| Author | Message | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Yes, I agree with you, Loneviking, about the requirement and purpose of the baptism. My point was to say that, Jesus could perform a higher form of baptism. All of the four Gospels mentioned this. For example, when John the Baptist said in Mark 1:8: ìI indeed have baptized you with water: but He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.î This means that, in answer to Violetís question, Jesus can save the thief without actually having him go through baptism with water. Since we are not Jesus, we must do the ceremony, in order to signify our repentance and readiness for the Holy Spirit. I did not mean the word ìsymbolicî to demean or reduce the significance of baptism. As for what you said about instruments in churches, I will say this: You are correct to say that there is no clear evidence of instruments being used in early Christian worship. However, I do not think that evidence is enough to say that using them is ìunwise.î I think the Bible is unclear on this point. Had there been verses preaching against the use of instruments in relation to God, I could see it. The fact is that there are a few references to horns, trumpets, harps, and pipes in the New Testament. Some of the references are associated with good and righteous aspects. Some are associated with bad aspects. I am saying that what is important is not exactly how you worship, but how your worship follows the purposes laid down by Jesus and the early church. We can debate about this until we are blue in the face. However, there is no need. I think it is fine that you want to follow what you read about worship practices you find in the Bible. However, if there is a value judgement to be made about doing things not mentioned in the New Testament, I would like to see a clearer verse than just an absence of mention. Verses like these would be fine: (Completely made up verses) ìAnd do no other than these things when you worship together.î Or ìLet only your voices make music to the LORD.î Or ìNo man should play the harp and horn in which were made only for the angels.î However, no such verses exist. There is at least one verse where Jesus denounced the use of instruments in Matthew 6:2. However, what He denounced was the purpose to which the hypocrites used them. That is to trumpet their own glory. To counter this, we see trumpets heralding the events of God later in the New Testament. One must admit that, even if only voices are used for worship music, that they can be done in a way that does not glorify God as much as the singer. Therefore, we must take care that we use our voices and our instruments in worship to the glory of God, not to our glory. | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
I agree that baptism is an important sign of entering the new covenant, but I do disagree that it is a prerequisite to receiving the Holy Spirit. It is a public sign that a person has already accepted Jesus and has been saved. In the story of the jailor in Acts 16:31, Paul and Silas said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be savedóyou and your household." They then bathed their wounds and baptised them. The baptism was not the saving act; their belief was. The baptism was a response to the saving belief. When Paul was writing to the Galatians he said, "Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?" (Galatians 3:2) Receiving the Spirit is not dependent upon a physical act but upon belief. Paul continues in this passage to make a case for not returning to the law and human efforts. In his epistle to the Romans Paul makes a case that belonging to God's family in the New Covenant is not a matter of physical marks or rituals but of an invisible, non-physical mark: the circumcision of the heart. "A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code." While this verse doesn't explicitly address the issue whether or not that Spirit's coming depends upon baptism or not, it does suggest strongly that the Spirit has nothing to do with a human action. The indwelling Holy Spirit is entirely the result of a heart's assent to Jesus. Ephesians 1:13-14 says, "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, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redcemption of those who are God's possessionóto the praise of his glory." This text says the Ephesians were saved when they heard the "word of truth" and believed, and that belief resulted in the Holy Spirit sealing them and guaranteeing their future in glory. Further, Ephesians 2:8-9 says we are saved by grace, through faith, as a gift from God, not by works. Baptism, no matter how we try to explain it, is a work. It is definitely a work Jesus asks us to do after we have accepted him and been saved. He asks us to publicly declare our relationship with him. There are stories of people accepting Jesus and receiving the Holy Spirit and then being baptized (see Acts 11:15-17), but the Bible does not clearly say we receive the Holy Spirit only when we are baptized. Neither does it say batpsim is part of salvationóA result of it, yes, but we are saved by accepting Jesus and being born again. Please don't hear me as demeaning baptism; but I do believe it is not a requisite for receiving the Holy Spirit. I have seen people who were completely unbelievers who accepted Jesus (I'm thinking of one in particular whom I have watched experience this change just this summer) and who have become completely new people. This sort of change is the result of being born again and filled with the Holy Spirit. This person has not been baptized, but the Holy Spirit did not wait for baptism to seal and change this person. The important thing, though, is belief in the saving gift of Jesus. He alone can save us, and he alone calls us to be saved. I love the place in The Silver Chair from The Chronicles of Narnia where Poly says to Aslan, "You didn't call us; we called you." Aslan replied, "You would not have called to me unless I had been calling to you." Isn't that marvelous?! In Jesus, Colleen | ||
