We’re working our way through Leroy Garrett’s book: What Must the Church of Christ Do to Be Saved?
Now, by “saved” Garrett doesn’t mean that he questions the salvation of the individual members of the Churches of Christ. Rather, he is concerned to save the Churches of Christ as a “viable witness to the Christian faith. What must it do to escape extinction in the decades ahead …?”
Chapter 3 is entitled, “Repent of and confess our sin of division.”
I have made it clear that I do not mean that we should start using instruments in our worship, for that would violate the conscience of many of our people. But we must confess that we have been wrong in making instrumental music a test of fellowship and for saying it is sinful for others to use instruments. It is of course right and proper that we should sing acappella if that is our preference and conviction, but it is wrong for us to make our position a command of God for all others. We must repent and confess that we have been wrong in rejecting other of God’s children because of their use of instrumental music. We have made a law where God has not made one, and this is wrong. Let us say it, loud and clear! (pp. 37-38).
Garrett concludes,
We need to write out a “Proclamation of Repentance” that would say something like, “Whereas, we have sinned against our Lord’s prayer for the unity of all his followers by becoming a factious and divided people; and whereas, we have sinned against the mandate of the holy Scriptures and the holy apostles in their plea for unity; and whereas, we have sinned against our own heritage as a unity people; we do hereby confess our sin and ask for each other’s forgiveness, the forgiveness of the larger Christian community, and the forgiveness of Almighty God; and we hereby declare that we repudiate our divisive ways, and are resolved to take the following steps to correct the erroneous course taken by our fathers and by ourselves (pp. 42-43).
Are you ready to sign?
No, I am not ready to sign.
I do agree however that IM must not be made a fellowship issue. Still, you should be readxy to admit, that introducing IM proved to be divisive, and the innovators went against the conscience of many others. The same holds true to any innovation:
From using multiple cups to ordaining women; from giving up the original non-resistant/non-political convictions to allowing divorce and remarriage. All of these changes did great harm to the churches of Christ, and while this caused overreations on the part of the conservatives (and they are wrong), one must not forget the cause of this.
And Leroy even extends the right hand of fellowship to those who are not baptized and therefore not fully in the Kingdom (Eph 4:3-6 – still unanswered, Jay!).
Therefore I would not sign this, because the whole approach is deeply dishonest.
Alexander
Alexander… I think agreeing to some blanket statement might be unwise as well…However, as you did mention several POV that have been allowed to cause strife and division…what is the proper response just to these that you mentioned? Should we be defensive or conciliatory ? Because most of the things that you mentioned aren’t between US and THEM but rather between we ourselves as a faith heritage…
It seems reasonable to me that we must first pull the beam out of our own eye before attempting to correct those that have a different POV regarding some theological topic…
Surely, we must be able to control our own family before we would be granted any credibility with those outside our immediate family…Much like the Eldership applicants who before being given a leadership position in the church, were looked on to see how well they managed their own household…
I have to admit that while I appreciate Garrett’s effort to diagnose problems within the Church of Christ, his approach is a little unfocused, which I think will continue to raise the hackles of this blog’s more conservative readers. Jay’s immediately prior post about drawing lines of salvation was really the underlying issue in the first two chapters of the book, but Garrett himself never stated his own “Major Premise” about who is saved and who is not (see Jay’s prior post at this link if you didn’t get a chance to read it: http://goo.gl/ocmkF).
Perhaps Garrett will state his positive argument addressing this issue head on later in the book, but I’m just reading it a chapter at a time as these posts are published. And so far, it’s been a laundry list of problems (that I largely agree with), but Garrett hasn’t laid a clear foundation that tells us where we should go from here.
Perhaps Garrett has addressed this point in these opening chapters and I missed it; I’d be glad to be corrected if I’m wrong.
I can’t sign. I objected (along the lines of the proclamation above) and was thrown out. However, I have already forgiven the church leaders who threw me out, and would therefore be delighted to accept their apologies.
Jay writes; “I think it’s clear from Leroy’s writing that he is referring to the well-known tendency of many within the Churches to consider only those in the Churches as saved. Indeed, we all know that many members of the Churches of Christ would draw the circle even tighter, excluding many or even most members of the Churches of Christ.”
