Only one true church in the bible.
- Thread starter Shava
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
This is all you have to say, what happen to the questions I asked you to prove, trying to shy away by saying this because of a error in accidentally using the wrong word. Thank you for correcting me, and I still love to see the proof of the QUESTION I asked of you to prove, which You know you can't
Here you go friend II Chronicles 29:25-28,
And where did Jesus say....Oh ya Matt 5:17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Now the OT says it's a law straight from the Lord and it was never rescinded,
Looks like my proof outweighs yours.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, Times]Eph. 5:18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. 19Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, 20always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The great multitude sings the song of Moses
[/FONT]Rev. 15:1 I saw in heaven another great and marvelous sign: seven angels with the seven last plagues --last, because with them God's wrath is completed. 2And I saw what looked like a sea of glass mixed with fire and, standing beside the sea, those who had been victorious over the beast and his image and over the number of his name. They held harps given them by God 3and sang the song of Moses the servant of God and the song of the Lamb: "Great and marvelous are your deeds, Lord God Almighty. Just and true are your ways, King of the ages. 4Who will not fear you, O Lord, and bring glory to your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship before you, for your righteous acts have been revealed
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, Times]Luke 15:20 So [the prodigal son] got up and went to his father. "But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him. 21"The son said to him, `Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. ' 22"But the father said to his servants, `Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. 24For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate. 25"Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27`Your brother has come,' he replied, `and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.' [FONT=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, Times]Matt. 26:29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom." 30When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
Singing and praise is a form of worship
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, Times]
[/FONT]
My friend you are simply mistaken, here and see for yourself. [h=1]Did Christ Abolish the Law of Moses?[/h] By Wayne Jackson
“Some teach that Christians are not under obligation to keep the Sabbath day in this age. If that is the case, how is Matthew 5:17-18 to be explained? Did not Christ say that the law would not be destroyed; that it would last as long as heaven and earth?”
In Matthew’s record of what is commonly called, “The Sermon on the Mount,” these words of Jesus are recorded:
We may confidently affirm that Christ did not here suggest that the binding nature of the law of Moses would remain perpetually obligatory. Such a view would contradict everything we learn from the balance of the New Testament record. Consider the following points.
(1) Of special significance in this study is the word rendered “destroy.” It translates the Greek term kataluo, literally meaning to “loose down.” The word is found seventeen times in the New Testament. It is used, for example, of the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans (Mt. 26:61; 27:40; Acts 6:14), and of the dissolving of the human body at death (2 Cor. 5:1). The term can carry the extended meaning of “to overthrow,” i.e., to “render vain, deprive of success.” In classical Greek, it was used in connection with institutions, laws, etc., to convey the idea of “to deprive of force” or to “invalidate.”
(2) It is especially important to note how the word is used in Matthew 5:17. In this context, “destroy” is set in opposition to “fulfill.” Christ came "…not to destroy, but [alla — adversative particle] to fulfill.
The meaning is this. Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an adversary of the law. His goal was not to frustrate its fulfillment. Rather, he revered it, loved it, obeyed it, and brought it to fruition. He fulfilled the law’s prophetic utterances regarding himself (Lk. 24:44). Christ fulfilled the demands of the Mosaic law, which called for perfect obedience or else imposed a “curse” (see Gal. 3:10,13). In this sense, the law’s divine design will ever have an abiding effect. It will always accomplish the purpose for which it was given.
(3) If, however, the law of Moses bears the same relationship to men today, in terms of its binding status, as it did before Christ came, then it was not fulfilled, and Jesus failed at what he came “to do.” On the other hand, if the Lord did accomplish what he came to accomplish, then the law was fulfilled, and it is not a binding legal regime today.
(4) If the law of Moses was not fulfilled by Christ, and thus remains as an obligatory legal system for today, then it is not a partially binding regime; rather, it is totally compelling system.
Jesus plainly said that not one “jot or tittle” (representative of the smallest markings of the Hebrew script) would pass away until all was fulfilled. Consequently, nothing of the law was to fail until it had completely accomplished its purpose.
