You of course assume that you have correctly studied and understood the passages on baptism and therefore have practiced baptism in a correct manner. But what if you are wrong. What if you were to find out that something in your understanding was wrong – resulting in either a misunderstood theology or practice of baptism, or both?

Hypothetically, it is possible for you (and I) to be wrong? Isn't it? So, what if?

Does that not mean you are lost then – outside the body of Christ? After all, that is your claim regarding others whom you believe to have a misunderstood theology and/or practice of baptism…is it not?

Of course, does that thinking not make the object of your faith your our (intellectual) ability to correctly study and understand the baptismal passages correctly so that a correct practice in connection with a correct theology?

I hope you're right. Because by your own line of argumentation, if you are indeed wrong…you're lost and outside the fellowship of Jesus Christ because you have insisted that in addition to faith in Christ, correct study and understanding of scripture leading to a correct biblical doctrine is necessary for salvation.

I just think it is time to point it out for what it is…there is a difference between faith in God/Jesus Christ and faith in doctrine/intellectual-ability-to-correctly-understand doctrine.

Biblical faith in God certainly involves both trust and obedience. But no one can be obedient to a teaching they have not understood or heard. They can only be obedient to what they know. And there are just too many Christians who have exhibited a great faith in God who never understood that biblical baptism was an immersion for those mature enough to make a confession of faith (belief)…in fact, some, perhaps many, of them had such a faith that they were martyred for the name of Jesus Christ. Some of them still are being martyred for the name of Jesus Christ as I write this comment.

And unless Jesus' promise in Mark 8.35 is a big fat lie, Jesus, himself, says such people have salvation.

Grace and peace,

Rex

If Jay wants to open a post for this topic – or just redirect us to an existing one – I'd be glad to respond.

It's his blog.

Again, I said about what I think will be a natural consequence of Jay's and other progressives logic that,"It seems that you and other progressives will be hard put to leave either “improperly immersed” or the “unimmersed” at all out of your view of open and full fellowship.

And yes, I do think the battle over baptism ends up at the identity of Jesus Christ! The issue of the Lordship of Jesus to save as He has commanded and only as He has commanded!

Now, the first part of that debate and fight is happening right now….even on this blog by Jay.

On http://oneinjesus.info/2009/12/23/amazing-grace-w…

Jay says:

"but (b) we’ve been incorrect to deny the salvation of genuinely penitent believers who were imperfectly baptized in honest error. " That incorrect baptism being discussed included infant baptism and for "believers."

Jay further said:

"However, because I don’t believe those who’ve been baptized imperfectly are lost for this reason, I treat them as fellow Christians. They are believers. And the scriptures are plain that believers are saved."

Again…I think the issue and fight will be in the future ,certainly not ALL progressives but a good portion of them…….can and should we ultimately accept the unimmersed into the fellowhship of the saved.

Surely you read the following from New Wineskins:)! lol!! http://www.wineskins.org/filter.asp?SID=2&fi_…

Gary Holloway of Lipscomb University said, "“Currently there is some controversy among Churches of Christ regarding immersion. Many of us cannot deny that there are many devout Christians who are unimmersed.”

How aobut The Spiritual Sword, 2009, where Hugh Fulford quotes Mike Williams, also a professor at Lipscomb and the minister at Fourth Avenue Church of Christ in Franklin, Tenn., as saying that the congregation will accept the baptisms of anyone, whether baptized as infants, for reasons other than remission of sins, as well as those who have not been baptized.

He quotes Williams as saying, “And so, we have decided we will not be contentious, and we will be encompassing, and embracing all who choose to come here and walk with us.”

You don't think surely they will be the last to do such?

And from my own personal experiences and discussions not only on this very blog about with people about whether or not God will in fact accept and/or save forgive sins, seperate and apart from baptism.

And I've had these discussions with other "progressives," in my time at Harding undergrad, my current Grad classes at Oklahoma Christian and time I have spent out at the Tulsa Workshop where I'm from. Trust me. It's happening and will continue to happen.

Lines will be drawn and fellowship will sadly be broken over this issue.

And I grieve that such would have to happen.

Finally, doesn't Jay and many others accept the term "progressives?" Don't I read on the links pages
"Progressive Discussion Groups" and "Progressive Church of Christ Blogs" under which Jay says the following: "This is a first cut at a list of blogs and resources of particular value to members of the progressive Churches of Christ."

And I'd be interesting to know in the question you pose, if that is in fact, the "ONLY" way to receive forgiviness and salvation??

Hoping for better understanding,

Your brother
Robert

Is there anyone still engaged in this conversation who believes that baptism is NOT what God wants us to have done to us in order to accept and receive His grace, forgiveness, salvation and Holy Spirit?

