loved all the outward signs while having impure, dead, unloving, hearts - sound familiar? Just remember the words of Jesus "they will say did we not baptize and keep on baptizing in your name; and I will say depart from me, I never knew you!"
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
Nobody said baptism is for salvation? Jesus did in Mark 16:16; Peter did in Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21; Ananias did in Acts 22:16. Paul said burial in baptism destroys the body of sin in Romans 6:3-6 to mimic the death/burial/resurrection of Christ. Sir, you either do not believe the Bible or fail to understand the Bible. Salvation is in the Lord's church (Eph. 5:23). The Lord places one into the church (Acts 2:47) when one is baptized (1 Cor. 12:13). There is only one baptism (Eph. 4:4).
vhopson 2 years ago
4But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. Titus 1:4-7
veritassword 2 years ago
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. Eph. 2:8-10
veritassword 2 years ago
I have retired from debating C. of Christ folk including the likes of PreacherNorm and Johnny Robertson because it is FUTILE.
"But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man LIKE PREACHERNORM and JOHNNY ROBERTSON are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned" Titus 3:9-11
veritassword 2 years ago
If you are SPIRITUALLY DEAD according to Eph.2:1 until God MAKES YOU ALIVE, how do you recognize sin, confess it, or repent of it while you are DEAD?
"God has CHOSEN YOU from the beginning FOR SALVATION through sanctification BY THE HOLY SPIRIT." 2 Thes.2:13
"to them HE GAVE (GIFT) the right to become children of God....WHO WERE BORN NOT of blood, NOR THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR THE WILL OF MAN, but OF GOD. John 1:13
Regeneration come first!
Baptism - Not Required!
Crystal Clear!
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
Your words: "& stay faithful until death"
So God is NOT saving you - you are saving YOURSELF! I guess the Bible lied - His Grace IS NOT SUFFICIENT!
"knowing that a man is NOT justified by the WORKS of the Law but THROUGH FAITH in Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified BY FAITH in Christ Jesus and NOT BY THE WORKS of the Law; since by the works of the Law NO ONE will be justified.
Gal. 2:15-17
Good Luck SAVING YOURSELF - you and NORM will need it!!
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
U have to understand the 2 different Greek words "bapto" and "baptiizo" that were transliterated into 1 word "Baptize" to
see the true meaning of NT baptism - U choose 2 ignore it.
But, U finally stumbled onto something I agree with - YOUR WORDS: "it's a change of heart" - CORRECT - where does that occur? Repentence- NOT BAPTISM.
baptism (Immersion into Christ) now saves you- not the removal of dirt (water) from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience (repentence) 1 Pet 3:21
veritassword 2 years ago
Well c now u get into faith alone, by saying repentance alone saves....once again ill say this, i can have all the faith in the world & tell evryone i have faith, but if i jus sit in a pew & never act on that faith, what good is it???.....Gal. 3:27 - "For as many of you as were BAPTIZED into Christ have PUT ON CHRIST"....Romans 6:3-4 - If we aren't baptized & aren't buried w/ Him, which = IMMERSION.....how are we to be raised to walk in newness of life?...we can't, when we are baptized we are ba
1tim31617 2 years ago
ptized into HIS DEATH......from verse 1 in Rom. 6...we see that Grace abounds but it clearly says that nobody can recieve grace unless they....& it tells us what to do in verses 2-4....its so obvious....how can u ignore these passages
1tim31617 2 years ago
e baptized....name calling is stupid....jus answer the question.....& yes, you can only b forgiven when u accept ALL of God's teachings....u can't jus stop at repentance....bc what are the words that follow it often...."repent AND BE BAPTIZED"....its more than jus saying "ok im wrong"....u must have a change of heart.....read the conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch....He said here's water, what hinders me from being BAPTIZED!!!!!....he knew he was wrong, but did it stop there????....NO!!!!
1tim31617 2 years ago
In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are several plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the Greek preposition eis--"because of," or "on the basis of," instead of "for." It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32.
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins."