| Loneviking (Loneviking) |
Jerry, I think you made a good point as to why Christ could save the thief without baptism. It seems plausible, and yet I also have to restate that we really just don't know. As for the use of examples, Jerry, take a complete concordance and look up 'example' 'imitate' 'imitators' and see what you get in the New Testament. There are several verses where as Christians we are encouraged to follow the example of the apostles and disciples. Colleen, Acts 2:38 as I laid it out above is just about as clear a verse as you can get as to the order issue. One of the primary rules of interpretation is to take the clearest, most complete text or texts, and then go from there. If you do that, then you can see the texts that you mentioned above falling into line. Sure, there has to be a heart change and a desire for repentence for baptism to be requested. Christ commanded His church to baptize, the apostles taught that it was fo salvation, and I think to characterize it as 'works' is just not Biblical. I can't agree that baptism fits into that category when you have a clear command to baptize. Your position, if followed, does denigrate or degrade baptism to an option, and the Bible doesn't teach that. Think about it... In Him, Bill | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Bill, I did what you suggested, but the sense of "imitate" is not as clear as "Do" or "Do not do" If I take your meaning and read that we are to imitate Christ, must we all go to Israel and be crucified, literally? I think not. The more common understanding presented is "follow" Christ. That is learn from what He does, do what He says to do, and accept what He teaches as the truth, not do EXACTLY EVERYTHING he does. As for Acts 2:38, notice that the baptism is to be "in the name of Jesus," not in water. Again, the water is symbolic and important. Further, the conjunction "kai" (AND ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost)is not always sequential. It can be cumulative and concurrent. So we do not have a clear linguistic sequence. I think we are getting a little strained in our examination of the texts. I believe we should listen a little closer to Paul when he says "not of the letter, for the letter kills." | ||
| Loneviking (Loneviking) |
Jerry, You're right that the sense of imitate is not as clear as 'Do' or 'Do not do'....that's why I stop short of saying that, for instance, the use of instruments is a sin. I called it instead, an 'unwise choice'. However, think about it--if somebody like Paul (who was taught by Christ for two years in the desert--see Galatians) tells you to follow his example, and we have some consistent examples of early church practices both within scripture and the writings of the early church fathers----shouldn't we think there would be a reason to follow those practices? Your third paragraph hits the nail on the head as to what Paul was getting at. His teachings and the practices that were instituted in the early church didn't happen by accident. Your comment on baptism really puzzles me--are we reading the same Bible? The ONLY Baptism that is authorized by the Word is in water, in the name of Jesus or alternately 'the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost'. Why do you strain so hard to ignore what the Word so clearly says? And then you strain so hard on the Word that you wrest it completely out of context in your last line with the comment 'not of the letter, for the letter kills.' C'mon Jerry, that text is talking about the old law, the old covenant. As Christians we are not under law but under grace. And the text has nothing to do with the subject of what examples we have to follow..... In Him, Bill | ||
| Loneviking (Loneviking) |
I just wanted to add a few thoughts about music and instruments here as my last post for the day. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of you are really curious about my past and music. First off, I play three instruments with varying degrees of skill---guitar, trumpet and violin. In addition, I sing fairly well. Well enough that in the past I've been a regular song leader in the SDA church. I like just about all types of music, I have had formal music training and of course I read music. I've been a song leader both in churches that use only a piano or an organ. I've also been a member of a praise team band. What I find interesting, since I've been in both churches that use a piano or a praise band and in the CofC that only uses the voice, is the way music is approached. If you want to see panic (and I do mean P A N I C) just have the pianist/organist or praise band not show up!! Worse yet, be unable to find a replacement. I've had churches cancel the songs in the service because there was no instrument to accompany them. This is true even in the Sabbath/Sunday schools. If there isn't a piano or a guitar around, usually these leaders are dead in the water when it comes to singing. Think about the Bible studies you go to in the instrumental churches. You study, you pray---but do you sing? I'd bet you don't unless someone has a piano or a guitar! And why? Because we've been sold a bill of goods that says that the natural instrument that God gave each and every one of us is something to be covered up by an instrument. In many of our churches today, the praise band is so loud the congregation can stop singing and nobody would know the difference. How sad! Not everybody can play an instrument---they often require years to master, and lessons cost money. But just about everybody can sing! It's free, it gets better with practice and can be used anywhere. What's nice about the CofC is when we get together to study we pray, study and SING! It's something to think about............ Bill S. | ||