I want to point out one more thing about what’s at stake. And it’s a lot more than IM.

Isn't that really just to sort get the “ball rolling” if I’m right. That’s really the first major obstacle to a larger picture??

Many of us moderates and conservaties don’t fail to see where the progressives basic arguments really leads too: Full fledged ecumencialism!

Progressives may deny such, but that is the implications and will be the consequences of what they re advocating.

Jay, if your principle is allowed to go to its full demand, then that will let’ in denominational people to full “Christian fellowship” (again, as far as I can see it).

It seems that you and other progressives will be hard put to leave either “improperly immersed” or the “unimmersed” at all out of your view of open and full fellowship.

At least many of them.

So Instrumental music is JUST the starting point. I think I can see where the real battle and fight will end up at…..baptism!

Humbly,
Robert Prater

I don’t know where EVER I said specifically that IM ultimately and certainly by itself “damns” people.

Never have. Sorry. As a matter of fact, I’ve said over and over God will judge people’s eternal souls…not me, you or anyone else. So PLEASE don’t say or imply I’ve said otherwise.

Yes I believe it is wrong to use IM in Christian worship. But I do not believe those who disagree with me on the issue are ALL therefore bound for hell. Again, God will judge. Such questions and issues are simply distractions and take us away from the real question and issue…of “Is it Biblical?”

Again, I am MORE than content to leave final judgment in the hands of our gracious God, Yet, that does not mean the issue is unimportant. No aspect of God’s will is trivial.

No, I am not arguing that God will not forgive any Christian’s sincere error. I agree with you on that general principle. If every incorrect belief causes us to go to hell, we’re all in trouble:)!!

Now I have debated with you before on your favorite “hobby horse:)” about whether “all doctrinal error damns?” I’ve tried to answer this before in our discussions.

We clearly don’t agree on that one! I don’t agree with you that somehow, God has to specify and exactly “spell out” which error or unauthorized practices we can hold to, practice and promote, yet will not condemn and which ones will.

I’ve told you before on this subject and many others like subjects that I believe this to be an illegitimate question. I don’t think a person committed to God even asks that question, “Well, is it a salvation issue, if I do or not?”

We must continue to strive to preach and teach and practice that which is only authorized by God. The facts show that we cannot be sure that God approves the use of instrumental music in worship. This makes it a “questionable” and “unsure” matter at the least. We can however be absolutely sure that just singing has God’s approval. All can agree upon this.

And yes because of this conviction fellowship and cooperation may be disrupted and hindered at times because of this even though I may still consider them by brothers and sisters in Christ.

And no I don’t claim to have all the “fellowship” issues worked out on this or any other issue in the church. But when it comes to something as serious as the issue of worship…and how we approach and revere and praise His Glorious name and giving only to God that which He commands and desires….I do have to draw a line here. "In vain do they worsihp teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." (Mt. 15:7-9) Things that are less public, of course, do not carry such influence.

Again…this does not mean, of course, that we can have no contact with such people or have no fellowship whatsoever but it does mean in my view that we do not extend to those who are engaging in a practice which is not in harmony with scripture the same fellowship we would to those who are in such harmony.

Because by extending full fellowship without any open discussion or challenge on their practicing something in worship which is nowhere authorized……I do believe by such approval we indicate that we consider the matter of consequences and that it if makes NO difference in fellowship, then it really matters no difference!

Yes we can and should love all of them, and we can be friendly and associate with them, and we can have meetings with them if the opportunity presents itself in the hope of working out our differences; but to merely ignore differences or to say that no issues should be counted as without Biblical authority and that we can sanction all of these matters by association is to ignore Biblical principles about truth and error.

If we disagree on what constitutes disobedience to God, we just have to disagree here!

But fellowship does constitute endorsement—especially of major fundamental well-known matters and practices like how we worship God.

I’m reminded of the true and sad story of when J.W. McGarvey left the Broadway congregation in Lexington , Kentucky in 1902. McGarvey had assisted in the founding of the congregation in 1870, but in 1902 he had to move to another congregation because, in spite of all of his teaching and protests, the church voted in the organ. This great Bible scholar saw it both as unscriptural and division, and as a cause for withdrawing fellowship. He said:

"The party which forces an organ into the church
against the conscientious protest of a minority is disorderly and schismatical, not only because it stirs up strife, but because it is for the sake of a sinful innovation upon the divinely authorized worship and the church; and, inasmuch as the persons thus acting are disorderly and schismatic, it is the duty of all good people to withdraw from them until they repent”
( J.W. McGarvey, quoted in J. E. Choate and William Woodson, Sounding Brass and Clanging Cymbals, pp.129ff)

Again, he did not leave because he no longer considered them brethren. He left because they introduced an error, which he could not participate in or approve or fellowship. When people leave the Word to practice unauthorized forms of worship, they can separate themselves from the will of God. They may think they are disciples, but they are not truly disciples (John 8:31).

