Phil Robertson's testimony (Duck Dynasty)

[rsc2a]

I was not raised in the church.  I attended church sporadically in my youth, by invitation of friends.  I attended many sorts of services -- Catholic, non-denominational, protestant, Southern Baptist.  I was a military brat.  Many services I attended were on base, so I might not understand all the correct denominations...but I considered myself as "protestant" for most of my life.  Somewhere in my sporadic hearing of the Gospel, I honestly believe I accepted Christ as my savior, even though no specific date comes to my memory.  But I knew I wasn't baptized (I would have hung my hat on infant baptism), which always troubled me, even during all the years I didn't attend any church  -- from the age of 16 until the age of 44.  At 44, I started attending a specific Baptist church for a specific purpose, not related to my own relationship with Christ...but that church felt like home.  And I was convicted.  One Sunday, about 6 months later, I literally ran down the aisle for baptism.  During that 6 months, I was taught that baptism was simply an act of obedience...but I remember coming home that Sunday and reading Revelation straight through...and waiting for Pastor to come talk to me so that I could be baptized the very next Sunday...praying that I wouldn't die before that day...oh, how I needed to be baptized...I had worried about it for all those years...

OK, Alayman and rsc2a, what do you make of my true story?

I believe baptism means many different things to many different people. I was baptized at a young age.

My wife put off being baptized for years because she didn't want to participate in something what was largely an empty church ritual (in her mind at the time).

I am reading through Mark's gospel with my three kids every night. It is taking a long time because we are discussing each section in detail, reviewing sections, I'm explaining ideas and terminology, etc... After Mark, I am planning on using the Apostle's Creed in the same manner. We will then discuss the meaning of (and importance of) baptism, and if they express an interest, I will have them all baptized simultaneously.

Do I think baptism is necessary for salvation? Absolutely not. The only thing that saves is Jesus. Without getting into a full-blown explanatory post on the significance of baptism (which I will do if you like), I will say that baptism is an important part of our sanctification, it has a deeper significance than those who only treat it like a prescribed ritual (much like Communion), and something any Christian should desire. With that being said, I can empathize with some people when it comes to why they delay their own baptisms (sometimes indefinitely).

Full disclaimer: My personal views on baptism are probably somewhere between a Baptist and a Presbyterian with a dose of Lutheranism (and others) thrown in.

I am fine calling baptism a "mystery"; it is simple, yet profound. It is a picture of what is, what was, and what is to come. It is an action of God. It is a means of grace from the Most High. It is an action of man. It is a mark of obedience for one who would follow the Christ. It is an action of the Church. It identifies us, who are already part of the Church, as part of the Church. It speaks of death, but life! It speaks of purification. It speaks of a community of faith. It speaks of the power, holiness, and glory of God.

 

[rsc2a]

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

<whistles>

Seriously laughed out loud at your contortion.

Natural law or natural theology is not sufficient for salvation, but rather is sufficient unto damnation.  You knew that.  Or, well, at least I hope you knew that.

Follow me here:

Theology is not sufficient for salvation. Jesus is.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

I don't put limitations on the Creator of the Universe.

ROFLOL! 

You spit on Biblical revelation with such sophistry, but nothing surprises me from your pretzel-like hermeneutics.[/quote]

The revelation where God describes dozens of ways people come to know Him?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Yes, you explained your view by changing a word (that appears in virtually all translations) to another phrase (that doesn't appear in any), in spite of the fact that the word is common to koine Greek and is consistently translated throughout Scripture. (Of course, you haven't touched other difficult passages because this is a lot harder to hide.)

Whatever you say bub.  I could go through the arguments for how the preposition "eis" may mean because of, but you don't want to hear it because, well, I'm not sure why you don't want to hear it accept for the fact that you like to argue more than you do breathe.[/quote]

So you are smarter than the translators of all those versions. Got it.

(You still haven't touched other verses that echo this particular one.)

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

It's not difficult. The argument will be about what is "a clear theme or doctrine". Coc'ers will say one thing; Baptists will say another. I will say Jesus alone saves; you will say your belief about Jesus saves.