Frankly, I don’t know how anyone could ask this question “What must the church of Christ do to be saved”? unless they have already judged “the church” as lost, or at least on the “lost highway” When we condemn the whole of the church, it would seem to me anyway, that we are condemed by association. Yet these people who condemn the church insist on remaining a member. I am at a loss as to why they don’t move on to a “better/saved” church. Or better yet why not just plant the “perfect church” since they know the problems, and the solution.
SAVED?
Either speaking of individuals that make up the churches of Christ or saving the church of Christ organization as it is today from becoming extinct.
In either case the first two commandments with promise as stated by Jesus with all their ramifications would the the best place to start and the sooner the better.
The real problem is they will argue with one another on the Internet or publications but won’t meet face to face and discuss together except rarely in a public debate where neither will admit wrong but the goal is to WIN the debate and have it on their resume.
For that reason alone, I fear we are doomed, and more so and quicker for the conservative sect and the more conservative, the quicker the demise.
I predict and approve of a name change for those wanting to shed the COC baggage of division and old everyone going to hell but us, and I mean us, not the COC down the road in all directions stances to change and move on.
aBasnar/Alexander,
Why did the introduction of multiple cups and instrumental music cause division? Isn’t it because the one cup and a cappella camps considered those salvation/fellowship issues? Imagine how different our history would be if the two sides acknowledged one another’s salvation despite their disagreements!
The viewpoint that we must agree on all practices to consider one another saved forces a painful, hurtful division every time someone disagrees with the status quo. And it forces churches to impose more and more rules as our consciences become more and more trained to worry about the strangest of scruples.
Thus, there are churches where the announcements have to be made before the opening prayer for fear that announcing that a member is in the hospital during the “appointed hour” would add a sixth “act of worship” and damn all those present!
We have churches so afraid of making a mistake that they refuse to use congregational funds to make copies of an announcement for a ladies retreat — because the scriptures don’t authorize a ladies retreat!
We even split in the 1950s over support for orphanages! Support for orphanages! We are so afraid of missing a rule that we’ll fall for nearly every assertion that X isn’t authorized. After all, isn’t it “safer” to obey a questionable rule? And even safer still to demand that everyone else do the same so that we’ll be “unified” by all insisting on the same doubtful rules? Which leads to more and more rules, more and more burdens, and more and more uncertainty that we’ll ever obey all the rules required to be saved.
No, instrumental music didn’t divide the Restoration Movement. Instrumental music in the RM predates the Civil War, but the division only occurred around 1906 — about 60 years later — because the sectarians among us demanded division over any action that isn’t “authorized” — including located preachers, instrumental music, missionary societies, and fundraisers other than free will offerings.
And that attitude has led to division after division over all sorts of strange issues. The division wasn’t caused by disagreement. It was caused by a refusal to treat as a brother anyone who disagreed with the editor of a church periodical. And that is not only sectarian, it’s sin. And the correct response to sin is repentance.
Monroe Hawley wrote a wonderful book called, “Is Christ Divided?” and it clearly outlined the problem of sectarianism at the time of Christ, as well as in the present day. From the Bible we learn that the Pharisees were a prime example of sectarianism. They too had the most rigid interpretation of Scripture, and they were quick to bind their understanding of it upon everyone else. Does that sound familiar? The CofC goes out of its way to present the “brotherhood” interpretation of the Bible, and there is little difference between how they do it now and how the Pharisees did things 2000 years ago. I do not mean that careful examination of the biblical text is not important enough to want to get it right, but when it comes down to “understand things our way or we will no longer fellowship you,” well, that is exactly like the Pharisees. And anyone who has read the Bible knows that the Pharisees ranked low in the eyes of Jesus. They had an outward appearance of religious superiority but in God’s eyes they were “white washed tombs.” It is a thin line between the Pharisees of old and those presently who try to bind strict interpretations on everyone else. Unfortunately, I do not think the book by Hawley is available any more, but if you come across a copy of it you will really appreciate its content.
Don,
I’m not familiar with that book, but I’ve read Hawley’s wonderful “Redigging the Wells.” It’s a great book also arguing against sectarianism in the Churches. I learned a lot from it.