| Loneviking (Loneviking) |
O.K. folks, lets head back on topic. You've found out a lot about the CofC--and maybe this is a good way to meet the topic of this thread. How is your church different from the SDA church that you came from? What doctrines does your new church hold to? What practices are different? Lydell, you mentioned that you belong to a Vineyard church, and that this association of churches tries to find a balance between traditional and charasmatic. How does your church do this? What happened to the Airport Vineyard in Canada where the 'Holy Laughter' movement went on? How did this church get so far off track? I really am curious as to how the balance would be maintained........... Bill S. | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Sorry, Bill, but I will claim one more reply. Second Corinthians 3:6 ìWho also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.î Here Paul is referring to the NEW TESTAMENT and is telling us that it is NOT LIKE the old. My reference was correct. We are not to be religious lawyers or pedantic rhetoricists. Acts 11:16 ìThen remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.î If you look at the context, you will see that this was an instance where there WAS NO WATER INVOLVED. It happened when Jesus was not invoking the baptism (of course it was at His instruction). Clearly, this was an ìauthorized baptism,î clearly, this was a baptism of the Holy Ghost without water, and clearly, the recipients were saved. The above citation is a COMPARISON and CONTRAST of the two types of baptisms. Here we are told that, where Jesus is involved, the important aspect of the baptism is NOT THE WATER. Rather, it is the HOLY GHOST. The essential truth of baptism, as repeatedly stated in scripture, is that we are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, and that the HOLY GHOST enters our heart, immerses and changes our souls. The baptism in water is symbolic of this baptism. As I cited before, there are several confirmations of this aspect of the Christian baptism. I do not mean to imply that we (mere mortals) are to attempt to baptize ìin the Holy Ghostî without water. I do not begin to imagine that any of us would know how to do that. But I will tell you this: If a person were in the middle of a desert, dying of thirst, and just then accepted Jesus into her/his heart, and died soon after, never having seen a drop of water. I would suggest to you that this person could have been saved according to the scriptures, if God knows that the person believes and God places the Holy Ghost in the personís heart. Now, why do YOU strain to remove an important meaning where clear instruction is given? Furthermore, where I have gone to church, we have sung with and without instruments. I believe we are not to place any value AT ALL on having or not having instruments. When we focus on saying that our voices are closer to Godís will than any other of Godís creations, including musical instruments, then we are glorifying our voice. That is the wrong focus. Just as insisting on instrumental music would be the wrong focus. The value to measure is that our worship follows the precept to ìlove God with all your heart . . . and your neighbor as yourself.î Frankly, I do not see why you think the Scriptures place any universal positive judgement on singing with or without instruments. There are both positive and negative situations where instruments are mentioned, but NEVER are the instruments or lack of instruments the focus of the verse. Further, many verses say that our flesh is associated with sin and our spirit can be associated with righteousness. Our voices are part of our flesh. Therefore, our voices cannot be righteous except as they are used to follow Godís will. Neither can instruments be righteous except as they are used to follow Godís will. To me, it is like saying to someone in the middle of winter in Alaska, ìYou know, there is no verse where the Apostles wore sweaters, suit coats or parkas in the New Testament worship situations. So I think it would be ëunwiseí for you to wear any of those in church even though it is quite chilly in the building. You need to get robes just like the Apostles wore and use several of them to keep you warm.î Sure, that would work. However, what is the point? We would be focusing on a very trivial aspect of the worship experience. I think focusing on instruments or no instruments is also trivial. If having instruments in church keeps you from focusing on Jesus, you are right to avoid them. If having instruments in church helps to focus others on Jesus (which I know has happened) then that is good for them. You seem to place a great value on copying exactly what you see or do not see happening in the specific behavior of the Apostles and Jesus. You continue to say that, if others do not, they are ìunwise.î That is an interesting euphemism. The implication, I must insist, is that, if one fails precisely to ìdoî or ìnot doî these things that are NOT central teachings of Christianity, one will not be ìquite Christian enough.î That, to many people, is a form of judgmental legalism that tries to deny its nature. If you look through the Epistles, you will find Paul teaching against that very type of attitude many times. | ||