“But,” some surmise, “does not the text affirm that the law would last until ‘heaven and earth’ pass away?” No, only that it would be “easier” for the universe to pass away than for the law of God not to fulfill its mission (cf. Lk. 16:17).
And so, if one contends, on the basis of Matthew 5:17-18, that Moses’ law is still binding as a legally required regime, he must take all of it — including its bloody sacrifices, annual treks to Jerusalem, purification rituals, etc. As Paul later will argue — if a man receives one portion of the law [as binding for justification], he is a debtor to do all of it (Gal. 5:3). This is the logical consequence of the misguided “sabbatarian” view of this important text.
(5) In addition to the points listed above, Paul clearly argues, in his letter to the Ephesians, that the “law of commandments contained in ordinances” was “abolished” by the death of Jesus upon the cross (2:14-15). The Greek term for “abolished” is katargeo, literally suggesting the idea of reducing something to a state of inactivity.
Paul uses this term twice in Romans 7:2,6 — showing that just as a wife is “discharged” from the law of her husband when he dies, even so, through the death of the body of Christ, men were “discharged” from the obligations of the Mosaic law. That the law here contemplated is the law of Moses, including the ten commandments, is demonstrated by the reference to the tenth commandment in Romans 7:7 (cf. Ex. 20:17).
The harmony between Matthew 5:17-18, and Ephesians 2:15, is this: The purpose of the law of Moses was never to come to naught; its original design would be perpetual. On the other hand, as a legal code, it would be abolished, being cancelled by the Savior’s sacrificial death (cf. Col. 2:14ff.).
And so, a consideration of all the facts leads only to the conclusion that Matthew 5:17 does not afford any support to those who maintain that the observance of the sabbath day is a divinely-required obligation for this age
“Some teach that Christians are not under obligation to keep the Sabbath day in this age. If that is the case, how is Matthew 5:17-18 to be explained? Did not Christ say that the law would not be destroyed; that it would last as long as heaven and earth?”
In Matthew’s record of what is commonly called, “The Sermon on the Mount,” these words of Jesus are recorded:
“Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished” (Mt. 5:17-18).
It is frequently argued that if Jesus did not “destroy” the law, then it must still be binding. Accordingly, such components as the “sabbath day” requirement must be operative still, along with, perhaps, numerous other elements of the Mosaic regime. This assumption is grounded upon a misunderstanding of the words and intent of this passage.
We may confidently affirm that Christ did not here suggest that the binding nature of the law of Moses would remain perpetually obligatory. Such a view would contradict everything we learn from the balance of the New Testament record. Consider the following points.
(1) Of special significance in this study is the word rendered “destroy.” It translates the Greek term kataluo, literally meaning to “loose down.” The word is found seventeen times in the New Testament. It is used, for example, of the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans (Mt. 26:61; 27:40; Acts 6:14), and of the dissolving of the human body at death (2 Cor. 5:1). The term can carry the extended meaning of “to overthrow,” i.e., to “render vain, deprive of success.” In classical Greek, it was used in connection with institutions, laws, etc., to convey the idea of “to deprive of force” or to “invalidate.”
(2) It is especially important to note how the word is used in Matthew 5:17. In this context, “destroy” is set in opposition to “fulfill.” Christ came "…not to destroy, but [alla — adversative particle] to fulfill.
The meaning is this. Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an adversary of the law. His goal was not to frustrate its fulfillment. Rather, he revered it, loved it, obeyed it, and brought it to fruition. He fulfilled the law’s prophetic utterances regarding himself (Lk. 24:44). Christ fulfilled the demands of the Mosaic law, which called for perfect obedience or else imposed a “curse” (see Gal. 3:10,13). In this sense, the law’s divine design will ever have an abiding effect. It will always accomplish the purpose for which it was given.
(3) If, however, the law of Moses bears the same relationship to men today, in terms of its binding status, as it did before Christ came, then it was not fulfilled, and Jesus failed at what he came “to do.” On the other hand, if the Lord did accomplish what he came to accomplish, then the law was fulfilled, and it is not a binding legal regime today.
(4) If the law of Moses was not fulfilled by Christ, and thus remains as an obligatory legal system for today, then it is not a partially binding regime; rather, it is totally compelling system.
