Originally posted by BChristianK
BChristianK,
Having accepted your last post explaining your understanding of my religious position I am happy to answer the many question, statements and quotes as best I can. Looking forward to your response.
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
JustaChristian, our posts are getting lengthly, I’m going to try to crystallize our argument a bit so that we don’t keep covering the same territory over and over.
I’ll respond to some of the more critical issues of your last post to me.
You have stated that the law that was in affect during Jesus time had nothing to do with baptism and conclude from this that the thief on the cross had no need of baptism to be saved.
However you have yet to show us why Jesus and John were both baptizing and that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (essentially what you claim is the purpose of baptism is for today). So what is your answer to this quandary?
JustAChristian answers saying:
John came preaching and baptizing in approval of Diety as a forerunner of Christ to prepare the way for the entrance of Christ (Mark 1:4). Baptism before the cross was for remission of sins and baptism after the cross was for remission of sins. However, they were not for remission of sins in pecisely the same way, nor having precisely the same particulars. The first was “unto� the remission of sin in prospect of the death of Christ, the other was for the remission of sins in reality, since Christ had truly died. Jesus came preaching the kingdom of Heaven. His disciples baptized. J.W. McGarvey, the noted 19th century commentariest gives us this point:
“Jesus, as divine Lawgiver, instituted baptism, and his disciples administered it. We nowhere hear of the disciples of John administering baptism. In fact, the Baptist, like the disciples of Jesus, baptized under a divine commission, and could not delegate the power to others. It was the office of Jesus to commission others to this work, not to perform it himself. Had he done so, those baptized by him might have foolishly claimed for themselves some peculiar honor by reason thereof (1Co 1:14,15). Jesus was the spiritual baptizer, in which baptism the efficacy lies in the administrant; but water baptism, the efficacy of which lies rather in the spirit of the one baptized than in the virtues of the administrant, Jesus left to his disciples.�
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Right! John was the forerunner to prepare a people for the coming of Christ and Jesus came proclaiming the gospel of the Kingdom of God, and in both of their ministries baptism was practiced, and John specifically says that his was practiced as a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Now, if we take the ICOC’s logic (International Churches of Christ, of which you have all but admitted you are a member of), we must conclude that there was no way for the thief on the cross to be saved. He had never had a baptism for the forgiveness of his sins. The circumstances didn’t permit one, and so he died without one.
Now JAC, you think that you can wiggle your way off the hook by saying that the Law of Moses was the rule of the day and so no baptism was needed during that time frame.
Well beyond the fact that such an argument makes both the baptismal practice of John and the baptismal practice of JESUS UNNECCESARY, which in and of itself degrades both of their ministries and you should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting such a thing, you need now to contend with the following scripture.
JustAChristian answers saying:
I have stated to you earlier that I have no affiliation with the International Churches of Christ. You are aware of this. Your assertion to the ICOC is with bias and indifference. If you persist in placing me with this group I will cease communication.
You and I do not know if the thief was never baptized before the cross. The practice was wide spread. Many from Judea came to John’s baptism. No doubt may of Jesus’ disciples baptized. What I am saying is that your argument is moot. Jesus took the thief to Paradise with him that day. That is all we can conclude for sure.
The Mosaic Law never commanded baptism for the remission of sins. “The Law and prophets were unto John. Since then the Kingdom of God is preached and the people pressed unto it� (Luke 16:16). Jesus never discounted the mission of John nor did John discount the mission of Jesus. Was Jesus’ baptism by his disciples effectual? God spoke from heaven, “This is my beloved Son� showing approval of His work. Jesus never discouraged the keeping of the Law during His administration (Matthew 19:11). The apostles never preached it after His death.
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
The Kingdom ( of which you will claim only you and those who are ICOC members are are citizens of) was being preached from John’s ministry forward, and it those who were coming into it were considered citizens of the kingdom having been converted under the message of the gospel of the kingdom of God.
Now, lets, for those innocent bystanders to this discussion, check JAC’s honesty.