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
So ur sitting here saying....."IF" that is correct....once again, im gonna go w/ what I KNOW, rather than what I FEEL!!!!!!!!!!!!......lol ive heard this argument be4, but it doesnt work, bc the preacher at our congregation preached it, & i had an OPEN BIBLE not taking jus his word....as the denominational world accuses us of.....so we don't avoid this bc it doesn't work..."repent & be baptized FOR the remission of YOUR SINS"......PLURAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.....PLURAL!!!!!!!!!!!
1tim31617 2 years ago
Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief.
KEEP IGNORING THE WHOLE NT; AND CONTINUE TO HOLD TO THE VERSES THAT ONLY SUPPORT YOUR ERRANT THEOLOGY.
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
Believing is part of your acknowledgement that you know u must be baptized....Faith = 2 things, hearing & BELIEVING......i can have all the faith in the world, but if i jus sit on my butt at home what good does it do me????....answer = NONE!!!!!!!!
1tim31617 2 years ago
btw - Believe & BE BAPTIZED.....of course ur condemned if u dont believe, bc then how can u b baptized????.....u cant, DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....atleast not for the right reasons
1tim31617 2 years ago
Believeth: The term believeth is often misunderstood. In John 3:16, John 3:36a and Mark 16:16a, the Greek term pisteuo (strongs 4100) is used and means faith conjoined with obedience. The usage in John 3:36b is apeitheo (strongs 544) which means faith lacking obedience. The usage in Mark 16:16b is apisteo (strongs 569) which means no belief at all. The usage in John 3:36b and Mark 16:16b show a condemned faith. Only obedient faith saves.
vhopson 2 years ago
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but OF GOD. John 1:12-13
Again, dickiebow nor veritas.sword have any intention of debating you and attempting to refute you GO-TO verses like Acts 2:38. You in the C of C only care to defend your limited and deep-rooted errant theology - you have no desire to know or understand the truth.
veritassword 2 years ago
't work
1tim31617 2 years ago
Yea buddy, OLD covenant....u can say that again....we're under wat is that???....mayb the NEW covenant......excuse me but if ur doing what God commands does that not DESCRIBE the duty of a Christian.....wat someone does describes them....Fear God & keep His COMMANDMENTS for this is man's all"....by the way, we're not being persecuted lol, ur ridiculous
1tim31617 3 years ago
Romans 3: 20 "For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight"
Gal. 2:15-17 "...nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
I'll pray that the HOLY SPIRIT will bring you into the knowledge of the TRUTH on GRACE and NOT WORKS!
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
Dickiebow, Thanks so much for your enlightened commentary.
jimslater1234 2 years ago
You are more than welcome - I'll be anxiously waiting a apology for your unquestionable breach of etiquette and arrogant, sectarian spirit displayed below.
jimslater1234 (2 weeks ago)
If you aren't a member of the church of christ, you're going to hell, case closed. Deal with it.
Otherwise, I have located many more verses where you are mentioned by name!
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
Justified by the works of the law.....k, which law is that????.....OLD!!!!!!!!!!!......nobody could stay perfect under the OLD law, but now under the New must have a WORKING FAITH!!!!!!!!!!!......don't quote passages that talk ab the OLD law when we're under the NEW
1tim31617 2 years ago
Clearly, I was quoting the NT - New Testament! But without the Holy Spirit in your life you are too obtuse to understand I guess. "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are SPIRITUALLY APPRAISED. 1 Cor. 2:14.
For that reason you cannot understand Grace, Faith, Works, The Holy Spirit, and Assurance of Salvation.
GREAT IDEA: Try reading ALL of the NT and ask the Holy Spirit for Help
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
My friend you can quote New Testament scripture that points back towards the Old Testament.....DUH!!!!!!!!!!.....btw, a man can understand the word of God......bc We must what???.....Pray & Sing w/ the whats the magic word????....UNDERSTANDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1tim31617 2 years ago
I have no idea what you are talking about most of the time. So you ripped the Old Testament from your Bible and threw it away - did you blackout the OT references in the NT as well - how moronic, but not surprising.