Jesus plainly said that not one “jot or tittle” (representative of the smallest markings of the Hebrew script) would pass away until all was fulfilled. Consequently, nothing of the law was to fail until it had completely accomplished its purpose.
“But,” some surmise, “does not the text affirm that the law would last until ‘heaven and earth’ pass away?” No, only that it would be “easier” for the universe to pass away than for the law of God not to fulfill its mission (cf. Lk. 16:17).
And so, if one contends, on the basis of Matthew 5:17-18, that Moses’ law is still binding as a legally required regime, he must take all of it — including its bloody sacrifices, annual treks to Jerusalem, purification rituals, etc. As Paul later will argue — if a man receives one portion of the law [as binding for justification], he is a debtor to do all of it (Gal. 5:3). This is the logical consequence of the misguided “sabbatarian” view of this important text.
(5) In addition to the points listed above, Paul clearly argues, in his letter to the Ephesians, that the “law of commandments contained in ordinances” was “abolished” by the death of Jesus upon the cross (2:14-15). The Greek term for “abolished” is katargeo, literally suggesting the idea of reducing something to a state of inactivity.
Paul uses this term twice in Romans 7:2,6 — showing that just as a wife is “discharged” from the law of her husband when he dies, even so, through the death of the body of Christ, men were “discharged” from the obligations of the Mosaic law. That the law here contemplated is the law of Moses, including the ten commandments, is demonstrated by the reference to the tenth commandment in Romans 7:7 (cf. Ex. 20:17).
The harmony between Matthew 5:17-18, and Ephesians 2:15, is this: The purpose of the law of Moses was never to come to naught; its original design would be perpetual. On the other hand, as a legal code, it would be abolished, being cancelled by the Savior’s sacrificial death (cf. Col. 2:14ff.).
And so, a consideration of all the facts leads only to the conclusion that Matthew 5:17 does not afford any support to those who maintain that the observance of the sabbath day is a divinely-required obligation for this age
I look forward to harps in heaven, but right now we are on earth in the Christian era in which Jesus done away with the old testament through his death. The commandments were given to understand what sin is, for instance stealing, if someone didn't tell you stealing was a sin how would you know if it was or not. We do not live under the O.T. we live under the N.T. there was nothing wrong with instruments in the O.T., but now we worship God according to the N.T. and he has authorized singing only. Ephesians 5;19 and Colossians 3;16 No where in the N.T. are instruments used, no where, the reason is because we were given a command to sing only, so why would you see instruments when they were not authorized.
What you're asking if I believe are you saved after being baptized, yes I do believe that. Mark 16;16 He that believeth AND IS baptized will be saved. Some people have a problem with this verse, but it's quite simple actually. The key here is understanding the meaning of AND IS, which means you must believe and be baptized to be saved= AND IS. You have to do both, which both being equally important and have to be done completely in order to fulfill the verse correctly. Acts 2;38 tells the people on the day of Pentecost when they asked Peter what must we do to be saved and he said repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins, and they were baptized and 3,000 souls were added that day to the Church, which was and is the Church of Christ.
Lol you think duck dynasty gives you credibility?
Let's discuss a few things about the robertsons and other restrictions in the COC.
The COC disapproves of alcohol. The robertsons have a wine contract.
They disapprove of dancing. Willies daughter goes to many dances.
Gambling in prohibited and they love poker and have casino night at duck commander.
So tv show celebrities isn't something you should use to validate your corruption.
The robertsons also don't condemn people and act self righteous.
L
littlewoman
Guest
I don't know your church well, but I disagree with you. Worshiping God can be in many ways, some are dynamic like modern bands, some are very traditional even without any instruments involved. Please don't be restrained by these external way, because God's kingdom is not based on these. Accepting other forms, because different people will choose different way, but all of us have God's image. As long as worship in spirit and truth, it is good and would be accepted by God. How can you know other people's heart? If they worship in instruments, they can use their spirit too. Because people are different on these detailed aspects.