We must walk in the light, as He is in the light to have fellowship with God. (1 John 1:7) Now if I must walk in the light to have “fellowship with Him, every other person must also walk in the light to have fellowship with Him. That makes us all ONE. And even though I may honestly believe something that is not taught in the word of God, but my sincerity does not put me in the light of God’s word.

Jay,

If I’m understanding my progressives brethren such as yourselves and other leading progressives……that is the message and change that you guys want to a make and teach…that the issue of IM is a non-issue ….not a faith matter or anything to do with Biblical authority and should NOT divide over it all.

We of course your more moderate and conservative brethren humbly and respectfully disagree.

And we know what is at STAKE! Believe me, we do. Extending fellowship without any limit or discussion or challenge to those whose instruments in worship without Biblical authority is certainly an encouragement for them to continue its use and, eventually, a discouragement for anyone to oppose it.

We’re not “dumb” and naïve folks here who haven’t studied our history because surely no one would believe that churches who openly fellowship those who use the instrument without challenge, WILL OVER THE LONG TERM NOT HAVE PRESSURE TO BEGIN TO USE IT THEMSELVES!

It’s happening already within my generation (25-45 years old) of congregations due to the leadership and influence of preachers and elders from your generation of baby boomers (55-70).

In recent years we have seen several congregations surrender under the pressure and now use IM services in at least one Sunday morning Sunday. And of course, as you well noted and criticized on this blog iIf I recall, last year when according to February 09 issue of Christian Chronicle, 21 congregations had now been in the latest addition of the Churches of Christ in the United States, 21, had been left out of that publication because they have adapted IM.

Now please, please hear me…..does anyone reading this blog actually believe that these 21 congregations will be the LAST??

Again…we know what is at stake. And hopefully you and other progressives know that some of US know what is at stake…and we will resist such unauthorized additions and changes in worship.

Let there be no mistake or misunderstanding about that!

In love
Robert Prater

You said that because IM is wrong, it therefore damns. Is it true that all doctrinal error damns? Or just violations of the RP?

The old "these passages aren't referring to singing in the assmebly…but private lives of Christians."

Sorry, that "dog won't hunt":) These passages most certainly would include the NT churches worship assembly.

I have heard that “liberals are becoming legalist” while searching for a loop hole to get the instrument into formal worship. This argument might be one of those examples:)lol!!

Let's go back to John Mark Hicks. He writes:

“Is the singing in these passages congregational or individual? This is often asked
about various passages, and answers are not always easy to give. We forget that this sort of questions would scarcely arise in the first-century church. We should remember that most of the New Testament letters were written to churches and were read to assemble congregations. Yet in response to the question one needs to ask: When today do Christians generally address one another in songs of
praise? Under what circumstances so they teach and admonish each other in these songs? Usually this takes place in the worship assembly. So it was in the early church. While teaching certainly occurred outside the assembly, Christians taught and admonished one another in the assembly.8 Of course, this is why Christians were not to neglect the assembly because this is where exhortation took place (Heberews 10:25).”

He observes, “It is clear, then, that singing formed part of the worship assembly of the New Testament Church.”

Hicks then makes this conclusion:

“Practically all recent scholarly research on this point understands Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 to refer to congregational worship—Schilier, Rengstorf, Behm, Preisker, Delling, Lohse, M. Barth, Bartels, R. Martin, Moule, etc.9 At the least, it can be said that these passages on singing reflect the scene of the primitive church in worship. 9See the articles in TDNT, The New International Dictionary of NT Theology (hereafter, NIDNTT), the commentaries, and the relevant works on New Testament worship.)

Neil Lightfoot (anybody ever heard of him:),

He taught at the Abilene Christian University Lectures and made the following comment on his class EXEGESIS OF EPHESIANS 5: 19 AND COLOSSIANS 3: 16

“With Paul’s emphasis on edification and understanding, as opposed to irrational and disruptive outbursts of ecstatic behavior, Paul underscores the cognitive role of music in the worship of God’s people. These explicit references to singing within New Testament assemblies are confirmed by Paul’s call for Christians to praise God with song in two texts, Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16—both of which include Psalm singing (unlike the contemporary synagogue). In these two texts the purpose of singing is tied to teaching and admonishing each other while at the same time expressing our gratitude to God. This is consonant with the call of the writer of Hebrews for believers to “continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise” with their own lips (Heb. 13:15)."

A little consideration of Col 3:16 and Eph 5:19 will show that the command to sing involves reciprocal action. Eph 5:19 commands "speaking to yourselves"- reciprocal action. Col 3:16 commands "teaching and admonishing one another," – it is something we are to do to each other. There is no validity to the contention that all the passages in the New Testament on singing refer to individual singing.

Colossians 4:16 reads: "Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea."

Paul expects that Colossians will be read publicly in the assembly both in Colossians and Laodicea. It is ludicrous to even suggest such would not be practiced and obeyed in the worship assembly.

Humbly,
Robert Prater

No, I don’t agree with most of John Mark’s conclusions. And yes, like many other human writers, there are parts of their “theology” that I do agree with and parts I don’t I agree with.

So yes, I think it's possible to agree with most of John Mark’s theology but disagree with his conclusion.

Jay,have you never agreed with the theology or princples a writer might make, but then disagree with some of their own applications of it?? I hardly doubt it.

John Mark Hicks does just like John Price does in his book at the end with his conclusions. Price gives a good summary of his arguments throughout the book against IM and then in his conclusion he contradicts himself . Inj Appendix A, An Exhortation To Unity, when he states, “The application of the regulative principle to this area of worship is of great importance, but the use of a single instrument to accompany singing should not be seen as a violation of such gravity that it should disrupt the peace or the unity of any church” (p. 234).

There it seems Price fails to follow the regulative principle which is an objective principle taught in Scripture and falls prey to subjectivism in giving his own opinion of its application. Price places unity above adherence to what God’s Word.

In reality, unity can only be achieved by the adhering to the word. (Jn. 14:14-15; 17:17; Eph. 4:1-6)

So no I can’t fully explain why John Mark or John Price fail to follow with what should have been a natural progression on the fellowship issue. But still, I don’t think it discredits the whole of what he has argued.

But I do agree with the majority of what he writes: Especially:

“I think it is safe to say that the New Testament gives no evidence of their use, and this is confirmed by early Christian history in the centuries following the writing of the New Testament documents. Further, it is safe to say that New Testament Christians had a reason for not using the musical instrument. Given this historical reality, why did the early church not worship God with the instrument, especially since the Psalms are filled with references to such worship and they sang Psalms in their worship (Ephesians 5:19; Col. 3:16)? Why is the New Testament silent about instrumental music in new covenant assemblies?”

He further writes:

“Now, it would be perfectly proper to stop at this point and affirm the biblical and historical ground for a cappella music in the worship of the church. Even if we cannot determine why the early church did not worship with musical instruments, perhaps it ought to be enough for us as restorations that they did not and we ought to follow their example if we want to simply be a New Testament church. That is surely a sufficient reason for the existence of a Christian a cappella community…”

Again, I point to his argument when he says;

I believe Ephesians 5:19 provide the theological rationale for the silence of the New Testament about instrumental music in Christian assemblies. Consequently, I regard the silence of the New Testament on this point as intentional. As a result, when Paul calls us to sing and play with the heart to the Lord, he implicitly excludes singing and playing with the harp.”

It continues to remain my conviction and other more moderates and conservatives that still believe with the regulative principe, the law of silence, CENI, which progressives thrown out the door, that it will swing the doors wide open to all sorts of error. I am fully convinced not only will IM become more prominent in progressive circles and congregations (it already is) , but so will women preachers, elders, Lord's Supper taken on other days of the week than first day of the week or monthly, and other things to follow because the chief protection has been discarded.

No, I don’t have all the the answers, but I know God commands us to sing, and instruments were specifically left out in the days of the Apostles, so faith demands us to act upon

Sincerely,
Robert Prater

There is one significant difference between your OT citations and your NT citations. The OT citations are clearly in a worship context.

2 Chron. 29:25 He stationed the Levites in the Temple…
Psalm 150:1 Praise God in his holy house of worship…

The NT citations do not indicate that the writer is giving instructions.

Eph: 5:15 Be careful then how you live… The instructions that follow are about how the Ephesians are to live their lives. Eph. 5:19 is not an instruction about worship.

Heb. 13:15 Let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise… The sacrifice is supposed to be continual. It other words, it's not limited to just a time of assembly. (Notice also that Eph. 19-20 says "sing and make music…always giving thanks to God…") So since God specified singing in Heb. 13, does that mean that I cannot give him a sacrifice of praise by speaking? Am I not violating the specific command to sing? The same question can be asked about Ephesians. Can I give thanks to God other than by singing? Is speaking my thanks to God a violation of the specific command?