| Carol_2 (Carol_2) |
amen! and thank you jerry! one little comment following jerry's post. he said "If having instruments in church helps to focus others on Jesus (which I know has happened) then that is good for them." i know for me, the instruments in my church play a major part in making my worship experience so meaningful. i know of individuals who have avoided the "non-instrumental" churches for that very reason. obviously, some do benefit from it, but i would venture to say it's a turnoff to more people than not. just my opinion. love and prayers, carol | ||
| Lydell (Lydell) |
>Lydell, you mentioned that you belong to a >Vineyard church, and that this association of >churches tries to find a balance between >traditional and charasmatic. How does your >church do this? By continually learning and growing. The Vineyard association has only been around since the 70's. So we are still a fairly young group. >What happened to the Airport Vineyard in Canada >where the 'Holy Laughter' movement went on? How >did this church get so far off track? My guess is that they lost their balance. And the Vineyard Association and that church parted ways quite a long while ago when it became apparent that that congregation was headed in a different direction than the rest of us. | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
I want to comment a bit on that (nearly infamous) text, Acts 2:38. This is THE text that generally separates Christianity into charismatic and evangelical camps. People on the more charismatic side tend to interpret Acts 2:38 as prescriptive and establishing a specific order of events that precede receiving the Holy Spirit. Non-charismatic Christians interpret the text as non-prescriptive, reading it instead in the manner Jerry described above. There are truly saved Christ followers on both sides of the text's interpretation. We really must be careful not to allow our personal biases, for want of a better word at the moment, to cause division in the body of Christ. I have witnessed the interpretation of this very text divide and separate a fellowship of believers. As you can tell from my previous post, I see the text as Jerry explained it. I do not, however, believe that we should allow our beliefs about it to cause us to scorn or distrust each other if we are all truly worshiping Jesus as Lord and are experiencing his Spirit and are born-again children of God. We can trust each other to God without being divisive or defensive or trying to change each other's minds. God can teach us and bring us to the place he wants us in these kinds of matters. Regarding the differences between our current church and the SDA churchóthe most overwhelming difference is that now we literally sense the presence of God at our church services. We also hear Bible teaching directly addressing specific Biblical passages, and the the whole congregation participates in singing, not just a few women and a couple of men who took voice lessons in college. Church is truly a time of worship and learning. There is no soothing monologue or doctrinal exhortation. Each sermon brings us back to Jesus, even sermons from I and II Kings! Oh, yesóthere is also exhortation to holy living, but it's in the context of being already a Child of God governed by the Holy Spirit who convicts us. Praise God for new life! Colleen | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
Carol2 and I went to see Joyce Meyer this weekend and we saw some evidience of the Holy Ghost fo sho!! ROFLOL........... Just trying to lighten this thread up a little  | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Fair enough, Colleen. I apologize, Bill. Onward, into the light! (Did I mention that I am a hothead?) Thanks for the calming influence. | ||
| Carol_2 (Carol_2) |
and i apologize for sounding arrogant, but i really am so unbelievably into the worship experience now, and have such FREEDOM i never had as an sda - it's so precious to me, and i may get a little over-enthusiastic about it at times. in my church the "band" is such a big part of the worship, and i can't imagine not having it, but that's just me, and i know there are lots of "classical" enthusiasts who would probably be turned off by the stuff i love. anyways, sorry for getting sucked into stating my opinion, i love and appreciate all of my brothers & sisters on this forum, love and prayers, carol | ||
| Carol_2 (Carol_2) |
and thank you colleen for always being such a "calming influence" as jerry mentioned - you are a blessing on this forum. | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