To borrow a line from your playbook.....liar.[/quote]

I'm a liar how? By saying Coc'ers and Baptist disagree? By saying that I say Jesus alone saves? By saying that you will say belief about Jesus saves? (Because you keep repeating that last statement over and over and over...)

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Chuck wasn't mocking, he was serious.  You quickly resorted to mocking, because, well, it's how you roll.[/quote]

So now I'm mocking. I thought you said I was serious?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Follow me here:

Theology is not sufficient for salvation. Jesus is.

You continue to persist in your false dichotomy.  You wouldn't know of Jesus if it weren't for the Scriptures.  And Paul disagrees explicitly with you....

2Ti 3:15  And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

The revelation where God describes dozens of ways people come to know Him?

The revelation that says the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, and the revelation that commands us to preach that gospel to all people.

So you are smarter than the translators of all those versions. Got it.

I am smart enough to know that I have told you already, and you ignore (as you usually do when you are proven wrong) that in areas of the Bible where there appears to be a contradiction to other parts we don't allow the parts that are not as clear to over-rule the parts that are clearer.  I've said that already, but you continue to obfuscate.  Yes, you obfuscate on this issue.  Deal with what I've said as it relates to the reason that I allow for eis to mean "because of".  There are other textual reasons to assert that "eis" should be interpreted as "because of", but I don't need those arguments, given the rule of interpretation of allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.

I'm a liar how? By saying Coc'ers and Baptist disagree? By saying that I say Jesus alone saves? By saying that you will say belief about Jesus saves? (Because you keep repeating that last statement over and over and over...)

No, you're a liar because I've never stated that knowledge "about" Jesus saves.  I've said that only Jesus saves, and that he does so through His appointed means <the gospel, preached or read> ordinarily.  I've said this before, but you ignore it, put words in my mouth, then prance around like a school-girl pointing out what you wished I had said rather than what I have actually said.

So now I'm mocking. I thought you said I was serious?

You said you were mocking, or are you schizophrenic.  Remember this just a post ago...

So you point out where I mock the fundy "literal means literal except where I don't like it"

 

[JrChurch]

Being from and in middle TN you can't sling a dead cat without hitting a Church of Christ member upside the head. They take a strict literal interpretation of the Bible and ger their requirements for baptism from the following:

John 3:5  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


I'm just curious how you deal with their take on those verses.


ChuckBob

Alayman's answers are correct, but most C of C rely on circular reasoning and keep going back to their pet verses. They stumble by trying to insert themselves into areas of Scripture which deal with the Jewish nation. John's baptism of repentance was to the Jewish people and Acts 2:38 was in direct response to Peter's condemnation of the Jewish nation for rejecting Christ.  They were pricked in their hearts and asked, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

Acts shows the transition from dealing with the Jews to dealing with Gentiles.  Yet, every C of C will cling to Acts 2:38  as their life verse. They miss the change from John's baptism to the baptism of a saved child of God. 

Acts 19:3-5  And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.  Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.  When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Their gospel is: belief, confession, repentance, baptism.  Yet the Bible clearly delineates between baptism and the gospel:

1 Corinthians 1:17  For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

I was raised in the Church of Christ and was also taught that the only true baptism is by an elder in a Church of Christ building.  The baptismal waters were changed into the blood of Christ and that is how one is washed in the blood of Jesus.  I remember thinking, "Well, that felt just like Kansas CIty tap water."

 

[rsc2a]

Follow me here:

Theology is not sufficient for salvation. Jesus is.

You continue to persist in your false dichotomy.  You wouldn't know of Jesus if it weren't for the Scriptures.

And you know this how?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]And Paul disagrees explicitly with you....

2Ti 3:15  And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. [/quote]

So when Paul was telling Timothy that Timothy learned about God from Scriptures, Paul was really writing that letter to me? 

(Another hint: those Scriptures Paul was referring to didn't even include the NT.)

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

The revelation where God describes dozens of ways people come to know Him?

The revelation that says the gospel is the power of God unto salvation...[/quote]

Yes, the gospel...the good news...is that God is capable (and willing!) to save and heal; you might even say that the good news is that the Kingdom of God is at hand.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]...and the revelation that commands us to preach that gospel to all people.[/quote]

Yes, we should tell everyone this good news. My kids tell everyone they can when they go to Chuckie Cheese; should we do any less when God comes to us?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

So you are smarter than the translators of all those versions. Got it.