Here is your and Norms problem in a nutshell - you interpret scripture based on your errant theological perspective; instead of interpreting scripture to develop a sound theology.
I might as well debate a sack of hammers - I offer up scripture and you return with nonsensical BS.
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
I jus said u can find quotes in the NT that point back to the OT.....is that clear enough?????....look, i want to get to the heart of the problem bc our arguing is gettn us nowhere.....keep this in mind, ALL authority has been given to Christ on both Earth & in Heaven.....so based on that, where scriptually do u find the authority for the name of ur church????.....& show me one sign of denominationalism that Christ & the apostles praised in the Bible
1tim31617 2 years ago
I find authority to be a part of the body of Christ thru Salavation by Grace thru Faith Alone - For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. Eph.2
You want to think the local CofC is the onyy place the body of Christ meets regardless of the name on the Church - ABSURD. You are a LEGALIST - you obviousy DO NOT have the Holy Spirit - you cannot tolerate sound doctrine - you prefer error.
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
Hello???.....i jus said lets get to the heart of the problem, u didnt show me where u get authority for the name of the church.....u said i jus pick & choose, kinda sounds like u jus picked the name of where u worship out of mid-air
James 2:17.....Faith w/out works is DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!....Salvaation is given by God & yes i agree from ur passage we don't deserve it...after all it does say not from ourselves......but we must do something, how else r we to b saved???....sitting on the couch doesn
1tim31617 2 years ago
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith...it is the gift of God. SO WE MUST DO SOMETHING to receive "the Gift of GOD"?
I DIDN"T - I just recieved the gracious "GIFT OF GOD". What's your problem with understanding it is "the gift of GOD" - how more clear can it be -"GIFT OF GOD" - I am not making it up - it's in Eph.2 - GIFT OF GOD.
If you have to DO SOMETHING, other than receive it, IT IS NOT A GIFT ANYMORE!
And yes, Faith w/o Works proves you did not receive it..
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
Mark 16:16....HE THAT BELIEVES & IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED, HE THAT BELIEVETH NOT SHALL BE CONDEMNED!!!!!!!!!.........so yes we must do something to recieve the gift of God.....God sent his Son in order for us to recieve it, but if we don't obey His word fully then we can't have it....other wise evryone would go to heaven bc they already have it......so wait???...Faith w/out works proves you did not recieve it???....so w/ works proves you recieve it???....you jus killed ur position
1tim31617 2 years ago
Forgiveness is connected with repentance only in keeping with the teaching of the NT (Lk 24:47; Jhn 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Eph 5:26)
John 6:63 - The Spirit GIVES LIFE; the flesh counts for nothing. Give up your dogma, and even you can come to understand that Baptism is a symbol, NOT THE POINT OF SALVATION
Are YOU PROUD of YOUR LEGALISM & EXCLUSIVENESS?
Matt 23:13 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people"
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
LOL, ur position has been killed & u did it to urself....so enough w/ the name calling....you've called me a legalist, kool-aide follower, nonsensical...& judging from that passage....a pharisee.....is that all u have is name calling?...bc its truly sad
read Acts 2:37...the Jews recieved the Gift of the Holy Spirit when they what??....Repented & were Baptized....my friend jus read that & tell me how I'm wrong...how can it b a symbol when there are a number of accounts where ppl repented & wer
1tim31617 2 years ago
If you aren't a member of the church of christ, you're going to hell, case closed. Deal with it.
jimslater1234 3 years ago
Hey jimslater1234 - what's it like having Romans 3:12-14 written especially for you?
ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER YOU HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, NOT EVEN jimslater1234. HIS THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH HIS TONGUE HE KEEPS DECEIVING HIMSELF, THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER HIS LIPS, HIS MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS"
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
WOW jimslater1234 - what is it like being FAMOUS - they are talking about you once again in Matthew 23:27
" Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness".
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
CASE OPEN! DEAL WITH YOUR HYPOCRACY AND SECTARIAN SPIRIT!
"Professing to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:22
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
WOW jimslater1234, the Apostle Paul brought up your name in Ephesians too - WOW! Tell me - how many more times am I going to find your name mentioned in the Bible - you are almost as famous as Noah!
Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, UNLESS OF COURSE IF YOU ARE JIMSLATER 1234, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment. Eph. 4:29
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
UH OH - found another one ! ! !
God gave JIMSLATER1234 over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, and evil; full of envy, strife, deceit, malice; is a slanderer, insolent, arrogant, boastful, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful......" Romans 1:28-31
HOLY COW JIMSLATER1234 !! - they should have a picture of your mug by that scripture!!!
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
You are NOT the N.T. Church - you are a denomination, and you may be better described as a CULT. Yours is a CUT & PASTE theology. You pick and chose, and then ignore scriptures that compromise your errant theology; or you create some convoluted interpretation of scripture to support your errant belief system and false teaching.
The fact that you believe YOU ARE THE ONLY TRUE CHRISTIANS is the quintessential definition of a SELF RIGHTEOUS LEGALISTIC CULT.
dickiebow2003 3 years ago
Hey Norm, here's an idea - instead of trying to mirror the 1st Century Church with your legalism - MAYBE YOU SHOULD TRY TO MIRROR CHRIST - THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST - right now the only thing you have accomplished is DUPLICATING THE SPIRIT OF THE PHARISEES - THAT'S NOTHING TO BE PROUD OF, BUT IT CERTAINLY APPREARS YOU ARE THE PROUDEST OF THE PROUD!
But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people. Matt 23:13
morty58 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Church of Christ adheres to a "Cut & Paste" theology. They assume that every time you see "baptism" written in the Bible it refers to "water baptism" and that is error. Clearly John the Baptist spoke of the difference- "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I...He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." Matt 3:11. They sing of Amazing Grace, but their legalistic salvation by "works" is not Grace at all, and it is far from Amazing.
morty58 3 years ago
And Monkeesage, he's saying let's get back to the teachings of the NT church....not back to the original buildings or riding donkeys to an assembly.....thats ridiculous, & u kno exactlty what he means.....BIBLE DOCTRINE ONLY!!!!!!!!!.....no creed books of men.....ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY THE INSPIRATION OF GOD, the Catholic creed is def. not inspired by God...mayb the Pope, & last time I checked he's jus like any other person, except he wears that suit
1tim31617 3 years ago
What he says, exactly, is: "the question that we're asking is whether or not what we DO matches the description of what the New Testament church did..." He then goes on to talk about actions (not doctrine)--like "acts of worship." He's most definitely saying that unless what your church DOES matches what the NT church DID, you're not an NT church. Which, of course, excludes his church (assuming he's not miraculously escaping from Philippian jails on the weekends).
MonkeeSage 3 years ago
Is that a joke???....are u escaping from any phillipian jails on the weekend????
1tim31617 3 years ago
Watch the video. This pastor claims that unless you're DOING everything the NT church DID, you're not the a true church. But he can't pick and choose which things to do. The NT church also got in physical altercations with Jews (e.g., Saul before conversion, Paul at Jerusalem with Trophimus); met in catacombs; kept their Christianity secret (the icthus was originally a code symbol), &c. So his church is not an NT church, according to his own claims.
MonkeeSage 3 years ago
The point is that he is confusing the DEscription of the NT church, with the PREscription for what churches should do. This is the same errant reasoning used by polygamists: "Hey, the OT saints we DEscribed as having many wives..." The mark of a true church is that it follows the commands for what a church should do and preach, not that it matches the description of the NT church. If there's not a command (e.g., about using musical instruments), then it's not a matter of doctrine.
MonkeeSage 3 years ago
I would love to see where in the Bible you find the Catholic church.....the Catholic church has been reformed so many times im surprised that you can w/ all confidence say that Christ formed the Catholic church...ha!!!!
1tim31617 3 years ago
If you have broken one commandant, you have broken them all. Gooooood bye to all the churches that say they don't havr to follow!
crackedglassheart 3 years ago
i dont recall reading about a catholic church in the bible. Perhpas if you would be so good as to provide some scripture saying the only church christ established was "Roman Catholic"
pyrokid78 3 years ago
I'll be happy to show you that when you show me the terms "altar call" or even a legitimate Christian Doctrine, "Holy Trinity".
wjweigand 3 years ago
Why is this hard? The only church founded by Jesus Christ himself and not a fallible man is the Roman Catholic Church. There is your answer.
