i'll agree with that... i'm not into franchising, but i wouldn't go as far as to say it's unscriptural.

I'm not sure what scriptural authority LifeChurch.tv uses to have basically 1 shepherd of 10 flocks. I'm not saying there isn't I'm just asking.




ok... so what are these essentials that they teach? if they're teaching just the essentials... what else is considered voluntary? does scripture agree that these things are voluntary? and if it doesn't agree... does that even matter? -M

The Trinity, the Death and Resurrection, the Holiness of Christ, the Virgin Birth... the essentials.

pews v. chairs, clapping hands, stained-glass windows, electric guitar v. acoustic guitar, King James v. other versions of the Bible, pastor v. priest, Holy Ghost v. Holy Spirit, eating meat v. not eating meat ... non essentials

i've gotta disagree with that... whether or not a church building is decorated with a cross has little bearing on the message being preached... the cross is just a symbol of christianity. christians worship christ... not the cross. -M


I think that southOkie is getting to the apparent 'seeker-friendly' attitude of LifeChurch.tv

They don't use a lot of Crosses and otehr thigns so that they don't appear 'churchy', 'offensive' or 'irrelevant' to non-believers.

And as for the HUGE cross... that was not LifeChurch.tv's cross, that was a monstrosity built by another man.


the cross is just a symbol of christianity. christians worship christ... not the cross.
You can not deny the importance of the symbl of the cross to Christianity. It is central to the Faith of Christians worldwide. Americans might not revere the cross but it IS important.

I posted that I like some of the things that LifeChurch.tv does. I understand that they do things differently. I just do not and will not like their recent 'marketing campaign'.

I do not and will not ever agree with the franchising of the church. But that is OK. It's not exactly an essential. I think that the essentials of Christian Doctrine are for the most part being taught at LifeChurch.tv

I do think you need to develop the ability to allow others to disagree with and dislike LifeChruch.tv. The only time people attack you is when you start taking the criticism of LifeChurch.tv personally.

Took the words right out of my mouth. As my former pastor used to say, "keep the main thing the main thing", and I believe lifechurch does that, but we are going to disagree on the non-essentials and there is nothing wrong with that. No need for any of us to take it personally.

I also echo the concern of it being centered around one man, and my dad has expressed it too. Look what happened to Ted Haggard's church. Even MetroChurch, the predecessor to lifechurch Edmond, was never the same after its leader, Ted Hogue, left on bad terms.

i've gotta disagree with that... whether or not a church building is decorated with a cross has little bearing on the message being preached... the cross is just a symbol of christianity. christians worship christ... not the cross. -M

It is a symptom of the deeper problem, and to say that christians worshipping the cross is a red herring.

The real point here is that Life church is obsessed with itself, not with Jesus.

Everyone knows that the cross you are talking about was built by the former "Metro Church" right before it assimilated itself into the Life Church.tv.com.backslash.net church.

Before that, Metro Church tried to assimilate with another mega-church, Henderson Hills Baptist Church, which went unsuccessful because of the sharp disagreements between Metro Churches charismatic leanings with the establishment of the Henderson Hill-ites.

you can not deny the importance of the symbol of the cross to christianity. it is central to the faith of christians worldwide. americans might not revere the cross but it is important.sure, i'll agree it's an important symbol. my point is that it is just a symbol and that a church is no more or no less faithful whether or not it chooses to display that symbol... but then again, i'll concede that it does matter why they choose not to display it. i do think that some people end up worshipping the cross and others think that simply displaying the cross makes them a christian. -M

the trinity, the death and resurrection, the holiness of christ, the virgin birth... the essentials.i'll agree that those are essentials... are those the only ones? what does lifechurch believe about the nature of faith and of salvation?


pews v. chairs, clapping hands, stained-glass windows, electric guitar v. acoustic guitar, king james v. other versions of the bible, pastor v. priest, holy ghost v. holy spirit, eating meat v. not eating meat ... non essentialsi'll agree with most of those... in it's aim to be popular and non-judgmental, i'd argue that lifechurch (and others) fudge on scriptural commands such as baptism, the observance of communion, elder-led (rather than pastor-led) congregations, etc... all of which the new testament church was either commanded to do actually did given scriptural example.

-M

it is a symptom of the deeper problem, and to say that christians worshipping the cross is a red herring.

the real point here is that Life church is obsessed with itself, not with jesus.

that i'll buy... but the way you worded your previous comment made it appear that you took issue simply with the notion that lifechurch doesn't have a cross prominently displayed... which, to me, doesn't matter in itself. -M

that i'll buy... but the way you worded your previous comment made it appear that you took issue simply with the notion that lifechurch doesn't have a cross prominently displayed... which, to me, doesn't matter in itself. -M

It doesn't matter, per se, however, if you look at for instance, the ORU campus chapel, or Joel Olsteen's church, or Life Church campuses, you cannot find a cross.

