Page 26: Discussion REVIEWS : New Life

Page 26: Discussion REVIEWS : New Life

DISCUSSIONS, sometimes in the format of debate, REVIEWED will appear on this page (26), Lord willing shortly. By
observing the reasoning used by those taking disputant roles, perhaps each of us can grow. We welcome your thoughts on our Guestbook page…..

Some religious leaders voice the idea that the baptism time of Romans 6:1-18 is in reference to Holy Spirit baptism and ‘there is no water’ in Romans 6. Is this true? Does the context of Romans 6 uphold the description of Holy Spirit baptism? Let’s observe the context: (1)The writer is pointing out a need to be separated from the dominion of sin, (2) the need for the sinner to be cleansed of sin, (3) the reflection to the days when sin dominated the life, (4) the need to obey that ‘form of doctrine’ and ‘being then’ made free from sin and (5) becoming the servant of righteousness. Does this information in the context lead us to conclude that Holy Spirit baptism is being described? Does not cleansing and freedom from sin associated with water baptism in Acts 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21? Plus, take to heart this question: even if Romans 6 spoke of Holy Spirit baptism, would it not challenge the doctrine of salvation by faith only seeing that Holy Spirit baptism would be necessary to walk in newness of life; that it would, in fact, be something in addition to faith only? Would such a position really help the doctrine of faith only to be considered true? We believe not. The baptism being described in Romans 6 is for the ‘burial with Christ’ and the ‘raising to walk in newness of life’. This is the description of a true conversion to Christ. This is the ‘water baptism’ of Peter’s command at the household of Cornelius. Same purpose. We conclude the baptism of Romans 6 is the time of water baptism into Christ. The doctrine of ffaith only is not true regardless of the conclusion of these two baptisms. What does your study reveal? Use our GUSESTBOOK page for any response and we will reply on the EXPLANATION page of this website, Lord willing. Check back in a week or two for any Explanation page additions.
The J W Chism and John W. Ring Debate of 1907 brought the topic of ‘Spiritualism’ into investigation. These words opened the August 20, 1907, gathering: “Supreme and eternal essence of life; in whom we live and move and have our beings, our souls reach up to thee, the source of sunshine and of life, of strength and of beauty; for an influx of spiritual understanding, divine life and energy and love….”. JW Chism opened his speeches , page 23 of the book: Ring-Chism Debate, “I am most assuredly glad that, by the providence of a loving Father, I am permitted to stand before you this evening in the negative of the proposition which has been read; and which my friend has undertaken to prove: That the base of modern Spiritualism is identical with the spiritual base of the Religion of Jesus Christ.”
Thus, the discussion began. The book was later entitled,
The Great Debate, due to the magnitude of the topic.

The discussion came to a point by J W Chism’s fourth affirmative (page 204): “I must confess that I am a bit amused. I have asked the gentleman eleven questions. He stubbornly refuses to answer. Do you know why I asked them? I maintain that no man has a right to stand before the people, and tell them that he believes a doctrine that is taught by Christ, and believes Christ, until he tells the people whether he believes in him. But he refuses to answer. He continuously makes his appeal to the teachings of Christ, or says he believes that Christ said here and yonder and tries to leave the impression that he accepts Christ and I have asked him some questons to prove to you that he does not believe in Jesus Christ.”

John w. Ring’s reply in the sixth negative (page 270) is:
“Look carefully to the history of various religions and note how they have grown up to the principles of Modern Spirtualism, an organization which it is my pleasure, aye, my delight, to represent and watch its growth and its unfoldment….to appreciate an universal religion that denies the withdrawal of these spiritual gifts, that have come down through the history of all religions of the world as credentials f the presence of Almighty God; as evidences of the presence of the spirit of the Most High through these spiritual gifts, endowing the children of men with the power to discern spirits, to receive from the spiritual world messages of comfort and strenh, that will increase the usefulness of his efforts. Confident that you will rejoice in the existence of a relgion that is an echo of the Godlen Rule, that has sounded for time immemorial down through the ages;…”