JAC, do you consider yourself to be a citizen of the Kingdom? Were you converted under the gospel of the kingdom of God? Were you baptized?
Lets see if JAC will answer these questions. I hope that JAC will be honest enough to answer them directly, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t. Because it is pretty clear that the time in which the thief on the cross was living and dying the gospel of the Kingdom of God was being preached and baptism was associated. So though JAC would like to invalidate the importance of baptism during this time so he can duck the question of the thief on the cross, he cannot. The Law had not been totally fulfilled, as that would occur on the cross, but the Kingdom of God was being preached and there were those who were converting, and they were being baptized just like JAC was.
JustAChristian answers saying:
1.Yes
2.I was converted by the preaching of the Gospel commissioned after the cross (Mt. 28:18-20).
3.Yes
4. Yes
Next question.
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
So though JAC would like to invalidate the importance of baptism during this time so he can duck the question of the thief on the cross, he cannot. The Law had not been totally fulfilled, as that would occur on the cross, but the Kingdom of God was being preached and there were those who were converting, and they were being baptized just like JAC was.
JustAChristian answers saying:
The only person I know that is trying to invalidate baptism is you. You have not invalidated my argument about the thief, but have given us a lot of rhetoric without scope. Why don’t you get on with it and discredit my conclusion or at least give it some effort.
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
So the gospel of the kingdom was no longer valid after the cross? That doesn’t make sense. But that is also really not the issue, is it? The issue is, was baptism practiced in conjunction with the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom of God between John’s ministry and Jesus’ death? The answer is clearly yes. Did the thief on the cross live between the time of John’s ministry and Jesus death? The answer also is yes. Do you have any reason to believe the thief on the cross was baptized? No. So someone, who came to Christ during the time the gospel of the kingdom was being preached was saved without baptism. Now, JAC will probably again appeal to that fact that the law had not yet been fulfilled until the cross. That’s true, but that does not negate the fact that the way to be saved during John and Jesus’ ministry wasn’t the law, were it so all sorts of Pharisees and Sadducees would have been saved during that time without any need of abiding in the preparing ministry of John or even in accepting the Jesus’ preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom. If JAC is saying that because the law was in affect, believing the gospel of the Kingdom of God was optional. Then he needs to go back to his discipler for some more theological training because that’s not even what the ICOC would claim.
So JAC, do you think the gospel of the Kingdom preached by Jesus was optional too?
JustAChristian answers saying:
Jesus preached that the kingdom was at hand (Mark 1:15). His message had heavenly credence. The kingdom of God came into effect on Pentecost. Jesus gave the “keys of the kingdom� unto Peter to open the doors of entrance. Peter standing with the eleven preached “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sin and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit� (Acts 2:38). On that day, about 3,000 were baptized and entered into the kingdom bing added to the church.
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
So the Gospel of the Kingdom (gospel of God) isn’t the “eternal gospel� which is extant today? Boy, I wish you were around to correct Jesus when He said:
Matthew 24:14 “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.�
JustAChristian answers saying:
My reference to the gospel of the kingdom prior to the cross is the “prefatory� gospel of Christ. Jesus preached the kingdom was at hand, to shortly come to be (Mark 9:1). The preaching of the kingdom after the cross never referenced that the kingdom was at hand. The kingdom is always present tense (God)�...Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son(Colossians 1:13-14 AV). . To this extent they are different.
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
You’ve painted yourself into quite a corner JAC
JustAChristian answers saying:
Only in your mind...
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Now, JAC backtracks and tries to salvage an argument we have already done away with, a sign of his theological desperation at this point.
JustAChristian answers saying:
Really?
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
(Thief on the cross, JAC) You sure can’t, so there’s no sense in speculating as such, is there? Such speculation would clearly not be “following the bible and only the bible� would it?
JustAChristian answers saying:
What I so ably pointed out was that the point is “moot.� Jesus forgave sins and saved many verbally before the cross (Matt. 9:2,5; Luke 7:47-48).
quote:
If he was a Jew and heard the message of John the baptizer, he should have obey the massage and been baptized.