I am smart enough to know that I have told you already, and you ignore (as you usually do when you are proven wrong) that in areas of the Bible where there appears to be a contradiction to other parts we don't allow the parts that are not as clear to over-rule the parts that are clearer.  I've said that already, but you continue to obfuscate.[/quote]

Yes, some parts are very clear. Then you turn around and say that those parts aren't saying what they are clearly saying and call that good.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Yes, you obfuscate on this issue.  Deal with what I've said as it relates to the reason that I allow for eis to mean "because of".  There are other textual reasons to assert that "eis" should be interpreted as "because of", but I don't need those arguments, given the rule of interpretation of allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.[/quote]

I don't feel the need to argue with the twenty or so translations I checked. You apparently...do.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

I'm a liar how? By saying Coc'ers and Baptist disagree? By saying that I say Jesus alone saves? By saying that you will say belief about Jesus saves? (Because you keep repeating that last statement over and over and over...)

No, you're a liar because I've never stated that knowledge "about" Jesus saves.  I've said that only Jesus saves, and that he does so through His appointed means <the gospel, preached or read> ordinarily.  I've said this before, but you ignore it, put words in my mouth, then prance around like a school-girl pointing out what you wished I had said rather than what I have actually said.[/quote]

See that underlined word....that's new.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

So now I'm mocking. I thought you said I was serious?

You said you were mocking, or are you schizophrenic.  Remember this just a post ago...

So you point out where I mock the fundy "literal means literal except where I don't like it"[/quote]

I'm fully aware of what I said. I also know you said I was serious, then I was obviously mocking, then I was serious...all concerning the same post.

 

[Rainbow Warrior]

I appreciate the way you explain things rsc2a, are you a pastor of a church?

 

[ALAYMAN]

And you know this how?

Because the passage I cited as well as others indicate that salvation is wrought through the Scriptures, and that natural revelation is sufficient to condemn but not justify.  You may choose to believe that God elected to reveal himself to mankind sufficiently for salvation in some other manner but in doing so you are overthrowning the sufficiency and warrant of revelation.  Seems sorta arrogant and humanistic to me to think that fallen man in his sinful state could rationally attain unto an infinitely <presumably> non-transcendant God.

So when Paul was telling Timothy that Timothy learned about God from Scriptures, Paul was really writing that letter to me? 

By such an ignorant rationale, since the words "rsc2a" aren't mentioned in Scripture I guess you are left out.  What was that latin phrase about absurdity you like to use?

(Another hint: those Scriptures Paul was referring to didn't even include the NT.)

The gospel is a form of progressive revelation rooted in the self-revelatory nature of a grace-oriented God who said that the gospel was preached to Abraham (and belief was counted to him for righteousness, belief/trust in a God who was real, not abstract).

Yes, the gospel...the good news...is that God is capable (and willing!) to save and heal; you might even say that the good news is that the Kingdom of God is at hand.....

Yes, we should tell everyone this good news. My kids tell everyone they can when they go to Chuckie Cheese; should we do any less when God comes to us?

God came to you through the Scriptures, via the gospel.  That same gospel He has commanded to be preached to all nations, teaching <propositional truth-filled content about him>, otherwise, you'd be lost in your sins.

Yes, some parts are very clear. Then you turn around and say that those parts aren't saying what they are clearly saying and call that good.

The parts that are very clear say Christ redeems by salvation through faith alone, and the passage that you are saying is "clear" <and by implication tacitly making overtures of accepting heretical and contradictory revelation> is only clear if you read it in context, harmonizing it with the totality of Scripture.

I don't feel the need to argue with the twenty or so translations I checked. You apparently...do.

Translation requires fidelity to linguistis, interpretation requires application of context.  The translations may properly import "eis" as being faithful to the original language manuscripts, but a range of meanings, particularly given contextual application, yields that the "eis" cannot dictate that baptism is the causal agent in bringing salvation.  Therefore, in simple terms, "because of" is a legitimate understanding within the range of semantic and interpretive meaning.