Jay, it brought about divisions because it was a change in practice. I would disagree to make this a sakvation issue, even disagree strongly! And I would not make this a fellowship issue today. But think back:
After 1850 years one cup is being replaced by multiple cups. This is a huge change. Why? Because they discovered the germs back then, and – beginning in the 1880s – therefore changed from one cup to multiple cups. BTW if the churches of Christ had sticked with fermented wine the germs would be no big deal anyway (but that’s another change after so many centuries …)
This was a change not because of a better understanding of scripture, but we left the pattern. Jesus gave HIS cup to the disciples and told them to drink from IT. This has a high symbolic signficance and brings to mind a number of important truths, such as sharing in His cup of suffering.
I was not in the meetings in the 1880s when these cups were first introduced, but for sure – FOR SURE – it went against the consciences of many. THUS it resulted in a division. I see no valid reason for this change and I was part of an Evangelical church that – soon after we moved – changed to multiple cups in the 1990s. Why? Because AIDS was big in the News. It did not lead to a split back then, but I know had I been there I had strongly objected. Ironically we moved to a Olymouth-Brethren assembly that used multiple cups …
See, I have no issue to fellowship with churches that have multipl cups – we in our church of Christ Vienna have BOTH ways: Multiple cups in our big assemblies, One Cup in most house churches.
BUT it is crucial at the time a change is being introduced overruling the scriptural consciences of others. This almost always leads to splits (such as in the IM/AC changes). Now it is aour task to be reconciled again – but please don’t only blame the “one cuppers” of being the “sectarians”. Take also into consideration who caused the split. And I really urge the multiple cuppers to not try to make up an exegesis of the gospel passages that makes it sound even the correct application to use multiple cups by using this fancy “magical” term “metonymy”! Admit that it is a deviation from the pattern – how minor it ever may be.
Do you get my point? You can substitue the one cup issue with many other issues that cause(d) division.
Alexander
Laymond,
Please read the book (or a review thereof). The author is using the word “saved” to mean “saved from distinction”, not saved from the wrath of God.
Granted – he played with the words to get attention. I’m glad he did.
Nobody is doubting the salvation of the CofC Christians – but many of us don’t believe that non-CofC Christians are condemned. In fact, we believe they are in Christ.
One of the most difficult thoughts for a legalist or fundamentalist to entertain is the idea that God is separate from what he or she has been taught. For most, it is impossible. Within the CoC we see each division seeing its main reason for existence, whether that be for the one cup, non-cooporation, instrumental music, etc., as being one with God.
How difficult it is can actually be seen in how many of them later become athiest, or claim to be athiest. For most, the rejection of God did not come first; what came first was a actually a disdain for the doctrine. When they cast their doctrine aside God went with it. The point is, in their minds they still cannot separate the doctrine from God. What you then have is more of a guilt in trying to imagine God accepting any other way of thinking than in the total rejection of God itself.
This why it is going to be a very difficult journey for the CoC as far as coming out of its sectarian ways. The standard, the only standard that keeps Christians from destroying each other, the only standard that keeps Christians talking, the only standard that is not afraid of the someone else’s thinking and oneness with God is LOVE. But that is the problem. The one thing that most within legalistic circles say we must be wary of is the one thing the scriptures say GOD IS.
For whatever it’s worth (and unless I am mistaken), it appears as though the fastest growing “churches” today are the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Maybe we should all take notes regarding how they do it?
BTW, I was wondering if anybody knows whether or not when Leroy speaks of the “Church of Christ”, and how “they” are dieing, does he include the “progressive” coc’s as well? Are they, the progressive coc’s in the same boat? Or, are their numbers steadily growing? Are there any facts regarding that?
Thanks
From a church of Christ preacher’s FB page in Montgomery, AL….in support of an article written in the Preacher’s File Blog which states in part…”People may be sincere in their hand clapping in worship, but they are sincerely wrong and WILL LOSE THEIR SOULS IN ETERNITY.” Then as a personal note he goes on to complain about the hand clapping going on at Alabama Christian Academy… Seriously people…are we really condemning our children to hell for clapping their hands in worship ?? How do you think people feel about the church of Christ when they hear such commentary as this ??
Vicki said, “Nobody is doubting the salvation of the CofC Christians – but many of us don’t believe that non-CofC Christians are condemned. In fact, we believe they are in Christ.”
If this is the case what difference can the name on the door, possibly make. ? In other words, why fight so hard just to save a name?
