B
B

April 16th, 2012, 11:03 pm #41

I'll give you my impression: Brian does know the teachings of the church of Christ, which are the teachings of the New Testament--the pattern--but he wants a detailed description of the pattern so he can argue about it, or possibly even deny it. We keep telling him to read and study the New Testament, yet that seems to turn him off; instead, he demands that we "tell" him the pattern.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

April 17th, 2012, 1:55 am #42

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]B,

I was giving Brian the benefit of being able to explain his stance. He could very well say he is a member of the church of Christ and is familiar with the history of the Restoration Movement and its principles. But, to qualify that further by stating that he is in reality affiliated with the neo-church of Christ {as restructured by the change agents).

We can trace this attitude from when Brian was endlessly attacking Ken Sublett for exposing musical idolatry and other performances now practiced in a few congregations that have strayed away from the truth, not realizing that Ken is the closest among us, based on his study and research, to providing facts that biblical history has already recorded. Ken is here with us to research in great depth what our Restoration Movement forefathers have just scratched the surface -- thanks to the WWW!!!! that wasn't available at the time.

I was just waiting for Brian to state that baptism is only a symbol or a ritual -- and not really a requirement; that as Max Lucado (a pro- or former Baptist minister) would say: "accept Christ as your personal Savior" and you are saved [your sins are forgiven] right then, and "be baptized" later on just to perform the ritual.

I can go on with other teachings to which the change agents now adhere -- which are contrary to those found in the New Testament. (I am using baptism here as one example.)

It is the change agents that have questioned "the pattern," actually meaning that they want to go beyond what the New Testament teaches.

Brian has probably encountered for the first time the amount of time and effort we have expended on this site to expose "The Acts of the Change Agents" -- not to be confused with the N.T. book, "The Acts of the Apostles?." Didn't know they were in real existence operating in the brotherhood, aiming to restructure the church of Christ, modifying its teachings, rewriting the history of the Restoration Movement, Brian?[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 16th, 2012, 8:07 pm

April 17th, 2012, 8:59 pm #43

You assume too much. You've never asked me what my belief on baptism is, and for purposes of this discussion, my belief on baptism is irrelevant. We're discussing the pattern a Christian is to follow. You tell me that the New Testament is the pattern I'm supposed to follow, but that doesn't make any sense because there is at least one command in the New Testament that is impossible to follow (2 Timothy 4:13). Further, when I ask for clarification, you act like its an imposition. Do you really understand what you're doing?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

April 17th, 2012, 10:12 pm #44

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Brian,

When I assume and the assumption is incorrect, shouldn't that be enough for you to be responsible for making the correction? I have used the word "assume" as a preface or an invitation for you to speak your mind.

I've mentioned the word "baptism" in so many different ways to give you all the chances to agree or rebut. Why haven't you done either one -- agree or rebut?

What have I heard from you? NOTHING!!! So, is that supposed to mean that you agree on baptism?

Now, you are asserting that your belief on baptism is irrelevant??? It certainly is irrelevant. It is you claiming to be trying to know more or to understand better "the pattern." Baptism is a very significant part of the conversion process. And the process or plan is explained in the New Testament.

Your quote of II Tim. 4:13 is ludicrous in defense against the New Testament as the pattern -- not any less than quoting a preceding verse: "Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry."

Try again.

It is becoming more and more apparent that your alignment is with the change agents -- perhaps unbeknownst to you at first -- until you discovered this website and other conservative websites. You are not ignorant or dumb. You just do not question the objectives and goals of the change agents who argue that there is no pattern for the church; that there is no pattern for conversion; that there is no pattern for Christian living.

Again, Brian, the New Testament is the answer to your and any other doubter's questions.

Surely, "Take Mark, and bring him with thee." (II Tim. 4:11)

Surely, "The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments." (II Tim. 4:13)

I still believe you are not ignorant nor dumb. Just ... um ....[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

B
B

April 17th, 2012, 10:37 pm #45

Neither ignorant nor dumb, just...deliberately obtuse.
Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

April 17th, 2012, 11:31 pm #46

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Brian,

When I assume and the assumption is incorrect, shouldn't that be enough for you to be responsible for making the correction? I have used the word "assume" as a preface or an invitation for you to speak your mind.

I've mentioned the word "baptism" in so many different ways to give you all the chances to agree or rebut. Why haven't you done either one -- agree or rebut?

What have I heard from you? NOTHING!!! So, is that supposed to mean that you agree on baptism?

Now, you are asserting that your belief on baptism is irrelevant??? It certainly is irrelevant. It is you claiming to be trying to know more or to understand better "the pattern." Baptism is a very significant part of the conversion process. And the process or plan is explained in the New Testament.

Your quote of II Tim. 4:13 is ludicrous in defense against the New Testament as the pattern -- not any less than quoting a preceding verse: "Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry."

Try again.

It is becoming more and more apparent that your alignment is with the change agents -- perhaps unbeknownst to you at first -- until you discovered this website and other conservative websites. You are not ignorant or dumb. You just do not question the objectives and goals of the change agents who argue that there is no pattern for the church; that there is no pattern for conversion; that there is no pattern for Christian living.

Again, Brian, the New Testament is the answer to your and any other doubter's questions.

Surely, "Take Mark, and bring him with thee." (II Tim. 4:11)

Surely, "The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments." (II Tim. 4:13)

I still believe you are not ignorant nor dumb. Just ... um ....[/color]
I think he is a frozen ATM machine!
Quote
Like
Share

B
B

April 18th, 2012, 12:26 am #47

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Brian,

When I assume and the assumption is incorrect, shouldn't that be enough for you to be responsible for making the correction? I have used the word "assume" as a preface or an invitation for you to speak your mind.