Why?

Because it reminds us of death? a step further... because it reminds us that Church is about Jesus? a step further... because it reminds us that Jesus called His followers to be seperate from earthly things, and to die to themselves... a step further... because following Jesus is hard, and it is the hardest thing you will ever do... a step further because the cross is emblematic of the anti-earthly, anti-sin, anti-greed mission of JESUS that doesn't really seem to attract people to Church?

I think that mmm, southokie, and myself all agree basically.
It's hard sometimes to get ideas across on this innerweb thing.

As far as LifeChurch is concerned... my paramount conceern is with those that attend the church not with those that 'run' or 'CEO' the church. If the sheep are being taken care of then I have no problem with LifeChurch.tv

If the way they do things lets people slip through the cracks and real-needs aren't getting met, then they have a real New Testament problem on their hands, of which many letters were penned by Paul and Peter.

Let me make it perfectly clear that I am not at all throwing LifeChurch.tv under the bus. I wish no ill on any brother or sister.

i'll agree that those are essentials... are those the only ones? what does lifechurch believe about the nature of faith and of salvation?

i'll agree with most of those... in it's aim to be popular and non-judgmental, i'd argue that lifechurch (and others) fudge on scriptural commands such as baptism, the observance of communion, elder-led (rather than pastor-led) congregations, etc... all of which the new testament church was either commanded to do actually did given scriptural example.

-M

What do you mean by they "fudge" on these ideas? Communion is available at every sermon, it was just a couple of sunday's ago we had an entire sermon about taking communion and we all took it together. Baptism is a part of the church as well, we will be baptising this weekend ( as it is Easter weekend). We have regular baptisms and one huge baptism event every summer.

And as far as what it is exactly we believe - all of this can be answered on the website. I'll be happy to copy and paste the entire thing if it is necessary. But here is a link:

What We Believe | LifeChurch.tv (http://www.lifechurch.tv/p/117/Default.aspx)

"Notice how Metro automatically associates an attack on Lifechurch/ backslash/ semicolon/ dot tv. dot com with an attack on its Pastor, Craig.

This is my biggest problem with Lifechurch/backslash/ semicolon/dot.tv.dot.com, because it is almost entirely centered, no it IS entirely centered around one man. Sure, they have a large support staff, whom many of my family members and friends work for, but who is being broadcast from city to city like a scene out of 1984? Its Craig.

The entire "church" is centered around one guy, much like Joel Olsteen's church is centered around him. What happens if he falls? What happens if he is killed in a car accident? What happens if he is caught in homosexual/ meth dealings like some other pastors???"


---Okay so I have been observing this thread for quite sometime as an active member of LifeChurch. I wanted to respond to what southokie said about us being "centered around one man." Craig is not the only one that is "broadcast from city to city." Each campus has its own pastor and they also teach and preach. Quite often a whole series is taught by a certain campus pastor and sometimes more than one. So dont worry southokie if Craig falls into a homosexual/meth dealing phase LifeChurch will not crumble. But we do appreciate your obvious concern.

Tell me this. If Craig were (God forbid) to die unexpectedly, would/could the church go on with a different pastor? I just don't see it.

Tell me this. If Craig were (God forbid) to did unexpectedly, would/could the church go on with a different pastor? I just don't see it.

Good point. He does raise an interesting question.

communion is available at every sermon, it was just a couple of sunday's ago we had an entire sermon about taking communion and we all took it together.that's great... but it seems as if it's presented as a non-essential thing. it's 'available' suggests that its their if someone 'wants' to take it. the new testament church partook of communion every week... scripture doesn't present it as an optional thing that the new testament church did when they felt like it.


baptism is a part of the church as well, we will be baptising this weekend ( as it is easter weekend). we have regular baptisms and one huge baptism event every summer. in every scriptural example, a person was baptized as soon as they believed... they didn't wait for a big baptism extravaganza... correct me if i'm wrong, but if i went to lifechurch and wanted to baptized, i'd have to wait for one of the baptism events to do so. also, like communion, baptism is presented by lifechurch as an optional thing rather than a command from god.

-M

quite often a whole series is taught by a certain campus pastor and sometimes more than one.craig is the speaker in 80-90% of the videos on the lifechurch website... so how 'often' are we really talking about here? -M

Everyone knows that the cross you are talking about was built by the former "Metro Church" right before it assimilated itself into the Life Church.tv.com.backslash.net church.
That's true, but your original statement didn't accurately reflect that "everyone knows" this...




If the church was so concerned with sharing the good news of Jesus Christ, why don't you ever see Crosses in its campuses?
I was simply pointing out the fact that you actually DO see a cross on one of its campuses. I understand your larger point, but your statement was factually inaccurate.