I really do thank God for everyone on this forum. Isn't it awesome to see Him at work in a group of otherwise strangers, uniting us all and expressing his love and support through all of us? I really didn't mean to say that no one should express their divergent opinions, though. In fact, I think this and other discussions are probably important not only to us who post but also to others who only read. My concern was that our discussions not become argumentative and divisive, especially between brothers and sisters in Christ. For me, the hardest part of obedience as a Christ-follower is to submit my thoughts and reactions and retorts to Him and to allow the Holy Spirit to humble me when I feel I'm RIGHT! I know this is a bit off the subject, but it really struck me several month ago when I read in Oswald Chambers' My Utmost For His Highest that Jesus never defended himself. He endured slander, rumors, misunderstanding, jealousy, angeróall manner of negative reactions to him, and he remained humble, allowing God to be his defense, even if it meant people held false opinions of him. In the end, God is our defense and our reward. Now, when we follow him, we take the arrows for him. At any rate, I've been seriously convicted that God is asking me allow Him to "fight my battles" and to allow Him to motivate my words. It's not easy to let go of my own control over my circumstances and let Him be in charge! I just pray that the Holy Spirit will always be present on this forum and that everyone who comes here will know they have been in His presence! Colleen | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Dear Colleen, If, by ìnever defended Himselfî you mean that He never defended his personal safety, I can agree. Although, some might cite the Bathesda incident in Mark, where He slipped away when Jews were seeking to kill him for breaking the Sabbath. He did return, however. Therefore, it does not clearly set an example of that. If you mean that He did not dispute a theological interpretation, I must strongly disagree. The Sabbath-breaking incidents alone provide ample evidence of that. If you mean that He did not impugn anyoneís character, I would refer you to the many times He used the words ìhypocriteî and ìviper.î That does not excuse the tone of my posts here in any way. I just think we need to be careful when making sweeping generalizations. However, you are so right to say that we must let go and ìlet God be our defense.î Jesus does a much better job at that than anyone could. Under His protection, Jerry | ||
| Lydell (Lydell) |
Carol 2, I understand completely what you mean about the freedom in worship. It is such an awesome thing. I've seen walls come down in some folks and the Lord work on them before the pastor ever got up to speak for the day. All because they truly opened themselves up to the Lord. Have experienced that myself. As per the discussion on different churches, I think one thing we tend to overlook is that people are all different. He gave us vastly different learning styles. Vastly different styles of verbal expression. So it should come as no surprise to us at all that we would have different styles of expressing our worship. So of course there is going to be a wide variety of churches out there. The thing is to allow Him to lead YOU to the place where He wants YOU to be. Sabra and Carol 2, I confess to being a bit jealous that you got to go see Joyce speak! She is such an excellent teacher....I've learned so much from her. I really wanted to go but couldn't make it. But on the other hand, had I gone I would have missed the service at church and therefore the blessing the Lord had for us at this time. This may make some of you nervous, but the guy who spoke is gifted in the prophetic. And we needed the prophetic word he had for us! So what was Joyce's topic? | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
I heartily agree with Lydell. However poorly I presented it, part of my argument was that we are all very different. We need to stop denigrating anyone who worships in a way we find difficult or inappropriate for us. The Lord is not as limited as we are. He has a plan for each of us that we need to seek and follow. By the way, I never have a problem with the prophetic, so long as we heed the admonition to ìprove all things.î Sure, my ìantenna goes upî whenever someone pronounces a prophecy. However, that does not mean my ears slam shut. As I have said to many people in my life, I follow these general principles: * Learn from the past. * Live in the present * Leave the future to God Now, in leaving the future to God, we may find that God puts it directly in our face, such as in your case, Lydell. It does not mean that you avoid planning for, or considering the future. I just do not agree that we should place so much of our attention in the pursuit of what is in store for us in the future. I believe that this aspect of trusting God somehow escapes certain people and groups. We can be eager for Jesus to return without obsessively calculating His return date. We can trust that God has a plan for us without despairing when we are not sure exactly what will happen next. Always seeking His guidance, Jerry | ||
| Insideoutsider (Insideoutsider) |
This has been an interesting discussion. Don't you think that as former adventists, we have a higher degree of sensativity to anything that hints of legalism. And that would be defining legalism as "this way, or you're lost" or as Chuck Swindoll says in the GRACE AWAKENING, "Do it my way or you're dead". Leaving that kind of thinking was part of becoming a former. As Lydell said, God created us with such diversity, that of course we would express oursevelves in worship to Him differently. With different words, music, motion (we danced in Nigeria when the offering was taked up!), and ways of doing most of the things that make up corporate worship. The only thing worth going to the mat for is: the cross, and the cross alone. Gratefully finding rest in Him alone. I/O |