I've mentioned the word "baptism" in so many different ways to give you all the chances to agree or rebut. Why haven't you done either one -- agree or rebut?

What have I heard from you? NOTHING!!! So, is that supposed to mean that you agree on baptism?

Now, you are asserting that your belief on baptism is irrelevant??? It certainly is irrelevant. It is you claiming to be trying to know more or to understand better "the pattern." Baptism is a very significant part of the conversion process. And the process or plan is explained in the New Testament.

Your quote of II Tim. 4:13 is ludicrous in defense against the New Testament as the pattern -- not any less than quoting a preceding verse: "Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry."

Try again.

It is becoming more and more apparent that your alignment is with the change agents -- perhaps unbeknownst to you at first -- until you discovered this website and other conservative websites. You are not ignorant or dumb. You just do not question the objectives and goals of the change agents who argue that there is no pattern for the church; that there is no pattern for conversion; that there is no pattern for Christian living.

Again, Brian, the New Testament is the answer to your and any other doubter's questions.

Surely, "Take Mark, and bring him with thee." (II Tim. 4:11)

Surely, "The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments." (II Tim. 4:13)

I still believe you are not ignorant nor dumb. Just ... um ....[/color]
Surely...Brian is not telling us that he can't distinguish between New Testament passages that narrate chronological events or biographical sketches vs. those passages that reveal the explicit teachings of Christ and the apostles.

If Brian fixates on 2 Tim 4.13 as his prime example why the New Testament cannot be the pattern to follow, then he really is deliberately trying to be obtuse for the sake of perpetuating ludicrous arguments.

Nevertheless, it is rather interesting to see how low the change agents will stoop to mock the New Testament.

Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

April 18th, 2012, 7:36 am #48

How do you come to the conclusion that anyone was mocking the New Testament?
Quote
Share

Great Baptizmo
Great Baptizmo

April 18th, 2012, 1:13 pm #49

Surely...Brian is not telling us that he can't distinguish between New Testament passages that narrate chronological events or biographical sketches vs. those passages that reveal the explicit teachings of Christ and the apostles.

If Brian fixates on 2 Tim 4.13 as his prime example why the New Testament cannot be the pattern to follow, then he really is deliberately trying to be obtuse for the sake of perpetuating ludicrous arguments.

Nevertheless, it is rather interesting to see how low the change agents will stoop to mock the New Testament.
The New Testament isn't a "pattern." It is instruction for followers of Christ that must be read carefully.

5 steppers operate on the principle of eisegesis of the text in order to PROVE what they have been taught by their DENOMINATIONAL "non-denominational" brotherhood.

The 5 steps of salvation and the asinine instrumental issue are not found in God's Word.

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

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Original "Your Name": "The Crumptastic Great Baptizmo"

Edited only the "Name" -- too long for the forum's page editor.[/color]
Last edited by Donnie.Cruz on April 22nd, 2012, 5:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

B
B

April 18th, 2012, 4:44 pm #50

A college student enrolled in a particular course, took copious notes from the professor's lectures, and read his textbook. At the end of the course, the professor gave an examination, for which the student felt that he was well prepared. The student assumed that the exam would be nothing more than a simple regurgitation of facts to run-of-the-mill questions.

But the exam questions required the student to list various characteristics, properties, and traits about items in the course. This took the student by surprise, because the professor had never given any explicit lists in the lectures, nor were there any lists in the textbook. The student was at a loss about how to answer the questions correctly and therefore received a poor grade on the exam.

The student felt that the exam was unfair, and he complained to the professor about his poor grade.

"What's the idea of making up an exam with LISTS anyhow?" raged the student. "You never mentioned one word about LISTS in your lectures, and there are no LISTS in my textbook! Your exam is unfair and did not cover the material in your lectures!"

"Upon what basis do you claim that the exam didn't cover the lecture material?" replied the professor. "Everything on those exam lists can be found either in my lecture notes or from the material in the textbook. The lists tested to see how well you could assimilate the material and summarize it neatly. Evidently you didn't know the material well enough. You should have studied more diligently."

The student stomped out of the professor's office and thumbed through his notes and book again and compared them with the exam questions. Sure enough, although there had been no lists in either source, the answers to the exam were staring him in the face. The student just hadn't taken the time to assimilate the material well enough.

Some people react similarly to Jesus' requirements for salvation. They reason that since there is no explicit "1-2-3 list" in the New Testament about what Jesus requires for salvation, then it is wrong for man to make any kind of "list." Yet throughout the New Testament, Jesus and His apostles have issued explicit requirements for salvation. Those people who diligently study the teachings of Jesus and His apostles will become familiar enough with those requirements such that they can neatly summarize them in a list for easy reference. Yet other people in rebellion against Jesus will scoff at such a list and denounce it as "man-made."

To the scoffers, remember these bits of information: The terms "Bible" and "Holy Bible" are also "man-made." God never uses those terms at all in His written Word, yet the Christian world readily accepts them. Dividing the Bible into chapters and verses is also "man-made." God did not do that, yet the Christian world readily accepts that as well. The point is that there is nothing wrong with calling God's Word "Bible/Holy Bible," nor is there anything wrong with dividing the Bible into chapters and verses. Doing the latter makes it much easier to refer to the Bible's contents. Likewise, there is absolutely nothing wrong with making a list of Christ's and His apostles' teachings about what is required for salvation. Such a list only makes it easier for people to know how to be saved.

--From "Christ's Requirements for Salvation," by Dr. Bill Crump

Quote
Share