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Right!
JustAChristian answers saying:
No comment
quote:
He would have then had his sins forgiven by God for obedience to John’s message and prepared for the coming of the Messiah.
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Right!
JustAChristian answers saying:
Again, no comment.
quote:
He would not have been subjected to the eternal gospel for Christ was not yet dead and raised for the dead.
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
There you go again, correcting Jesus.
JustAChristian answers saying:
Really? How?
quote:
Luke 16:16 "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Explain to me what is different between the Gospel of the Kingdom which was proclaimed during the time of John and Jesus and then how that is different from the “eternal Gospel� that you are talking about, and then, if you don’t mind, explain to me how Jesus was wrong to say that the gospel of the kingdom will be the one preached to all the world when you seem to be claiming that this isn’t really the one, it is the ‘eternal Gospel.’
JustAChristian answers saying:
I have already answered on this above...
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Then, when you’ve finished trying to answer these questions and realize you can’t, then perhaps you will be humble enough to admit you have advanced a false dilemma between the gospel of the Kingdom and the eternal gospel. When, and if, you do this, admit you don’t have the foggiest as to how the thief on the cross got saved!
JustAChristian answers saying:
If I didn’t know it for sure I’d say I’ve “hit a nerve�... Are you fully confident of your statement? The thief was saved just like many who were saved from their sins during Jesus’ ministry. But, after the Lord’s death we are saved by obeying the commandment of the Lord Jesus Christ into salvation preached and written by the apostles and faithful inspired writers (John 20:30-31).
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Go back and get some help from your discipler on this one. See how the party line ICOC theology digs itself out of this mess.
JustAChristian answers saying:
Not worthy of comment.
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Now lets move on to the next issue, Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 and his experience in Acts 10.
Sort of. Most likely the concepts of repentance and baptism weren’t dual commands but rather two dimensions of one contiguous idea.
JustAChristian answers saying:
I believe their faith in the Lord from the preaching of Peter is implied by the scripture. Likewise confession of Christ as Lord would have been done as in the case of Philip and the eunuch in Acts 8. That which is commanded is what Peter saw was yet lacking; Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. The gift of indwelling of the Spirit comes as a result of obedience (Acts 2:38; Romans 8:9). A fact does not need to be repeated over and over again in order to be true and essential. Once established as truth and essential it remains truth and essential in all cases. If not, why not?
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Now to Acts 10:
Right, BTW, well get to an explanation of how the ICOC really jacks up Matthew 28 in my next post.
JustAChristian answers saying:
What does BTW mean?
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
So this was just a sign to Peter and had nothing to do with their belief, salvation, etc.. nothin’, right? We’ll see about that…
JustAChristian answers saying:
Be sure to use book chapter and verse.
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
How did Peter know they believed? He was preaching, the Holy Spirit came upon Cornelius and his household, Peter says something which is really peculiar under your interpretation of these verses.
JustAChristian answers saying:
I believe their faith in the Lord from the preaching of Peter is implied by the scripture. Likewise confession of Christ as Lord would have been done as in the case of Philip and the eunuch in Acts 8. I feel that you would agree if every “jot� and “tittle� of every circumstance of Christ and the apostles was recorded in the New Testament it would be an impossible book to work with. I continue to believe that once a truth is establish and is essential it remains established and essential.
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Did Peter received the Holy Spirit as an unsaved person? Did those whom he preached to in Acts 2:38 receive the holy spirit before they repented and believed?
JustAChristian answers saying:
Read John 20:22. The gift of the Holy Spirit is a result of obedience and not a prerequisite to salvation.
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Yea, you see, you have to make a pretty daft claim that the Holy Spirit all of a sudden came down upon the unsaved house of Cornelius in order to salvage your ICOC theology, that just says you’re desperate to hold onto something that is clearly unscriptural when applied to acts 10.