G
Genlivin4him247
Guest
What you have stated about there only being one true church and that is CoC is totally not BIBLICAL. Your stand inregards to worship and praise unto the Lord is totally FALSE!!!!!!! Myself Being a person who has studyed the Word of God which is the Holy Bible and has worshipped the Lord in both song and With instruments and in Dance unto the Lord you are in error AND NEED to reevaluate what the Word of the Lord states and commands us in how to Worship him and praise him. In reality you need to find a Biblically based church which is teaching and abiding what the Word of God states. Because if your church body is twisting the Word of God and teaching that if people who use instruments to Worship and Praise the Lord, your church is a cult. In which it cares more about what others think than in what the Word of the Lord has commanded us and told us to do.
T
Tintin
Guest
What about the thief on the cross? The Lord Jesus said to Him, because he repented and believed: 'Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.' The repentant thief wasn't baptised.
Ephesians 2.8&9 speaks of salvation 'by grace...through faith...not of works'. Nothing is mentioned about baptism for salvation.
Baptism is a symbol which was observed by those 'who gladly received his word'. Water baptism did not make them gladly receive the Gospel. It was the other way round.
The thief was saved by Jesus personally, and many others were while he was here. The Old Testament people were saved by faith, which the the two thieves and Jesus were in Old Testament time until Jesus died, but again the thief was saved by Jesus personally. You and I are under the New Testament law where water baptism is commanded to be saved. The day of Pentecost in the year 33 A.D. Peter was preaching to the people and the people asked what must we do to be saved, and Peter said repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins. When the 3,000 heard this they obeyed and were saved and that day they were the first one's to be added to the church, which is the Church of Christ. Acts 2;38, Mark 16;16, Romans 16;16, Matthew 16;18 How then can baptism be just a symbol when Peter told them in order to be saved you must repent and be baptized, that doesn't sound like a symbol, because it isn't, it's a command. The Great Commission which is Jesus last words are to preach and baptize, that doesn't sound to me like a symbol, because it isn't, again, it's a command.
Actually the thief could have been baptized but we don't know. IT doesn't mention if he was or not. We do know the thief knew who Jesus was. So it could have been he was a believer but messed up and was punished, but we don't really know.
According to Romans 10:9 you need to confess in the Lord Jesus AND believe he was RISEN FROM THE DEAD. Jesus had not died. The plan of salvation wasn't yet complete. So he could not have been baptized under NT law
So when the thief was on the cross the OT was still in effect and he was forgiven under the OLD law. Not under the gospel.
In conclusion, the thief on the cross is not an example one can use being as he did not die under the gospel.
Many think that baptism is about baptism regeneration where some magical thing happens when you go under water. That isn't the belief many hold, but others think that is why the CoC baptizes. It isn't(many other church baptize too so this certainly isn't just a CoC thing)
The thing about baptism is the expression confidence and faith in Christ's death, burial and resurrection.
And, just as the Son of God was raised from the dead to the glory of Father, even so, when one is raised from the burial of baptism, he passes into a state characterized as “newness of life” (Rom. 6:4).
What saves us is Jesus burial and resurrection, and many feel the need to submit to the Lords comand to replicate the Lords burial and resurrection through baptism.
12 When you were baptized, you were buried with Christ, and you were raised up with him because of your faith in God’s power. God’s power was shown when he raised Christ from death.
13 You were spiritually dead because of your sins and because you were not free from the power of your sinful self. But God gave you new life together with Christ. He forgave all our sins. Col 2:12-13
It is by baptism that one is entered "Into Christ"...
4 So when we were baptized, we were buried with Christ and took part in his death. And just as Christ was raised from death by the wonderful power of the Father, so we can now live a new life. Romans 6:4
26-27 You were all baptized into Christ, and so you were all clothed with Christ. This shows that you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:27
So for those that hate the thought of baptism we not believe that some amazing magical spiritualized water literally washes sin from you. I don't know anyone that even thinks that. Yet we are accused of that daily.
Baptism is commanded by God. IF you dont agree that is your choice, but just as I believe in baptism as part of the salvation process...baptism means nothing without faith in Jesus.
You really need to learn how to address the people you are talking to. No one knows who are you referring to. It really isn't that hard to put a quote in your post. It is even less hard to type a name. It's obvious you know how to type so why not?