See that underlined word....that's new.

As is usually the case with you, obfuscation rules the day.  The point of calling you a liar was because, well, you lied.  You lied when you said that I claim knowledge "about" Jesus is what saves, when I've been explicitly clear that it is Christ alone that saves, but that he has chosen the instrumentality of his word to do so.

I'm fully aware of what I said. I also know you said I was serious, then I was obviously mocking, then I was serious...all concerning the same post.

Maybe you were serious, maybe you were mocking, maybe you were seriously mocking.  The point is that you appeared to be in agreement with Chuckbob's sentiments that the CoC folk simply do what the Bible says in some sort of  literal fashion.  When I pointed out that they in fact weren't being as literal as Chuckbob (and apparently you) were saying, the conversation turned to your typical spinning.  Of course my point was that "literal" in the sense he was using the term was a heremeneutically flawed and deficient understanding of "literal".

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Being from and in middle TN you can't sling a dead cat without hitting a Church of Christ member upside the head. They take a strict literal interpretation of the Bible and ger their requirements for baptism from the following:

John 3:5  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


I'm just curious how you deal with their take on those verses.


ChuckBob

Alayman's answers are correct, but most C of C rely on circular reasoning and keep going back to their pet verses. They stumble by trying to insert themselves into areas of Scripture which deal with the Jewish nation. John's baptism of repentance was to the Jewish people and Acts 2:38 was in direct response to Peter's condemnation of the Jewish nation for rejecting Christ.  They were pricked in their hearts and asked, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

Acts shows the transition from dealing with the Jews to dealing with Gentiles.  Yet, every C of C will cling to Acts 2:38  as their life verse. They miss the change from John's baptism to the baptism of a saved child of God. 

Acts 19:3-5  And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.  Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.  When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Their gospel is: belief, confession, repentance, baptism.  Yet the Bible clearly delineates between baptism and the gospel:

1 Corinthians 1:17  For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

I was raised in the Church of Christ and was also taught that the only true baptism is by an elder in a Church of Christ building.  The baptismal waters were changed into the blood of Christ and that is how one is washed in the blood of Jesus.  I remember thinking, "Well, that felt just like Kansas CIty tap water."

I found this to be true when, a few years ago, my youngest daughter looked into Florida Christian College in Orlando. On our visit they broached the subject of her being 'baptized into Christ' and her Baptist Baptism wasn't sufficient..to get her into heaven or the school...UNLESS your tuition check didn't bounce! 

 

[rsc2a]

And you know this how?

Because the passage I cited as well as others indicate that salvation is wrought through the Scriptures, and that natural revelation is sufficient to condemn but not justify.  You may choose to believe that God elected to reveal himself to mankind sufficiently for salvation in some other manner but in doing so you are overthrowning the sufficiency and warrant of revelation.  Seems sorta arrogant and humanistic to me to think that fallen man in his sinful state could rationally attain unto an infinitely <presumably> non-transcendant God.

Again. Jesus saves, not scripture. God justifies, not scripture.

And i haven't argued against the sufficiency of scripture, just the exclusivity of scripture.

So when Paul was telling Timothy that Timothy learned about God from Scriptures, Paul was really writing that letter to me? 

By such an ignorant rationale, since the words "rsc2a" aren't mentioned in Scripture I guess you are left out.  What was that latin phrase about absurdity you like to use?

Remember what I said about authorial intent?

(Another hint: those Scriptures Paul was referring to didn't even include the NT.)

The gospel is a form of progressive revelation rooted in the self-revelatory nature of a grace-oriented God who said that the gospel was preached to Abraham (and belief was counted to him for righteousness, belief/trust in a God who was real, not abstract).

Yes.

Yes, the gospel...the good news...is that God is capable (and willing!) to save and heal; you might even say that the good news is that the Kingdom of God is at hand.....

Yes, we should tell everyone this good news. My kids tell everyone they can when they go to Chuckie Cheese; should we do any less when God comes to us?

God came to you through the Scriptures, via the gospel.  That same gospel He has commanded to be preached to all nations, teaching <propositional truth-filled content about him>, otherwise, you'd be lost in your sins.