OCmaronite 3 years ago
you cant find a church..... god says in his word he puts us in the body as he pleases
Jodeskis 3 years ago
The churches that call themselves "Church of Christ" bear no resemblence to the church we find in the book of acts. Your doctrine bears this out as well.
Oct31st1517 3 years ago
re: Oct31st
"no resemblence"...? Are you sure? I notice you didn't dare present any Biblical evidence for this lame accusation...
TruthChamp 3 years ago
You want to find the true church? Get off your arses and go apply the teachings. Go and find someone to help there are plenty out there. Then after you have posted a list of who and how you helped them you can stand all you want and blab on about who has the best way to pray.
Otherwise your a hypercrite
wannabeebee 3 years ago
As the pastor himself says at 0:11, he's confusing the DEscription of the NT church with the PREscriptions for the NT church. The NT church is variously DEscribed as being persecuted by Roman emperors, attacked by Jewish pharisees (like Paul), converting Ethopian Eunuchs, preaching on Solomon's Porch, living in communes, and so on. Unless his church is doing all that, by his own admission, it's not the NT church. Just because the Bible describes something doesn't mean it prescribes it.
MonkeeSage 3 years ago
Ps. Might want to read the pastoral letters to find where the explicit prescriptions for the NT church are given.
MonkeeSage 3 years ago
Does the Church of Christ believe in the plan of salvation, as outlined in Acts 2, especially found in verse 38? That is,
1)repentance, 2) being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins, and 3)being filled with the Holy Ghost, with the evidence of speaking in other tongues as the Spirit of God gives utterance?
Is this what the Church of Christ teaches, believes and practices?
GodsGrace333 3 years ago
Speaking in toungues dos not prove evidence of the Spirit of God. Those not saved, and even those who practice false religions speak in tounges.
swagga07 3 years ago
description of the NT church?..
3 classes of people God dealt with..Jew Samaritan and Gentile..in each class..God sent his man with the keys..Peter..and He was present in each case..Acts 2,8,10..the same message was preached and the same results happened..
Lakebluff2007 3 years ago
"The" NT church or "a" NT church?
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
Does it matter whose church is most like the one in the fantasy novel?
I mean, it's kind of a "my dad can beat up your dad" competition, only with imaginary friends, isn't it?
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
You do not follow the Apostles doctrine..You do not match..
Lakebluff2007 3 years ago 2
Why don't you show everyone how I do not follow the apostle's doctrine? You just make a claim with no evidence. That is not according to the apostle's doctrine!
PreacherNorm 3 years ago
If you do not preach the Apostles message of Acts 2:38..then you are NOT preaching the Apostles doctrine..
No where in the Book of Acts did the Apostle preach a sinners prayer or a repeat after me prayer
Lakebluff2007 3 years ago
lol
1cross3nails4gvn 3 years ago
You can say all day long that YOU are the NT church but unless you have been born again like the original church..and you practiced what they did..then you cannot say that you are..
Lakebluff2007 3 years ago 2
I will share the one scripture that will set apart who is truly the original true church..
JOhn 17:20- Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
How are we to believe on Jesus?
through THEIR word..who's word?..the Apostles
What one book in the Bible contains the WORD of the Apostles?...Book of Acts the message they preached will save anyone...
Compare..Acts 2:38 8 16 10:48 19:6 22:16
Lakebluff2007 3 years ago 2
'Catholic church'is so far from the bible its pathetic. musical instruments,holy water,pergatory,baby baptism,praying to mary,statues,etc.they will have to answer to God for this worship he had not commanded.Rev.22:18-19 Lev.10:1-2 we must have authority from God's word whatever we do in the church.not outside the bible. Gods word is final.speak where the bible speaks and remain silent where the bible is silent.
Facebut85 3 years ago