JustAChristian answers saying:
“And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost [by and indwelling measure, JAC], even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by [“obedience of�– Romans 1:5, JAC] faith.� (Acts 15:7-9 AV)
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Oh, I see, so the receiving of the Holy Spirit saves in Acts 2:38 but not Acts 10 because the ICOC says so.
JustAChristian answers saying:
Where have I ever stated that the receiving of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38 saves? Show me the posting. On your mark, get set, GO!
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Sure, and the fact that the Holy Spirit came upon them was a sign of their belief, and that God had come upon them and His Spirit was placed in them as a seal of their salvation. Just like the Apostles.
JustAChristian answers saying:
Again, where does it say that the Holy Spirit came upon the household of Cornelius as a sign of their belief? Go back and read Peter’s referencing Acts 2:2-4 to the Jewish breathren in Acts 11. Also, where does it say that this manifestation of the Holy Spirit was a seal of their salvation?
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
You see, the world cannot receive the Holy Spirit because it doesn’t see or know Him. But the Apostles knew Jesus and therefore knew the Spirit, and when Jesus sent Him (on pentacost) The Holy Spirit indwelt them, Cornelius and his household received the spirit just as the disciples did so it is an illogical and unscriptural argument to say that Cornelius had the same experience as the disciples did when they recieved the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit did not indwell him,.
JustAChristian answers saying:
The Holy Spirit upon the apostles and the household of Cornelius were of the same order: “And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.� (Acts 2:2-4 AV)
Peter said the very same thing happened at the house of Cornelius. The apostles were saved prior to this event so the Spirits manifestation was not to save them, neither was it to save the household of Cornelius.
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Now lets deal with your mathematical axiom treatment of the scripture.
There is also a “figure of speech� called a “synecdoche.� The synecdoche is the exchange of one idea for an associated idea. While metonymy is an exchange between two related nouns, the synecdoche is an exchange made between two associated ideas. The synecdoche is a figure of speech where a part is put for a whole, and where a whole is put for a part. It involves putting a singular for a plural and a plural for a singular. The Bible abounds with this figure of speech. Jesus used this figure of speech when he taught the disciples to pray “...give us this day our daily bread...� Bread is a “synecdoche� which stand for all the physical needs one needs. Believe in the verse Acts 16:31 is a singular verb placed for a plural and as such it stands for the whole of that which is needed in order to be obedient. It includes, faith in Christ as God’s Son, repentance of sins, confession of Christ publically, and baptism for the remission of sins. Understanding the axiom that the whole of anything consist of the sums of its parts and the figure of speech “synecdoche� will help you to see that each picture of conversion does not necessarily have to express every need unto salvation each time.
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
And it is quite convenient that you let the ICOC define the theological idea that eisegetically defines the “synecdoche� instead of exegeting what scripture says. If I point to a passage where Paul clearly shows that believe or confession of Christ is sufficient for salvation, you pull out your convenient synechdoche argument and say that he meant all the stuff you say he meant.
JustAChristian answers saying:
Oops, Sorry! I must have hit a nerve... You have yet to clearly explain or otherwise how “believe or confession of Christ� separate from baptism for the remission of sins is sufficient for salvation� You can’t look to Romans 10 or to any scripture in the epistles for conditions of salvation. The epistles were written to the saved church, not to people who are unsaved. It is not an evangelistic letter. We gain edification from the epistles. Paul and the other writers relate how hearing the gospel, faith in Christ, confession of Him as the Son of God and being immersed for the remission of sins has brought us into Christ and His church. We look to the teaching of Jesus to his apostles in the giving of the commission to go into all the world with a message of salvation for conditions of salvation. As to the synecdoche argument, I see you commented on it but didn’t refute it.
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
That’s reckless scriptural interpretation. If the text cannot stand alone without your eisegeting it for us under the guise of “synechdoche� then don’t lie and say that you “only believe what the bible says.� Do I think Paul assumed that those who believed in Ephesians 1:13 were baptized as a public profession of that belief? Probably. Do I have the right to just read belief and baptism when it says belief? ABSOLUTELY NOT! If Paul says,
JustAChristian answers saying:
It was God through the prophet Isaiah Who said, “...come let us reason together...� (Isaiah 1:18). He expects through study and reasoning that a disciple could “right divide the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15). However, you give no grounds for such a conclusion yourself. Why? When you come around to prayerfully investigating the “synecdoche argument� you might change your mind.
quote:
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Ephesians 1:13-14 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession-- to the praise of his glory.