No. God came to me via God. The gospel tells this story.

Yes, some parts are very clear. Then you turn around and say that those parts aren't saying what they are clearly saying and call that good.

The parts that are very clear say Christ redeems by salvation through faith alone, and the passage that you are saying is "clear" <and by implication tacitly making overtures of accepting heretical and contradictory revelation> is only clear if you read it in context, harmonizing it with the totality of Scripture.

Contradictory? No.

Tell me: does the sculptor or the chisel carve the marble?

I don't feel the need to argue with the twenty or so translations I checked. You apparently...do.

Translation requires fidelity to linguistis, interpretation requires application of context.  The translations may properly import "eis" as being faithful to the original language manuscripts, but a range of meanings, particularly given contextual application, yields that the "eis" cannot dictate that baptism is the causal agent in bringing salvation.  Therefore, in simple terms, "because of" is a legitimate understanding within the range of semantic and interpretive meaning.

Translation requires interpretation.

See that underlined word....that's new.

As is usually the case with you, obfuscation rules the day.  The point of calling you a liar was because, well, you lied.  You lied when you said that I claim knowledge "about" Jesus is what saves, when I've been explicitly clear that it is Christ alone that saves, but that he has chosen the instrumentality of his word to do so.

You are making that claim repeatedly in this very post. And you still added a word that changed the meaning.

I'm fully aware of what I said. I also know you said I was serious, then I was obviously mocking, then I was serious...all concerning the same post.

Maybe you were serious, maybe you were mocking, maybe you were seriously mocking.  The point is that you appeared to be in agreement with Chuckbob's sentiments that the CoC folk simply do what the Bible says in some sort of  literal fashion.  When I pointed out that they in fact weren't being as literal as Chuckbob (and apparently you) were saying, the conversation turned to your typical spinning.  Of course my point was that "literal" in the sense he was using the term was a heremeneutically flawed and deficient understa
nding of "literal".

That kind of like you admitting you were wrong without you admitting you were wrong.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Are the Duck Dynasty guys CoC Anderson Indiana?
Forgive me if this was mentioned earlier....

 

[ALAYMAN]

  The baptismal waters were changed into the blood of Christ and that is how one is washed in the blood of Jesus. 

Thanks for the info.  I didn't know this was standard teaching in their camp.

Are the Duck Dynasty guys CoC Anderson Indiana?
Forgive me if this was mentioned earlier....

You're thinking of Church of God.

 

[rsc2a]

I appreciate the way you explain things rsc2a, are you a pastor of a church?

I am not. I study a lot and i will be one day but my wife has no desire to be a pastors wife.i respect her wishes (and understand them).so, for now,i will keep preparing myself.

 

[Rainbow Warrior]

I appreciate the way you explain things rsc2a, are you a pastor of a church?

I am not. I study a lot and i will be one day but my wife has no desire to be a pastors wife.i respect her wishes (and understand them).so, for now,i will keep preparing myself.

God has blessed you with wisdom, I hope I can get as much insight as you have...

 

[4everfsu]

Being from and in middle TN you can't sling a dead cat without hitting a Church of Christ member upside the head. They take a strict literal interpretation of the Bible and ger their requirements for baptism from the following:

John 3:5  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


I'm just curious how you deal with their take on those verses.


ChuckBob

Alayman's answers are correct, but most C of C rely on circular reasoning and keep going back to their pet verses. They stumble by trying to insert themselves into areas of Scripture which deal with the Jewish nation. John's baptism of repentance was to the Jewish people and Acts 2:38 was in direct response to Peter's condemnation of the Jewish nation for rejecting Christ.  They were pricked in their hearts and asked, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

Acts shows the transition from dealing with the Jews to dealing with Gentiles.  Yet, every C of C will cling to Acts 2:38  as their life verse. They miss the change from John's baptism to the baptism of a saved child of God. 

Acts 19:3-5  And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.  Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.  When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Their gospel is: belief, confession, repentance, baptism.  Yet the Bible clearly delineates between baptism and the gospel:

1 Corinthians 1:17  For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

I was raised in the Church of Christ and was also taught that the only true baptism is by an elder in a Church of Christ building.  The baptismal waters were changed into the blood of Christ and that is how one is washed in the blood of Jesus.  I remember thinking, "Well, that felt just like Kansas CIty tap water."