Hank, said “For whatever it’s worth (and unless I am mistaken), it appears as though the fastest growing “churches” today are the Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
Hank, if the fast growing churches are not JW, they are co-opting their belief. even the large CoCs.
Laymond,
I wrote in the first post of Leroy’s book —
That was a few days ago, and so to avoid confusion, I’ve decided to include that paragraph at the beginning of each post of the series.
Jay, I am glad you recognize my ignorance,and absent mindedness, and have solved it by placing clarification before every post. (a now remember) placed strategically here and there would help also. Thanks for your concern.
Now if you can help me by explaining what the church is made up of, and just what has to be saved to remain a viable witness, I will be well on my way to understanding.
I just can’t get it through this old Texas head how individual members are saved but the church as a whole is in deep (do do) and needs saving.
Hank,
When I was in high school and attending a quite conservative Church of Christ, we were taught that the Communist Party was growing much more rapidly than Christianity and that we should emulate their passion for their belief system and their intense evangelistic efforts!
Still, the argument about the JW’s misses the point. We’ve been commissioned by the Lord of the Universe to spead the gospel. In the US, we are failing. Those facts ought to be more than enough for us to reflect on why that might be true!
I have no doubt that our sectarianism is one (not the only) reason. I’m privy to a survey performed by a large progressive congregation of their community. They had the surveyor ask residents what they thought of “XYZ Church of Christ.” Those residents familiar with the congregation were extremely postive — even effusive. They knew the church was active in the community, serving people in need.
But those unfamiliar with the congregation judged them by their name. And those respondents were extremely negative.
Therefore, when members of that congregation invite friends and neighbors to visit their church or small group, they have to overcome the profound stigma associated with the name “Church of Christ” — meaning that our denomination has managed to stigmatize “Church of Christ” to the world. This is surely not a good way to do evangelism!!
I’ve spoken to someone who personally addressed your growth question to Flavil Yeakley. Br Yeakley responded that while the total CoC adherent figures are in decline, the numbers of progressive CoC adherents are upward but the conservative figures are so negative they bring the total below zero.
I should add that in his published work, he’s pointed out that the most conservative congregations (as the congregations self-identified themselves to the surveyors) are losing their children — not just to the CoC but to Christianity altogether. The more moderate congregations lose many of their children (as does everyone) but those children who stay tend to remain in the CoC. Meanwhile, the children of the progressive Churches often join community or other non-CoC churches but remain active in a church. Of course, as I’ve noted here many times, the progressive Churches lose many of their children, too. (Good New and Bad News: A Realistic Assessment of Churches of Christ in the United States 2008, p. 24, available from Gospel Advocate). Nonetheless, given these facts, how comfortable would you feel raising children in a truly conservative Church of Christ?
My own observative is that moderate CoCs are unstable and tend to become either conservative or progressive over time — or else split — since the leadership cannot promote one view or the other without driving off substantial members. This leaves them internally very political — negotiating and compromising to make decisions rather than applying God’s will as the membership agrees. Internal division can be masked through compromise and by great preaching, but it doesn’t last.
The fact that so many of our most conservative congregations are losing their children should wake us up that something is seriously wrong with conservative theology and practice. And if I’ve not diagnosed the problem correctly, someone else sure needs to!
And yet the conservative periodicals I read demand that their readers continue to do the same things with the same attitudes in the same ways that are sending their children to hell. That’s avoidance and denial. It’s refusing to face the facts because the facts require that something change.
It’s time to repent.
Laymond,
As the inserted paragraph says, Leroy is not using “saved” in a “saved from hell” sense but in a “saved from themselves” sense or, more precisely, a “saved from extinction” sense.
Hank/Jay —
As a member of a progressive (HATE that term) COC, I’d speculate that most (if any) growth is a result of transient COC’ers coming over. Friends in Nashville say that most of their church’s growth is a result of swallowing smaller Churches that see the energy/possibilities in the larger Churches. I think that is positive — but, IMO, the attendance may go up by the Kingdom numbers may not.
Now, here is what I find interesting: among mainline denominations, one of the few that is growing is the Christian Church — and the growth is fairly strong!
Maybe someone will correct me — but doesn’t the Christian Church follow our same traditional Regulative/CENI hermeneutic? Certainly, they may have progressed beyond that in large part, but if they are basically moderate COC’s with instruments, then that is quite fascinating to me that they are growing.