Then I had best take it as it stands, or leave it alone.
JustAChristian answers saying:
If you don’t want to deny grammar and its rules then I would take it as it stands..
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
You best not tinker with it either! And don’t think that you will be able to stand before God and say, “well, ya see Jesus, if we look at it like a mathematical axiom…blah, blah....synechdoche…�
That won’t cut it friend!
JustAChristian answers saying:
“For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Hebrews 5:12-14 AV)
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
First, I would invite you to quite inviting me .
JustAChristian answers saying:
I keep hitting nerves...Sorry!
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Now as to your questions.
As far as Thess 1:8 and Romans 2:8 are concerned, did the thief on the cross “obey the gospel?�
JustAChristian answers saying:
The prefatory or the eternal gospel?
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Did Cornelius? Can you show me where Cornelius 1. repented, 2. Confessed. 3. was baptized after doing these things? (please show me how they did all those things according the criteria set forth in First Principles.) You keep wanting to reduce the gospel to a set of instruction akin to a manual for installing a car stereo. That’s perhaps the what’s most ridiculous about McKean’s First Principles, they reduce the work of God in man to a step by step method that he defines. Furthermore, the ICOC prescribes judgments on the completeness of each step with the eyes of man not through the eyes of God. I’ve heard of people actually being denied baptism because the new disciple didn’t go through the human made bible study to the satisfaction of the discipler! May God have mercy on those disciplers who did so.
JustAChristian answers saying:
As I said earlier, unless you are willing to listen to rules of grammar and accept the concept of the “synecdoche� it is not likely that I will ever convience you on anything. What the ICOC does is beyond by control. I have the duty of preaching and teaching the eternal gospel of Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:18-20). That gospel requires one to hear and believe the good news that Jesus has suffered, died and was raised from the dead according to the scriptures (1 Cor. 15:1-6; Acts 17:2); that He requires that man confess Him publically (Matthew 10:32-33); that He requires that man repent of sins (Luke 13:3-5); and that He requires man to be baptized for the remission of sins. He has promised forgiveness to all who faithfully obey His will (Heb. 5:8-9).
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
You asked:
quote:
Do you not sense the need to preach the pure unadulterated gospel of Christ?
I do, I hope ICOC will unadulterated the gospel so that they can do so as well. McKean’s first principles have added to God’s word and adulterated it so much that I fear for him and for those who follow him.
JustAChristian answers saying:
I have the same sympathy for those who follow him and not Christ.
quote:
Generally people are not baptized because of the way they have been taught. There are those who have not been taught. There are also those who will never be taught. God is a righteous judge on each situation and will judge righteously. Because you and I know what the Bible says on baptism we are without excuse to fail to obey it.
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
No argument here.
Now lets cut to the chase, be an upfront kinda guy and answer this question straight up for us all.
“do you think the ICOC is the only true church today?�
JustAChristian answers saying:
I have never supported the ICOC as I have told you. I judge, based on what I know of its cultist methods that it is not in harmony with God. I believe what you are really wanting to know is do I believe I am in the only church that will be saved. Right?
Let me answer you thus. If Jesus has established His church and we believe He has. And, if He established a territory for His kingdom the church, the whole world. And, if He established a law for His church the kingdom of God which He did, the New Testament gospel and covenants. And if He promised to reward those with salvation who would obey the gospel(Mark 16:16) and add them to His church (Acts 2:41-47), knowing that Jesus has founded only one church (Matthew 16:18-20; Eph. 4:4-5; Col. 1:18), and knowing that factions within the church is unscriptural (1 Cor. 1:13). Would it not behoove me to search out the church in the New Testament and follow its precepts as it presented them? This is merely what I have done. I believe that if I faithfully do what they did in word or in deed (Col. 3:17) that God will be pleased and save me eternally.