((Now is the time for the reader to compare his readin of the Bible with these ideas. Do we see people instructed with God’s expectations in the book of Acts of the Apostles?? Do we find people responding to the expectations?
Have you responded to the expectations you read??))
ROMANS 6 contains Paul’s presentation to those who misunderstood the subject of salvation by grace.They thought that more sin took more grace and that they would become closer to God if they sinned more and used more of God’s grace. Paul wrote, “God forbid”. At the time of one’s death to the slavery and magnitude of sin, we are raised from baptism to ‘walk in newness of life’. The information in this passage does not deal with the subject of revelation of God’s Word, rather, the cleansing of the sinful life. This cleansing is symbolized in the baptism in water as into the grave and then the resurrection to a new life. Some see this passage as dealing with mystic ideas. To be sure this is profound teaching, but, remember this teaching is entered into by choice of the sinner to ‘walk a new life’. The fellowship of like minded believers is the remainder of this book of Romans as they lived this new life. …………We welcome your comments.

CROWE-KIERAN DEBATE, September 9 & 16th, 1963….
Crowe(Churches of Christ) Kieran (Priest, Roman Catholic)

In his first affirmative, Crowe challenged the beliefs of and the teachings of Kieran. He said, “We believe that anyone who will study his Bible and obey the things that are written therein is a Christian, and we welcome anyone into our fellowship who wil be a Christian as Christians were in the first century.” (Page 22)

Kieran’s rebuttal included these remarks, “Such a man as Martin Luther, such a man as Calvin and Zwingli, particularly for Luther, because of the influence which he wielded, do I particvularly as a Catholic feel sorry. As a mattter of fact, Luther, unfortunate man that he was, to me, he’s a thorn in my side. He was a Catholic priest and instead of bringing about reformation, which I will not deny the church very definitely needed at that poor time in history, but I will say that he went about it very imprudently. That he was one of the immediate causes of a religious revolution and that he was responsible for contributing to this terrible situation that we, each and everyone of us, Catholic, Jew and Protestant, whatever we are, we are all inheritors of. This terrible scandal of Christianity, this shame, ant the responsibility is laid to each of us, that we ourselves, everyone of us, must try in some minute way to do something about it , to correct.” (Pages 32-33)

Crowe stated in his rebuttal, “I look over this audience tonight and I see a number of people who I consider my friends that are members of the Roman Catholic Church. Some of the best friends that I have ever had were members of the Roman Catholic Church and as people, I love them. It isn’t the people that I am opposed to, but I am opposed to their system of relgion, that is why were are herer tonight to discuss this difference.” (Page 34)

The Moderator closed the first night’s speeches with these remarks, “..I want to say again that I expected the behavior to be perfect, and it has been, and I want to thank you for it. We don’t want to do anytihng at any time that we’ll be ashamed of, or that our children would be ashamed of.” (Page 52)

EDITOR’S NOTE: These remarks leave us to ask the question of you, our readers, “What standard would you use to make appropriate changes in religious beliefs and practices?”
“Would John 12:48 enter into a major part of your thinking?”

This is a limited review of a part of this debate….
(Our Guestbook invites your remarks at anytime. The Guestbook is on the Homepage at the bottom, center of the page.)

Roy H. Lanier, Jr.
Freed-Hardeman Annual Bible Lectureship Book, 2002, ppg. 245-256

-Gen. 1:2…Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters
-Acts 5:3,5..Peter told Ananias he had lied to God, Holy Spirit

-Personal prounouns are used consistently in reference to the Spirit (Acts 13:2; John 16:13ff)
-The actions of the Spirit are those of a person
–He speaks – 1 Tim. 4:15
–He hears–John 16:13
–He chooses and directs –Acts 15:28; 16:7
–He searches–I Cor. 2:10
–He knows–1 Cor. 2:11
–He teaches–John 14:26
–He intercedes–Romans 8:26
–He guides–John 16:13

Of course, there are many other questions associated with this study. We point you to the detailed manuscript for
additional points. But, these points are sufficient for us to raise this question for your study: “Have you thought of the Holy Spirit as more of a ‘force’ or ‘essence’ or ‘wind’ rather than a divine person?” “How does the personal pronoun ‘he’ in John 16:13 effect your understanding now?”
Our Guestbook is at the end of the Homepage.
Please use our Navigator column: click on Homepage and then click on Guestbook for your remarks.