Before that, Metro Church tried to assimilate with another mega-church, Henderson Hills Baptist Church, which went unsuccessful because of the sharp disagreements between Metro Churches charismatic leanings with the establishment of the Henderson Hill-ites.
How's this relevant to the discussion?

That's true, but your original statement didn't accurately reflect that "everyone knows" this...



I was simply pointing out the fact that you actually DO see a cross on one of its campuses. I understand your larger point, but your statement was factually inaccurate.


How's this relevant to the discussion?

I'm sorry that I did not clarify earlier to the point I made about the lack of crosses at particular churches.

I should have stated that INSIDE the church building, you hardly ever see a cross.
So I agree, and do admit that factually, I was wrong in that assesment. However, I did clarify, that you cannot give credit to Lifechurch.tv for building it, because every campus I have ever seen, inside and out, does not have a cross, and it is eerily absent... as are the teachings of Jesus on the accumulation of wealth, or the teachings of Jesus on total surrender and death to oneself, etc.
The point that I made about the fact that Metro Church assimilated into Lifechurch.tv isn't necessarily relevant to the discussion, but I do think it is of note. The people at Metro Church were lacking leadership, and their campus was actually the first "new Lifechurch.tv" site. I thought it worth mentioning because I used to attend Life Church, back when it was called Life Covenant Church. Back then, it was still centered all around Craig, and we left when we saw it going down this slippery slope of ambitious corporation advertising, etc.

Understood.

For the record, I actually was a member of Metrochurch during that era and continued attending LifeChurch for a while after the merger/takeover. It was a gift for Craig and LifeChurch and it was a devastating loss for long-time Metrochurch members, most of whom are now scattered around many other churches now.

I'm not comfortable passing judgment on the Godliness or biblical soundness of LifeChurch's practices and/or Craig's teachings. I know that for our family that we did not agree with some of Craig's methods and tactics and we personally did not feel that LifeChurch represented the most effective form of the New Testament Church. However, I'm not so foolish to believe that I have all the answers or that I am the best one to judge that church or its leadership; I'll leave that to the only One that is worthy of judging.

What fascinates me in this discussion is metro's cult-like defense of the church and Craig. It borderlines on idolatry, IMHO. Let the church, its leaders and its members be judged by their fruit.
"By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." Matthew 18:16-20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:16-20;&version=31;)

that's great... but it seems as if it's presented as a non-essential thing. it's 'available' suggests that its their if someone 'wants' to take it. the new testament church partook of communion every week... scripture doesn't present it as an optional thing that the new testament church did when they felt like it.

in every scriptural example, a person was baptized as soon as they believed... they didn't wait for a big baptism extravaganza... correct me if i'm wrong, but if i went to lifechurch and wanted to baptized, i'd have to wait for one of the baptism events to do so. also, like communion, baptism is presented by lifechurch as an optional thing rather than a command from god.

-M

This is an interesting point and I'm glad you brought it up. Unlike most churches that force you to take communion - we choose to make you decide for yourself. We merely make it available and encourage through God's word that communion is an important part of worship. Just because you make it mandatory, doesn't mean people get the meaning of it. I took communion growing up in church and never even knew what we did it for - I just thought it was free juice. Understand that it is a very important part of our service but one of the things about our church is that we want you to understand why you are doing things and choose to do it of your own free will, because you want to be a fully devoted follower of Christ. Not because someone (other than God) tells you that you have to.

And we have a full staff of pastors at every campus that I'm sure would be more than willing to meet with you. If you came to church and had this overwhelming sensation of needing to be baptized right then and there - there would be someone that could help you with that. But even in other churches I have never seen anyone get baptized on the spot. You may go to the front of the church and they pray for you but you have to wait a couple of weeks and have meetings before you go through the actual water ritual. Baptism is not your salvation experience. The Bible teaches that we are not saved by what we do but we are saved by grace. However, as a follower of Christ, the Bible teaches that we are to follow Christ's example and as a step of obedience be baptized. Sincere followers of Christ differ on the style of baptism. At LC we prefer immersion because it is a great picture of burying the old life. It reflects the symbolism of being buried with Christ in Romans 6:3-4.

Understood.
What fascinates me in this discussion is metro's cult-like defense of the church and Craig. It borderlines on idolatry, IMHO. Let the church, its leaders and its members be judged by their fruit.

"By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." Matthew 18:16-20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:16-20;&version=31;)



:Bravo
This is basically the reason that Metro has received so many responses. And the reason why I asked him earlier not to take this LifEChurch.tv debate so personally.


BTW, I'm still waiting for one of the OREO's to provide a scriptural defense of Franchising (multi-cite). I'll even take an Old Testament defense, just as long as its typed in English.


SideNote: can we expect anymore billboards?

But even in other churches I have never seen anyone get baptized on the spot.

Obviously you've never been to a Church of Christ, because they do exactly that. They don't even wait until the Sunday night service, because if you died in a wreck on the way home, you wouldn't be saved because you weren't baptized.

