“Some (not all) of the members of the Church of Christ denomination go even further in their defiance of the Holy Spirit, and say that he is not even a person of the Trinity.”http://www.chocd.org/holyspirit.html
Here is yet another statement made by the same person who made the false statement about the church’s belief of Mark 16:16. Here he makes the statement that some members of the church of Christ go so far as to teach that the Holy Spirit isn’t even a person of the trinity. I don’t know where he got this idea, but it wasn’t from a member of the church because I have been around members of the church of Christ my entire life (I am almost 57) and I have never heard anyone deny that the Holy Spirit is a person in the trinity. Of course we teach that the Spirit is a real person. This person really ought to study up on what the church of Christ believes because so far he has made himself look foolish twice now.
I found the following as part of an article on baptismal regeneration on a website that was set up for the purpose of castigating the church of Christ. Although there are many parts to this article, and many articles on this website, we will only deal with one point here. The point that the writer makes concerning Mk. 16:16.
Mark 16:16 says, “He who believes and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” You notice that this verse does not say, “and he who has not been baptized shall be condemned,” which is exactly what the Church of Christ denomination would like for you to believe. Jesus is simply making a natural assumption that all believers will be baptized. I would concur with that assumption.
When you look at the statement you see that one of the reasons that the writer gives for claiming that we, in the church of Christ, are in error is because we use Mark 16:16. The writer says: ”You notice that this verse does not say, ‘and he who has not been baptized shall be condemned,’ which is exactly what the Church of Christ denomination would like for you to believe.” It is common for people, who don’t know the first thing about the church, to take what someone has written or said and use that without checking it out. And this is certainly what the writer has done. The writer, obviously, has never bothered to check out what we, in the church of Christ, believe because if he/she had then he/she would have never made such a statement. What do we believe about Mark 16:16? We believe that belief plus baptism equals salvation. Now when you take into consideration our position that “belief plus baptism equals salvation” then it can be seen that our belief that whoever does not believe will not be saved is logical. The scriptures do not need to say that whoever does not believe and is not baptized will not be saved because if one does not believe then he cannot be scripturally baptized as scriptural baptism must be preceded by belief.
The writer’s statement that “Jesus is simply making a natural assumption that all believers will be baptized” is faulty because this is not what Mark 16:16 says. Jesus didn’t say that all that believe will be baptized because they are saved, but rather “he that believeth AND is baptized SHALL BE SAVED.” Then he says “he that believeth NOT shall be damned.” The natural assumption is that if a person is not going to believe, then he is not going to be baptized. This is the natural assumption that Jesus was making. People really ought to study what we in the church really believe before they launch out against us.
Can women teach men in an “authoritative position?”
The first question that must be answered is—”is the woman married”
The second question that must be answered is—”What is meant by Authoritative
position” A single female is authorized (by the scriptues)to do anything a man can do.
A married woman cannot take a teaching position if a man wants the position.
However, if no man will step up she can teach
The most important question is “Does the female have the gift of teaching from
the Indwelling of the Holy Ghost” (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ULTIMATE_CLASH/message/265).
The above statement was written by David Goldsmith in response to my advertisement about my debate with Marion Fox. Goldsmith is a Baptist from Elizabethtown, KY who spends most of his time online working against the body of Christ. Any time he can find a way to criticize what we do he will do it. Normally I would not respond on the blog, but rather would respond on the MAEFT website or list, but what Goldsmith has written merits attention because his viewpoint here is the main direction that the denominational world is taking.
In the late 80′s the RLDS church President decided that they would include women in the Priesthood. Those congregations that objected to this ruling on the basis that neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon authorized it had their licenses pulled and their doors were locked. Other denominations, at the time, were allowing women in the pulpit and to take an active lead in the worship service. Now we see Goldsmith, a Baptist, holding to the position that women can take an authoritative lead in worship services. In the city of Belle we have at least three women preachers, none of which are authorized by the Bible.
Some may wonder about my up and coming debate with Fox and ask if I am not taking the same position, but I assure you that I am not. It is my belief that Marion overreacted to liberalism and backed off into anti-ism, and that is what I will be arguing against in that debate. However, I do not, and never have taken the position that women are allowed to take over the teaching situation where men are present. Goldsmith is just as wrong as he can be in his statement above; let us look at it at this time.
1. He says that the first question is “Is the Woman Married?” It matters not if she is married or not. Paul made no distinction between the married woman and the single woman in 1 Tim. 2:11,12: ”Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence“ (1Ti 2:11-12). There is no distinction made here, the reference is simply to a woman, period.
2. He says that the second question is “What is meant by Authoritative Position?” My belief is that “authoritative position” is any time a woman places herself in a position of authority over the man in violation of 1 Tim. 2:11,12. If a man is teaching a Bible class a woman has no right to try and take over the teaching situation. If some Sunday the regular teacher does not show up, a woman may NOT get up and begin to teach while there are men present whether men want the job or not. Marion’s position is that anytime “didasko” teaching is done, it is authoritative teaching and she may not engage in it.
3. Goldsmith says: ”A single female is authorized (by the scriptues)to do anything a man can do.” What passage authorizes a single female to do anything a man can do? The only thing he can produce would be Acts 21:9 where the scriptures state that Philip had “four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy” (Act 21:9), but a statement of Philip’s daughters prophesying is a far cry from them prophesying in front of men. In every instance where women are mentioned, whether married or single, they are to be in subjection to the man. Question: Why would God penalize married women by making them subject to men while single women are not subject to men? It makes no sense at all. God took the woman out of the man, to be a helper for the man, and he wanted women to marry. Penalty is not a very good incentive for marriage. Yes, Philip had four daughters that prophesied, but these girls prophesied in front of women and women only.
May a woman ever teach a man? Certainly! If a woman answers a question in Bible class she is teaching a man. If a woman sits down and studies with her non-Christian husband, from the Bible, and shows him what to do to be saved, she is teaching him. If a Christian mother teaches her non-Christian teenage son what to do to be saved she is teaching him. So what do the scriptures forbid her to do? The scriptures forbid her from (1) teaching over and usurping authority over the man–in other words she becomes THE teacher and he becomes THE student, and (2) having any thing other than a still and quiet life. Larry Yarber wrote:
“a. 1st Pet. 3:1-6, 1 st Tim. 2:8-12 In her home and private conversation with unbelievers she must still display respect for the man’s position in society. 1.) Jn. 4:27, 1 st Cor 14:35 This doesn’t mean she can never instruct a man at all but must do so in a submissive manner. a.) Acts 18:24-26 Priscilla, Aquilla & Apollos. If she helped teach did so submissively” (Denominational Doctrines, Section 2-Prominent Heresies of the Great Apostasy, lesson 24).
The Complete Word Study Dictionary defines the word “Silence” in the following manner:
“G2271ἡσυχία hēsuchía; gen. hēsuchías, fem. noun from hḗsuchos (n.f.), quiet, still. Quietness, tranquility, stillness, referring to a quiet life (2Th_3:12). In the sense of stillness, it means silence (Act_22:2; 1Ti_2:11-12; Sept.: Job_34:29).Syn.: galḗnē (G1055), tranquility; eirḗnē (G1515), peace, quietness; sigḗ (G4602), silence.Ant.: thórubos (G2351), noise; homilía (G3657), talk; tarachḗ (G5016), disturbance; lógos (G3056), speech resulting from thought; laliá (G2981), talk, saying, speech as the opposite of silence, repetition without necessarily invoking thought; kínēsis (G2796), moving” (e-Sword).
This shows that a woman is to have a still and quiet life, not that she can’t speak. Whatever she does, she is to make sure that she does it submissively; whether she is married or single.
A Christian woman can sit down with her husband and study WITH him and she is not taking the teaching situation over him, as long as she has a meek and quiet spirit. As a mother the Christian woman has authority over her children whether they are men or women as Solomon points out “My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother“ (Pro 1:8). Ephesians 6:1 “Children obey your parents…” isn’t just to young children, but applies to all. Paul told the church in Rome that being disobedient to parents was a sin worthy of death (Rom. 1:29-32). How many men, in the church, have been kept off the eldership because of the lifestyle of their grown children? Solomon was talking to a grown son here, and while this was written under the law of Moses, it was not indigenous to the law of Moses.
5. The most important question is “Does the female have the gift of teaching from the Indwelling of the Holy Ghost” The indwelling of the Holy Ghost, whether direct or indirect does not give any kind of a spiritual gift. Miraculous gifts have ceased because we have the completed written revelation. Goldsmith takes this position because he doesn’t believe that the Bible is perfect as he has stated in another blog under the pseudonym of tinroad6g:
Your arguments win the dumbest thing ever posted on the Internet. I don’t think the Bible is perfect but your claims win the dumbest award hands down.http://godlessons.com/2009/10/28/the-earth-is-flat-really/
Miraculous gifts were for the purpose of confirmation and the word has been completed and confirmed (1 Cor. 10:8-13). It was once delivered (Jude 3). There is no need for miraculous gifts, thus we don’t have them. It would not make any difference if a woman had spiritual gifts or not prophesy in front of men. 1 Corinthians chapter 11 deals with the situation where the women in Corinth were prophesying, but they were prophesying in a special assembly, and all they had there were women. There was no authorization for them to prophesy with men present, as a matter of fact it was strictly forbidden. Paul told the men in Corinth (the Prophets) “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law“ (1Co 14:34). The prophets wives were not even allowed to break the silence in the assemblies where the prophets were prophesying. If the prophets wives could not speak out, then unmarried single women could not speak out. There is no precedence giving a single woman the right to speak out, taking the teaching position over, where men are present, and married women necessarily having to keep silence.
Since we have an example of women having their own assembly designed to exercise spiritual gifts (where men are not present) (1 Corinthians chapter 11), and since we have an example of Philip’s daughters prophesying, and since we know that women cannot prophesy (take over the teaching situation) where men are present, then logic demands that we understand that Philip’s daughters prophesied in an assembly (or class) filled with women.
Can single women take the teaching situation where men are present while married women cannot? No! Such would be unfair to married women and would also make God inconsistent. It would also make him a respecter of persons.
“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call” (Joe 2:28-32).
This is one of the most misused prophecies in the Bible. It is misused by those who believe that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is in effect today. In their attempts to justify the belief that Christians today receive HS baptism they will run to one part of Joel’s prophecy and camp on it, to the exclusion of the others. That part is “the daughters prophecy,” in which Joel said “and your daughters shall prophesy.” They argue that the daughters prophesying was proof that HS baptism wasn’t just for the apostles and the household of Cornelius. They argue that the daughters part of the prophesy wasn’t fulfilled until Philip’s daughters prophesied in Acts 21:9. Their argument is that since no daughters prophesied at Pentecost or at the conversion of Cornelius that this showed that the prophesy had not been fulfilled.
So what do the scriptures teach? The scriptures teach us that when the multitude saw the apostles speaking in tongues that they were all amazed. Some accused them of being intoxicated, but Peter said that what they were seeing was a fulfillment of Joel’s prophesy:
“Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” (Act 2:13-16).
THIS IS THAT WHICH WAS SPOKEN BY THE PROPHET JOEL! Those are the words of the apostle Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, chosen by Jesus Christ. One who was led by the Spirit to teach what he was teaching. Therefore, there is no mistake in what he says. He says that this was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost of Acts 2 because he says that what they were seeing was a fulfillment of that prophesy. The only part of the prophesy that had not been fulfilled was the following: ”I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh.” The words “all flesh” had reference to both Jew and Gentile, as it was always a part of God’s plan to include the Gentiles in salvation (Isa. 2:2; 42:6). Jesus said that he had other sheep which were not of the fold of the Jews–the Gentiles (Jn. 10:16). And Paul stated that Jesus brought both Jew and Gentile together in one body (Eph. 2:16). That part of the prophesy would have to wait until the conversion of Cornelius who received the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts chapter 10.
Now what about those daughters? Were they not to receive HS baptism? What was the purpose of Holy Spirit baptism? Wayne Jackson wrote an excellent article on the baptism of the Holy Spirit and its purpose. The part on the purpose is quoted here;
The fact that the apostles received a supernatural outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and the further reality that the Gentiles also were given a similar experience a while later, does not mean: (a) that the same purpose obtained in both cases; or, (b) that equivalent authority was bestowed in each instance.
In fact, in each of these cases, a different purpose and scope of authority was manifested by the overwhelming reception of the Holy Spirit.
Why Did the Apostles Receive the Holy Spirit?
The purpose for which the apostles received the Spirit on the day of Pentecost was unique. The background of this matter is vividly described in John’s Gospel account. The Lord promised his apostles that they would receive an unparalleled measure of the Spirit’s power to guide them in teaching the gospel in an infallible way. The Spirit would bring to their memories the things they had learned from the Savior (Jn. 14:26). He would guide them into all truth and declare unto them things to come (Jn. 16:13). The Lord promised they would be able to proclaim his message, unfettered by the need of personal preparation; rather, gospel truth would be “given” to them as they required it (Mt. 10:19-20; cf. Lk. 21:14).
The apostles have no successors today; the gospel message is embodied in the sacred Scriptures of the New Testament. These documents carry the same weight as the messages proclaimed by Christ’s original disciples (cf. Mt. 19:28; 1 Cor. 13:8ff; Eph. 2:20). [Note: For a discussion of Matthew 19:28, as pertaining to the present authority of the apostles of Christ, see J.W. McGarvey, Commentary on Matthew and Mark, p. 170.] There is no need today, therefore, for a replication of Holy Spirit baptism, such as was received by the Lord’s apostles.
Why Did Cornelius Receive the Holy Spirit?
The baptism of the Spirit at the house of Cornelius was different in design from that received by the apostles (though the manifestation, i.e., speaking in foreign languages, was the same). There is no evidence that Cornelius had teaching powers analogous to the apostles. Certainly there is no indication that the centurion could lay his hands upon other people, thus imparting to them spiritual gifts, as an apostle could do (see Acts 8:18; 19:6; 2 Tim. 1:6).
The purpose for which Cornelius was granted the Spirit was to demonstrate to the Jews that God was ready for the gospel to be offered to the Gentiles — which circumstance constituted a problem in the thinking of the Hebrews. This was evidenced by the fact that even Peter initially resisted the idea that the Gentiles could become Christians (Acts 10:14ff), as did the Jews of Jerusalem when they learned of the matter (Acts 11:2-3). It was the miraculous demonstration of the Spirit upon Cornelius and his associates that turned the tide (cf. Acts 11:4ff; 15:7ff). The effect of this divine documentation of Gentile acceptance remains intact to this very day. Accordingly, there is no need for a modern, supernatural outpouring of the Spirit to accomplish the same purpose.
So the purpose of the baptism of the Holy Spirit was never salvation (i.e., the doctrine that Holy Spirit baptism is salvation is false), it was about (A) to guide the apostles (which is why we can say that Paul received Holy Spirit baptism even though there is no record of it), and (B) to demonstrate to the Jews that God was ready to send the gospel to the Gentiles.
Why do these people, who hold to the modern day HS baptism, bring up the daughters part of this prophesy to the exclusion of the rest? They don’t say anything about the young men seeing visions and the old men dreaming dreams. Why the daughters? Simply because the scriptures tell us that Philip had daughters that did prophesy. The daughters prophesying is the same as the young men seeing visions and the old men dreaming dreams, and the sons prophesying. Those elements showed that miraculous gifts would be given to Christians. Whatever one stands for is what the others will stand for, and what they stand for is what the one will stand for. If the sons prophesying and the young men seeing visions and the old men dreaming dreams has reference to the miraculous endowment that Christians would receive, then this is exactly what the daughters prophesying would reference. The only reason that modern day HS baptism advocates say anything about the daughters is because of the reference in Acts 21:9. However, there is nothing in Acts 21:9 that shows that these women were baptized in the Holy Spirit. It is certain that their father, Philip–the one who brought the gospel to Samaria and preached to the Eunuch (Acts chapter 8), did not have HS baptism. All he could do was to preach, and exercise those gifts that were given to him. He certainly could not impart them on to anyone. It would be unlikely that Philips daughters would have HS baptism and Philip not have it.
The daughters part of Joel’s prophesy was merely showing that Christians would receive miraculous gifts. However, the baptism of the Holy Spirit was never about one’s salvation. Those in Samaria were Christians before they received the Holy Spirit, thus the reception of the Holy Spirit (i.e., miraculous gifts) had nothing to do with salvation.
We welcome you to MAEFT. MAEFT stands for Marking And Exposing False Teachers. This site will be used to discuss false doctrines and the teachers who promulgate them. This site does not deal with atheism, or evolution. The Challenge2 site is for that purpose. Please keep on the subject and not get off on anything else. If you wish to discuss evolution/creation, etc., then join the Challenge2 site. Thanks.