I found this to be true when, a few years ago, my youngest daughter looked into Florida Christian College in Orlando. On our visit they broached the subject of her being 'baptized into Christ' and her Baptist Baptism wasn't sufficient..to get her into heaven or the school...UNLESS your tuition check didn't bounce! 

Did your daughter attend FCC?  What would RLS think?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Being from and in middle TN you can't sling a dead cat without hitting a Church of Christ member upside the head. They take a strict literal interpretation of the Bible and ger their requirements for baptism from the following:

John 3:5  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


I'm just curious how you deal with their take on those verses.


ChuckBob

Alayman's answers are correct, but most C of C rely on circular reasoning and keep going back to their pet verses. They stumble by trying to insert themselves into areas of Scripture which deal with the Jewish nation. John's baptism of repentance was to the Jewish people and Acts 2:38 was in direct response to Peter's condemnation of the Jewish nation for rejecting Christ.  They were pricked in their hearts and asked, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

Acts shows the transition from dealing with the Jews to dealing with Gentiles.  Yet, every C of C will cling to Acts 2:38  as their life verse. They miss the change from John's baptism to the baptism of a saved child of God. 

Acts 19:3-5  And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.  Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.  When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Their gospel is: belief, confession, repentance, baptism.  Yet the Bible clearly delineates between baptism and the gospel:

1 Corinthians 1:17  For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

I was raised in the Church of Christ and was also taught that the only true baptism is by an elder in a Church of Christ building.  The baptismal waters were changed into the blood of Christ and that is how one is washed in the blood of Jesus.  I remember thinking, "Well, that felt just like Kansas CIty tap water."

I found this to be true when, a few years ago, my youngest daughter looked into Florida Christian College in Orlando. On our visit they broached the subject of her being 'baptized into Christ' and her Baptist Baptism wasn't sufficient..to get her into heaven or the school...UNLESS your tuition check didn't bounce! 

Did your daughter attend FCC?  What would RLS think?

She didn't end up there, thankfully.
But you know that if the check that cleared was big enough and made out to him, RLS would have been ok with it....

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

  The baptismal waters were changed into the blood of Christ and that is how one is washed in the blood of Jesus. 

Thanks for the info.  I didn't know this was standard teaching in their camp.

Are the Duck Dynasty guys CoC Anderson Indiana?
Forgive me if this was mentioned earlier....

You're thinking of Church of God.

Church of God...Church of Christ....nit picker! 

 

[rsc2a]

I appreciate the way you explain things rsc2a, are you a pastor of a church?

I am not. I study a lot and i will be one day but my wife has no desire to be a pastors wife.i respect her wishes (and understand them).so, for now,i will keep preparing myself.

God has blessed you with wisdom, I hope I can get as much insight as you have...

Thank you.

I'll just tell you like I tell (mostly) everyone else: get your study material from a variety of different sources. Don't just read people you already agree with, and even read things from people you actively disagree with. And perhaps the most important things you can read do not necessarily teach you about the Bible, they teach you how to study the Bible.

 

[OZZY]

I appreciate the way you explain things rsc2a, are you a pastor of a church?

I am not. I study a lot and i will be one day but my wife has no desire to be a pastors wife.i respect her wishes (and understand them).so, for now,i will keep preparing myself.

So you respect your wife more that God? Unless of course you don't think that being a pastor is a calling from God.

 

[rsc2a]

I appreciate the way you explain things rsc2a, are you a pastor of a church?

I am not. I study a lot and i will be one day but my wife has no desire to be a pastors wife.i respect her wishes (and understand them).so, for now,i will keep preparing myself.

So you respect your wife more that God? Unless of course you don't think that being a pastor is a calling from God.

You got it figured out.  :

 

[Agent P]

Are the Duck Dynasty guys CoC Anderson Indiana?
Forgive me if this was mentioned earlier....

The Anderson, IN guys are called "Church of God".  They are more like Free Will Baptists than the Church of Christ.

That said, no.  The Duck Dynasty is Church of Christ.