But I agree, most other churches including mine would wait a couple of weeks. We don't baptize every Sunday. About once a month I would say.

^^^

We baptize whenever someone requests it. Usually the following week or two after a pronouncement of Faith. I personally think it is very exciting to participate and/or witness.

I have no problem with LifeChurch.tv's baptism policies and procedures. Their corporate statement regarding the sacrament is pretty good and I've heard good things from friends and family.

Obviously you've never been to a Church of Christ, because they do exactly that. They don't even wait until the Sunday night service, because if you died in a wreck on the way home, you wouldn't be saved because you weren't baptized.

But I agree, most other churches including mine would wait a couple of weeks. We don't baptize every Sunday. About once a month I would say.

Do they dunk or splash at the COC?? I've not ever been to a service like that. And before this starts an entirely new rant...I'm not saying that it's right or wrong - I've just never witnessed it!!

i'll agree that those are essentials... are those the only ones? what does lifechurch believe about the nature of faith and of salvation?

i'll agree with most of those... in it's aim to be popular and non-judgmental, i'd argue that lifechurch (and others) fudge on scriptural commands such as baptism, the observance of communion, elder-led (rather than pastor-led) congregations, etc... all of which the new testament church was either commanded to do actually did given scriptural example.

-M

Ohhhh what good timing to interrogate on such scripturally important issues. Clearly being "informed" on lifechurch.tv as you claim mmm. You would know that this current series we've been doing is on these very things. And you would also have probably watched them online. So tell me, what did you think of the churches views on Baptism, Communion, and Fasting? I'm guessing that in actuality you did not actually watch these sermons, therefore you do not know the churches actual stance on this important issues. And as for the non judgemental comment, you obviously haven't watched many services as you know Craig (or whomever is preaching) regularly makes people feel unfomfortable with their faith and to constantly be digging deeper. Oh, and FYI, Craig didn't do the entire series on this traditions of baptism, communion, and fasting. We do have other pastors. I encourage you to watch these series and then make an informed decision (you don't even have to agree with me, but at least you'll know exactly where we stand).

Metro,

Although most of us disagree with you on the "fruits" of Lifechurch.tv, mmm, and mwmcl and I have all agreed that this is not ad hominem, and we wish no ill will towards you as a brother in Christ, or towards your church.

As "iron sharpens iron" we are only hoping, striving, wishing for the best, and as Lifechurch.tv happens to be the most "advertised" and "user friendly" church in oklahoma city, we are only hoping that it leads the most people to the real Jesus.

Can that be wrong?

Please do not take things so personally, and also, please understand that although you have every right to defend your beliefs, there is no need to come across as defensive.



::SIDE NOTE::

I think it is pretty ironic that their new "shock and awe" tactics with advertising on billboards has Lifechurch.tv speaking on behalf of satan.

The "i hate lifechurch.tv...-satan" is a classic example of saying, "well, if you are against us, you are with satan."

Intriguing.

kmf563,
thanks for actually taking the time to answer and explain... we may differ in our beliefs but i can respect those differences.

as for communion, i agree that it's important that only those who understand its meaning should take it. where i go, it's 'mandatory' only to those who have committed themselves to christ and therefore understand its significance, but even then nobody's really forced to take it. where i disagree is that it seems as if communion is portrayed as something that a believer takes if they feel like it and scripture indicates that the new testament church just didn't see it that way. therefore the practice of communion is not just something that man is telling us we have to do, but it is a command of god... i don't we should ever teach that god's commands are something we should do only if we feel like it.

as for baptism, our congregation (and others like it) baptizes a believer upon request instead of waiting for a large baptism event. when the person comes forward, there isn't a waiting period... they're baptized right then. in fact, if a person were to decide during the week to be baptized, somone from the church would be more than willing to meet that person at the building to perform a baptism right then.

however, all of that is moot if you claim that baptism has nothing to do with salvation. i believe that scripture disagrees with you (and subsequently lc) on that point. i agree that a believer is saved by the grace of god. i agree that this grace is freely given, but i believe that scripture indicates that we must strive to be obedient to receive this grace.

baptism is a command of christ, not just an optional outward sign of belief:
matt 28:19-20: therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit, and teaching them to obey everything i have commanded you.

baptism is for the forgiveness of sin and for salvation:
acts 2:38: repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of jesus christ for the forgiveness of your sins. and you will receive the gift of the holy spirit.

acts 22:16: and now what are you waiting for? get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'

mark 16:16 states: whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

1 peter 3:21: and this water (the water from the great flood) symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward god. it saves you by the resurrection of jesus christ

what we do has an effect on our salvation:
james 2:14-17: what good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? can such faith save him? suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. if one of you says to him, "go, i wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? in the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

so... according to scripture, baptism is a command of god. furthermore, obedience to that command is a component of salvation. while we are not saved by the things we do, faith without good works is a dead faith... and that places salvation in jeopardy. therefore it is necessary to strive to be obedient to god's commands.

-M

edit: i happen to attend a church of christ congregation and we baptize by immersion (dunking, as you worded it). and... if there are any questions/criticisms about the kind of church i attend, fire away. i won't get offended.

metro,

i've read your previous comments on baptism and communion and have addressed them. did i peg lifechurch wrong by thinking that it doesn't preach baptism for the remission of sins? was i wrong in thinking that communion was presented as an optional component to worship? it seems that my notions about what lc practices are pretty accurate... i may not know the finer details, but i believe i have a decent understanding.

however, what's sad is that you still claim that i have no basis to make an informed decision yet when i ask you to provide details on what i may have wrong you continue to provide no information to tell me why i'm wrong... you simply point me to the website. can you speak for yourself like everyone else in this thread or do you need someone on a projector screen to do that for you?

i will check the series and see if it fills in some gaps. -M

Big brother, err, Craig is watching...

so... according to scripture, baptism is a command of god. furthermore, obedience to that command is a component of salvation. while we are not saved by the things we do, faith without good works is a dead faith... and that places salvation in jeopardy. therefore it is necessary to strive to be obedient to god's commands.

God commanded many things, but that doesn't make them requirements for salvation. Am I wrong in understanding that the COC believes that if a person came down the isle on a Sunday morning and prayed to recieve Christ, but was killed in car accident on the way home without being baptized, they would go to Hell?

jbrown,
check some of the other scriptures i've included, the fact that it's a command is not the only basis for my argument. i've included several scriptures that link baptism with salvation. (and there are others) i do agree that every command is not necessarily a salvation issue, but as christians we should strive to follow god's commands no matter how important we, as people, perceive them to be. however, if we're not doing our best to be obedient to god's... are we really being faithful?

as far as the 'car accident' it really wouldn't happen like that... the person would've likely been baptized that morning when they went forward.

but... for the sake of argument, they weren't baptized... then i'd argue that scripture indicates that their salvation would be in jeopardy. would i say that person is going to hell? no... that's up to god. but i would say that person died without doing what scripture tells us is necessary for the remission of sins and therefore for salvation. if god saw that man's heart and decided to 'let him in', then that's fine by me. -M

mmm -

I think it now comes down to interpretation. I agree with everything you just said and even the quotes from the Bible...but I also can see those quotes came out of context and the entire chapter should be read (as with any scripture) to understand the full meaning. Even just looking at the quotes themselves though, I read that the act of Baptism to be more of a showing obedience to God. So many people think that the act of Baptism is being "saved" and that if you have some water poured over your head by a pastor/priest then you get to go to heaven. I didn't say it doesn't have anything to do with salvation, I believe it is merely a step ( a big, important step) in the process of being cleansed and giving yourself to God. But I do believe it is by grace alone that you are saved. The rest is a part of showing obedience and following God's orders.

And as far as the communion goes...I guess as an outsider to the church, it could be looked upon as an option since it isn't a part of the service...but if you observe people during the service and after, a large portion of us take communion. The church does not teach it as an option nor have I ever heard any of the pastors say "if you feel like it, have some wine on your way out".

I think it's just hard to express this topic online!!! I'm just happy everyone is talking about it.

....and haha -
HI Craig.

i'd say those quotes don't mean anything different given the context of the scriptures around them... but if they are, i invite you to make the argument of exactly how they've been misinterpreted.

you did state that baptism is 'not part of your salvation experience', so i don't think that's a stretch for me to infer what i did. i do agree (and so does the coc) that baptism is a step on the way to salvation. getting dunked in a tank of water doesn't save a person... but god's grace and doing the things necessary to accept that grace does. so... my next question to you would be does scripture indicate that a person can be saved and not be baptized?

regarding communion, if that's the way it's presented then that's a good thing. -M

i'd say those quotes don't mean anything different given the context of the scriptures around them... but if they are, i invite you to make the argument of exactly how they've been misinterpreted.

you did state that baptism is 'not part of your salvation experience', so i don't think that's a stretch for me to infer what i did. i do agree (and so does the coc) that baptism is a step on the way to salvation. getting dunked in a tank of water doesn't save a person... but god's grace and doing the things necessary to accept that grace does. so... my next question to you would be does scripture indicate that a person can be saved and not be baptized?

regarding communion, if that's the way it's presented then that's a good thing. -M

I think the easiest way for me to convey what I mean by interpretation is this way...I hope you get what I am saying. Because I think we believe the same thing...it's just being said differently. I'm just going to underline the parts of your scriptures you pulled:

matt 28:19-20: therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit, and teaching them to obey everything i have commanded you.


acts 2:38: repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of jesus christ for the forgiveness of your sins. and you will receive the gift of the holy spirit.

acts 22:16: and now what are you waiting for? get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'

mark 16:16 states: whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

1 peter 3:21: and this water (the water from the great flood) symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward god. it saves you by the resurrection of jesus christ
what we do has an effect on our salvation:
james 2:14-17: what good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? can such faith save him? suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. if one of you says to him, "go, i wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? in the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.