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Regarding Jesus statement to Nicodemus:
quote:
One view makes baptism, referred to by ex udatoa (coming up out of water), essential to the birth of the Spirit, as the means of obtaining the new birth of the Spirit. If so, why is water mentioned only once in the three demands of Jesus(vv. 3,5,7)?
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Looking for some comment by JustaChristian to answer this…
JustAChristian answers saying:
Context strongly rules in any situation. If it is clearly made a part of the command to be born again why does it have to be repeated in each verse? You must remember verses came many years after the Gospel was recorded. Context would have it written once as though sufficient by the Lord and the inspired writer.
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Ok, now that is a good, exegetical answer that employs sound biblical exegesis.
Unfortunately, it completely obliterates your previous argument that baptism wasn’t necessary before the cross.
JustAChristian answers saying:
The gospel of the kingdom is at hand was a prefatory gospel. The Jews that heard John and Jesus preach it were expected to obey its requirement to be baptized for the remission of sins in preparation for the coming of the kingdom. Jesus was able and did forgive sins verbally in many cases as I have shown. What is your problem?
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Congratulations you have aptly and skillfully refuted your own argument.
JustAChristian answers saying:
How?
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
So now the problem of the thief on the cross is an even bigger problem for you. If water (baptism) and spirit are necessary for rebirth for Nicodemus then you’ll have to explain to me why baptism wasn’t necessary before the cross. Wasn’t Nicodemus’ conversation with Jesus before the cross?
I’ll tell you what, I’ll stop here and give you some time to pull yourself out of the pit you have gotten yourself into.
JustAChristian answers saying:
Nicodemus was told what was necessary to enter into the kingdom of God, the church of Christ. This could not have been accomplished until Christ established His church. He must first suffer and die and be resurrected. He must be witnessed of His resurrection. He must be commissioned with His kingdom. This all did not happen in the context of Jesus teaching Him in John chapter 3. Peter preached entrance into the kingdom. This happen the first Pentecost day after Christ’s resurrection. Nicodemus, like all the other Pharisees were subject to John’s baptism of preparation (Matthew 3:7). We later see him faithful in service to the Lord at his burial (John 19:39). I believe he became a faithful Christian. Perhaps even at the preaching of the apostles on Pentecost.
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Pick a lane, either baptism was necessary for Nicodemus and therefore necessary for the thief on the cross or you are misinterpreting John 3? Which is it?
JustAChristian answers saying:
I believe I have stated my position thoroughly.
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
I did want to answer one question you posed to me specifically.
quote:
It is apparent that regardless what I may reply to you that you have a preconceived notion that whatever I have to say is not going to be considered. If you wish to communicate with an open mind then I am willing to proceed....
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
First off, I don’t have any preconceived notions about the ICOC, I’ve spoken with more than one person in the ICOC (both ended up lying to try to get me to join btw) so my notions come from the ICOC directly. Nonetheless, I’ll not even supervene those experience on you. If you can show scripturally and logically that the ICOC is the only faithful church on the planet, then I’ll join it. But I’ll subject its claims to the same biblical scrutiny that they demand of other traditions for example.
JustAChristian answers saying:
I would not wish the ICOC on you or anyone, but I would wish that you investigate the New Testament church of Christ. Here is a link to assist you:
http://cofc.abbottpages.com/
quote:
in the mean time, where does the Bible said if one will accept the Lord Jesus as their personal savior then they will be saved?
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Romans 10:9
JustAChristian answers saying:
It is not in that verse. Romans 10:9 applies to the saved not the unsaved. We must rightly divide the scriptures.
quote:
Romans 10:9-10 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Now its your turn? Where in the bible does it say that if you go through the First Principles written by Kip McKean you will be saved?
JustAChristian answers saying:
This goes without a need to respond.
In Christ,
JustAChristian :angel:
