Wednesday, March 29, 2006

You Just Like to Argue


Yes, in a way, but it isn't the arguing itself, it is the importance of what I'm arguing. I wouldn't argue with you about sports or sports teams, who the greatest all time NFL quarterback or whether Barry Bonds deserves to be considered the home run king if he breaks the record. I don't care that much whether you argue the North or the South were right for the Civil War. I like having my beliefs challenged in a way that makes me think. My beliefs. My convictions. If I can't prove my point, then I should lose the argument and take the other person's position. It's probably the truth.

I'm assuming Mr. Hafley is reading based on things he's said. Last night after the debate, we talked for the first time. Well, we talked during the debate too, if you want to call it that. He's much different in one-on-one conversation. I do wonder what's the difference. The audience. No audience when we're just talking. I asked him if I believed differently than he originally thought. He said 'yes.' I told him that Charles Stanley has a book on eternal security and that we would be different than Stanley; our position isn't represented by his book. I told him that I could see how that the conditional sentences in Scripture seemed to be a key area where we differed. It is. They mainly take their position from implications of conditional clauses (the "if" clauses). He sort of agreed and we didn't talk about that.

Then I asked him what caused someone to lose his salvation. He referred to a chart he had shown, one that had Adam and Eve, one sin--out of the garden, Ananias and Sapphira, one sin--dead, and then one other example that I can't recall. His point was: one sin. See, his group believes that salvation (basically baptism in his group) washes away past sin. When you sin after that, well, you've got to, I think, confess it, and you get saved again. I asked him if any sin would cause someone to lose it. He said something like, "It must be a sin related to salvation." OK. I wondered what would one of those be. We couldn't finish that. I asked basically, "So what about a man lusting after a woman in his heart or 1 Peter 2 where it says 'fleshly lusts which war against the soul'?" He paused, halted, and it seemed like a hard question. That's about how the conversation ended. They don't think the death and shed blood of Christ covers future sin. They don't see salvation as past, present, future, that is, ongoing. The Bible teaches that, but they don't believe it.

I'll keep you updated. In the meantime, it's not that I just like to argue. I'm not even going to argue with you about it.

9 comments:

Dave Mallinak said...

Your "Pong" with Mr. Hafley brings up an interesting dilemma for him. If baptism saves you, but one sin causes you to lose it, must one be baptized after every sin?

Kent Brandenburg said...

I don't think they think so. A big dilemma is also what to do with all those passages that teach we can't lose it and that no passage teaches that we can.

Jason Hodge said...

So would that make Aqua Man the most saved? Would Atlantis be a "state of grace"?

Terry McGovern said...

One verse I have always loved in relation to eternal security is Mathew 7:23. (Of course, there are dozens of good verses teaching the doctrine.)

In context Matthew 7:23 is dealing with judgment day. Notice Jesus said, "...I NEVER knew you:" Not I knew you three or four times and you died in a lost state after one sin that dealt with salvation."

He never knew them!

I will pray the Lord gives you wisdom for Thurday night.

Anonymous said...

Pastor, here is an idea. Have an "AQUA MAN" and "ATLANTIS" slide.
Juan

Kent Brandenburg said...

Brother McGovern,

I've referred to that verse in conjunction with 1 John 2:19 and 3:6. Never had it in the first place is our position and that fits well with Mt. 7. Thanks for your prayers.

Juan,

The Aqua Man thing was funny; we were thinking that Atlantis would be the New Jerusalem for Campbellites.

Michael McNeilly said...

Sounds like everything is going well. How is the audience responding to all of this? I am praying for you. Good thing we live next to the ocean so that we have plenty of water to baptize everyone for their sins.

Anonymous said...

Rebaptized for every sin after contacting the blood? I think not. It is the blood of Christ and immersion into Christ that are for the remission of sins (Mt. 26:28; Acts 2:38), since it is the blood which washes away sins (Acts 22:16; Rev. 1:5).

I just received the Brandenburg-Hafley debate, but have not yet watched all of it. That being said, I am unsure whether the 2 men discussed the conversion of Simon the sorcerer in Acts chapter 8.

Whether you believe baptism saves a person or not, those who maintain either position ought to deem Simon a saved man (Acts 8:13) since he believeth that which Philip was preaching (Acts 8:5). So, Simon became a Christian.

But, Simon fell into sin (thus, a sinning Christian) as we read in Acts 8:18-21 - for his heart was not right in the sight of God. In Acts 8:22-23, the apostle Peter instructs Simon to "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity".

If Simon's iniquity (which he was in) did not affect his soul, then why the command to repent? Didn't Jesus say "...except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." (Luke 13:3)?

Simon was not commanded to be rebaptized. Simon was told to repent of thy wickedness. Further, 1 John 1:8-10 shows that we must make our sins known to God and He is just to forgive us.

Immersion places one into His death (Romans 6:3-6) to contact the blood. But, if we sin, as Simon did in Acts 8, we must make it known before God and repent.

I am interested to see how the 2 men addressed Simon in Acts 8 in the debate, if they discusssed this.

Kent Brandenburg said...

You have a problem in Acts 2:38 with your grammar. Acts 2:38 says "Repent," 2nd person plural, and then "be baptized," 3rd person singular. You must interpret Scripture in light of the grammar. He called on all of them to Repent, and then of the group that repented, individuals should be baptized. He did not call on all of them to be baptized. Baptism is not part of the gospel, since not once does Scripture tell us that we are condemned for not being baptized, only for not believing.

Regarding Simon, Simon proves that there is a faith that does not save. James 2 indicates people have a faith that does not save, a dead faith, and John 2 talks about people making ap profession of faith without saving faith.

We didn't discuss Simon because no one can lose his salvation and Simon didn't. He was never saved in the first place.

Romans 6 doesn't say we are placed into His death by baptism. why not be silent where the Bible is silent? It says we are baptized into his death. "Into" (eis) shows identification, the person identifies publically with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection when he is baptized.

Question for you: If you can lose your salvation, then who is doing the saving? Another question, is every person justified glorified? Another question: Once the woman at the well drank of the water of life Christ offered, would she ever need to drink again (John 4)? And then, can someone be removed from the holy city once he has entered (Rev. 22:18, 19)?