I think that a person who is truly saved would be baptized because they would want to follow in God's footsteps and show their obedience...but do I believe it is a requirement to be saved? No..not one as in a list of things you have to do before getting into heaven. Does that make sense?

I just have a problem with any physical act being a part of salvation.

"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." -Ephesians 2:8-9


You can be saved and not have been baptized, but like kmf said, that is unlikely unless something like my hypothetical situation happens.

i hear what both of you are saying... and i think we are pretty close to saying the same thing... however, the biggest evidence for baptism being a requirement, to me, is the quote from acts 2:38 which esssentially says:
repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins

baptism is therefore a component in the forgiveness of sin... if one isn't baptized, then his sins are not forgiven and he will therefore not inherit salvation. so baptism would be a requirement to be saved.

i think we totally agree that baptism doesn't guaranty salvation. performing some act doesn't earn us a ticket into heaven, but it's the idea that a believer has the willingness in his heart to do what god wants. when we do what god wants us to do and for the right reasons, god saves us through his grace... because as his creation he loves us, not because we deserve it. let me use this analogy...

let's say a girl's parents promise her a car if she graduates from college. the girl takes the classes necessary, passes those classes and gets her degree... her parents then give her a car. did she earn the car? no. not everyone who graduated got a car... but through her parent's graciousness they gave her the car for what she did. if the girl didn't graduate from college would she have gotten a car? no. just like salvation, the car is a gift, but it's a gift that has requirements that must be met.

i'd say salvation is the same way. we are saved by the grace of god. salvation is a gift that we cannot earn. that gift has requirements, though... requirements that are outlined in scripture... and if we don't meet those requirements, we risk our salvation. just because we do the things required of us doesn't imply that we've earned salvation.

-M

I think we are all in agreement, just look at it in different ways. I think there are a list of things you do because you want to please God because you have been saved..not because you want to be saved. I don't think you can buy your way into heaven by going through the acts. Let's say you have two people - person #1 goes to church every sunday, takes communion, has been baptized, gives his tithe, serves within his church, and even contributes to his community. But he just goes through the motions...he doesn't have God in his heart. He doesn't live his life outside of the church by God's plan. Person #2 never attends church, doesn't read the bible, doesn't pray, and hasn't been saved. But he is a really good person - takes care of the elderly, always does the right thing, is caring toward nature, and has a good heart. Which of these two go to heaven?? I think it is by His grace alone that we are saved...not by what we do or don't do. BUT...i think it is with him in our hearts that we do what his will is for us.

"i think there are a list of things you do because you want to please god because you have been saved"

that's the biggest difference of opinion i think i have... you say that a person does all these things because they are saved and i'm saying that they are saved because they do all these things.

in your analogy... i'd say that neither person is likely to be saved. the first one because his heart isn't with god and the second because he doesn't obey god.

furthermore you really didn't address how a person whose sins aren't forgiven can have salvation, either... i'm curious as to what you think there.

-M

ah ha...now i see the difference. You are correct, that is where we disagree.

I do agree that neither of the above said persons would be saved...I meant to put that. ha.

Ok...now I'm lost. I wasn't aware I was supposed to address that question. Maybe I confused myself...lol. That's easily done. How do I think a person who's sins haven't been forgiven receives salvation?? I think you are forgiven of your sins the minute you accept Jesus as the son of God and that he died for our sins. Once you accept that, ask Him to come into your heart, and truly repent for your sins you are saved.

well... 'supposed to' is a little strong... i guess i was just asking if you could clarify your position!

ok... so you say "i think you are forgiven of your sins the minute you accept jesus as the son of god"

so what i'm curious about is how do you reconcile that with acts 2:38 which says one must "repent and be baptized for the forgivness of sins"?

-M

Let's say you have two people - person #1 goes to church every sunday, takes communion, has been baptized, gives his tithe, serves within his church, and even contributes to his community. But he just goes through the motions...he doesn't have God in his heart. He doesn't live his life outside of the church by God's plan. Person #2 never attends church, doesn't read the bible, doesn't pray, and hasn't been saved. But he is a really good person - takes care of the elderly, always does the right thing, is caring toward nature, and has a good heart. Which of these two go to heaven?? I think it is by His grace alone that we are saved...not by what we do or don't do. BUT...i think it is with him in our hearts that we do what his will is for us.

By that analogy, neither would go to heaven, but I agree with your view.


did she earn the car? no.


if the girl didn't graduate from college would she have gotten a car? no.

Sounds to me like she earned it.


This is quickly evolving into an Calvinism/Armenian argument. The whole point of grace is that it's undeserved, and no act on our part can effect it. So it is possible for a saved person to not be baptized, not witness, not read their Bible, etc and still be saved, but it's highly unlikely that a Christian will do this because of the love for God.

Actually, it says to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. But if you look at the entire chapter you will understand that he was trying to tell them what to do after they have been saved. Just above that in verse 21 it says "And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

jbrown84,

so does every person who graduates from college get a car? other than the fact that they promised it, did her parents owe her a car? i'd say it was a gift with requirements... she didn't earn it.

so if grace isn't deserved and nothing a person can do will effect it... so, according to you, nobody is going to hell? if they are, how can a person be lost? -M

They are lost because they have not surrendered to Christ as their Lord.

By grace, through faith.

We recieve the grace by having faith that Christ died for us and his death paid our penalty, and that he knows the best path for us.

By that analogy, neither would go to heaven, but I agree with your view.





Sounds to me like she earned it.


This is quickly evolving into an Calvinism/Armenian argument. The whole point of grace is that it's undeserved, and no act on our part can effect it. So it is possible for a saved person to not be baptized, not witness, not read their Bible, etc and still be saved, but it's highly unlikely that a Christian will do this because of the love for God.


I have a question for you all...

where in Scripture does it ever infer that getting into 'heaven' is an incentive to be 'saved'?

It doesn't.

arghh... got called into a meeting, sorry about the delayed responses.

kmf563,
i paraphrased the verse since i've already quoted it. in context, acts 2:17-21 is taken from a passage in the old testament (joel, to be exact) and in context is showing how jesus is the christ and is the fulfillment of prophecy. remember that peter and the apostles were speaking to a crowd that included many jews.

in contrast, look at matt. 7:21: "not every one that saith unto me, lord, lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my father which is in heaven." it's therefore not enough just to "call on the name of the lord" but we must back up our faith with actions.

you say that the crowd of acts 2 was already saved when peter speaks the words of acts 2:38. to paraphrase the chapter:

the christians were gathered together in jerusalem on pentecost and were filled with the holy spirit and began speaking in other languages (2:1-4)

the jews (notice how they're referred to as jews) heard what was going on and formed a crowd. being from different parts of the world, each person in the crowd was astonished to hear his own language. they begin to ask each other, "what does this mean?" (2:5-12) notice how they dont know what all this is about and certainly haven't called out the name of jesus.

peter then stands up and quotes old testament passages written by joel and david that foretell the coming of the messiah and exmplains how jesus is that messiah (2:14-36)

the crowd is "cut to the heart" by hearing this and asks "what shall we do?" (2:37) note, still no calling out the name of the lord.

replying to that, peter says repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the holy spirit. (2:38)

those that accepted the message were baptized and 3000 were added to their number. (2:41)

so... you have a bunch of jews and jewish converts who hear the message, ask what they should do upon hearing it. are told what to do and those that accepted it, did it.

so... how are these people already saved?

acts 2:38 therefore seems pretty clear... the crowd is told to repent and be baptized in order to receive forgiveness of their sins so that they may receive the gift of the holy spirit. the lynch pin is that every person who accepted the message went and did just that. it doesn't say that there were people who accepted the message and chose not to.
-M

jbrown,

"we recieve the grace by having faith that christ died for us and his death paid our penalty, and that he knows the best path for us."

ok... so james 2 says that faith without works is a dead faith. can a person receive grace through a dead faith?

-M

southokie,

"where in Scripture does it ever infer that getting into 'heaven' is an incentive to be 'saved'?"

i'd say that any scripture that describes what it's like to be lost and separated from god for eternity would imply that incentive. however, i think that scripture indicates that chrstians should do god's will out of love and obedience, not out of desire for the ultimate reward they may receive. -M

That was my sentiment exactly. Too many televangelists, preachers and teachers here in the Bible belt are too focused on the 'heaven and hell' aspects of the Christian faith, and when you delve deeper into its roots, you don't see it.

Just another example of how America, or the modern world, imposes its own view of Jesus and Christianity.

Lifechurch.tv is just one example of this. Its run as a coporation, intent on getting the most membership as possible. Where does Jesus do that? How does Jesus compare to the strategies, example, method that Lifechurch.tv portrays?

ok... so james 2 says that faith without works is a dead faith. can a person receive grace through a dead faith?

-M

He doesn't say anything about these people not being saved. A true Christian will show "fruit" by their works, their attitude, their love. Some Christians will show less than others. James is saying that a lack of fruit in a persons life is an indicator of their faith. One who has no faith, shows no fruit, and their faith is dead. There are more than 2 options.

jbrown,

james doesn't say anything about these people not being saved? i believe you're mistaken. james' entire thought on faith and works can be found in james 2:14-26. verse 2:14 reads: "what good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? can such faith save him?" this question is the basis for the logic that james goes through in the verses that follow. james' conclusion is faith without works is dead. he therefore answers the question he poses in 2:14 by concluding one cannot be saved by a dead faith.

certainly different people have different capabilities and will therefore bear different amounts of fruit. james isn't really commenting on that. god knows our hearts and knows when we are giving our best. that doesn't change the fact that if we aren't doing what god commands of us, then we really don't have faith in him and if we don't have faith in god we cannot be saved by his grace.

you say that "one who has no faith, shows no fruit, and their faith is dead." is that person with the "dead faith" saved or not? you say that there are "more than 2 options"... i guess i'm not following what you're driving at here. could you please explain?
-M

That was my sentiment exactly. Too many televangelists, preachers and teachers here in the Bible belt are too focused on the 'heaven and hell' aspects of the Christian faith, and when you delve deeper into its roots, you don't see it.

Just another example of how America, or the modern world, imposes its own view of Jesus and Christianity.

Lifechurch.tv is just one example of this. Its run as a coporation, intent on getting the most membership as possible. Where does Jesus do that? How does Jesus compare to the strategies, example, method that Lifechurch.tv portrays?

Wrong. again. None of the pastors pound in heaven and hell at LC. And they never have given a sermon about their own points of view. They of course have talked about both aspects...it is church.
And you OBVIOUSLY haven't ever looked at the membership of the church. Do you have any ideas what the requirements are to become a member of LC? It isn't a "take up space on sunday - I'm a member" sort of program. The membership is actually pretty low considering the attendance records.

mmm -
again. I think it's a difference in interpretation. I can respect and understand why you see it the way you do...I just read it completely different. Interesting isn't it. I guess that's why there are so many churches and denominations...because there are so many different interpretations.

I just wish lifechurch would donate some of their tithes to the city to get those sorry azz roads around them fixed...Sure if they made it an option on the auto pay tithe forms many members would do it...Like trying to get through a warzone

Interesting read by the way fellas (and ladies if any of you are)

kmf563,

there are parts of scripture that i can look at and say, 'sure, that could be interpreted in a few ways'...while i respect your view, i don't see how or where you can read into acts 2 to support the interpretation you are claiming. show me in acts 2 where the crowd calls on the name of the lord. explain to me how and where these people are saved before they repent and are baptized... i'm curious as to how you can explain this interpretation... i want to understand it better. -M

I just wish lifechurch would donate some of their tithes to the city to get those sorry azz roads around them fixed...Sure if they made it an option on the auto pay tithe forms many members would do it...Like trying to get through a warzone

Interesting read by the way fellas (and ladies if any of you are)

Thanks 180! (I'm a lady btw).

Interesting try...but, isn't that what we pay our taxes for? Completely different topic..don't get me started on THAT. LOL.

kmf563,

there are parts of scripture that i can look at and say, 'sure, that could be interpreted in a few ways'...while i respect your view, i don't see how or where you can read into acts 2 to support the interpretation you are claiming. show me in acts 2 where the crowd calls on the name of the lord. explain to me how and where these people are saved before they repent and are baptized... i'm curious as to how you can explain this interpretation... i want to understand it better. -M

I could quote and explain the entire thing and you still wouldn't see my point of view - and I don't mean that offensively. We just don't see it eye to eye...and btw, I don't see how you see it your way either. That's why I just respectfully disagreed. :tiphat:

well, yeah i doubt i would agree... but that's not the point... reading the same scripture, i don't even understand where you're coming from. a couple posts ago i wrote a synopsis of acts 2... so if you don't see things the same way, where do you believe the logic is flawed? certainly you can at least point me to scripture in acts 2 that supports your claims... this really isn't about convincing you or convincing me... i just honestly don't see where you're coming from! -M

you say that "one who has no faith, shows no fruit, and their faith is dead." is that person with the "dead faith" saved or not? you say that there are "more than 2 options"... i guess i'm not following what you're driving at here. could you please explain?
-M

I mean that you have people with no faith/dead faith, and then you have people that of ON FIRE for God, and you have people in between. It's possible to be showing very little fruit because your relationship with God is weak. One can be breaking some commands and following others and that doesn't take away their salvation.

"My sheep hear my voice, and no one can snatch them from my hand."

More importantly, the deeds/works are a product of being saved, not the cause.

"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

"Just another example of how America, or the modern world, imposes its own view of Jesus and Christianity.

Lifechurch.tv is just one example of this. Its run as a coporation, intent on getting the most membership as possible. Where does Jesus do that? How does Jesus compare to the strategies, example, method that Lifechurch.tv portrays?"

KMF563, I wasn't doting on how LC talks about Heaven and Hell here, I was talking about how they do Church THEIR way, not the Biblical, or Christ centered way.