Thanks Jay – I typed distinction when I meant extinction. I blame it on my phone….
Jay,
Some are going to the Christian church to lose the name church of Christ and the negativity. The original deeds of some of the churches of Christ here in Alabama were first built and recorded as Christian Churches. The old time debates and great growth of the church of Christ back then caused many to change whole congregations over.
What a reversal today.
I still think the progressive churches should change their names.
Interesting to hear how members pronounce where they attend.
Conservatives say the location quieter and Church of Christ more pronounced and progressives say the Location or building name more loud and if at all church of Christ lower or like I said at all.
It is still common for people, such as teachers, who have moved from urban areas where they attended a progressive church, to a small town in which the only congregation is legalistic, to feel they have no choice but attend and be quiet.
That is why the progressive CoC does not have much of a chance in small town, USA. Most of the time the progressives within the small town church do not have the numbers or the resources to start a new congregation. This being the case, as stated above, you have those who attend quietly, while others leave the CoC completely. The ones who leave do so, not because they have a yearning to get out, but because they know progressive churches will always be few and far between, which is very discouraging. In the forseeable future, the progressive CoC will be, for the most part, urban based.
Jay, can you name a few things the church/congregation you serve needs to change in order to become more acceptable to the public, (and grow) or do you attend the perfect church, just the rest of us attend those flawed churches that are on their way out. Are you suggesting we need to tickle a few ears in order to stay viable as witnesses of God’s Word. Or are you and Leroy saying the bigger the church the better the witness.
Laymond…that question is offensive and out of line. I haven’t read where Jay holds himself or his church up as the gold standard to be copied… If anything, he demonstrates a certain humility that certain people might wish to emulate…
John, on August 17th, 2011 at 7:05 am Said:
It is still common for people, such as teachers, who have moved from urban areas where they attended a progressive church, to a small town in which the only congregation is legalistic, to feel they have no choice but attend and be quiet.
And that is exactly what they should do, If someone invites you into their home to share their food, and are offered a bed for the night, do you expect to be allowed to move the furniture around to please yourself, or maybe select the music played in the home, or pick the bed in which you sleep. I could go on but it is ridiculous to think the family is going to change years of tradition to accommodate your preferences. join in or move on.
“that question is offensive” I disagree with Price as usual. but if one considers it to offend someone, maybe that is what religion does, and maybe that is what this whole discussion boils down to “don’t offend anyone” and you can remain viable. surely Jesus would not offend anyone. And certainly not “get out of line”
Price,
Remember that Jay is here advocating and applauding a book that is offensive and insulting to all who love the same Church of Christ that our grandparents did.
He (they) proclaim that we’ve all been “bamboozled”, i.e. deceived by trickery; hoodwinked.
They assert that, “We must repent. We have a serious sin to confess. We have been factious and sectarian, dividing among ourselves again and again. We have hurt a lot of people and confused even more, and we have churches full of people who are discouraged. We must become intolerant and disgusted with our own petty, narrow sectarianism.”
They declare that in order to repent, we must not only cease preaching against the false teachings of other religions (like the “sinner’s prayer”, infant baptism, praying to Mary, et al.) but, we must actually write out a “Proclamation of Repentance” wherein we confess said sin(s) and plead for their forgiveness and God’s. They further suggest/imply that we demonstrate our repentance via “pulpit swaps” with the preachers of the false doctrines we used to believe and say were wrong.
While we have likely ALL been guilty of worrying too much about the specks in the eyes of our neighbors as opposed to our own beams from time to time, the broadly sweeping attacks they declare are preposterous and hypocritical.
Accordingly, the question of Laymond was/is not “offensive and out of line”, but it is fair and one I’d like to see be answered. And rest assured, that the ones who have written and recommended the things that Leroy and Jay have skin thick enough to field such simple questions 🙂
Well said, Laymond!
Laymond, I don’t think we see eye to eye on all things, (and that’s okay), but I like the way you think sometimes. It seems strange to me that those who always talking of grace never extend it to conservative members of the church of Christ. It kind of reminds of liberals in politics. They are always wanting to extend “grace” to everyone but conservatives. But I guess that’s getting off topic.
I agree that I wouldn’t sign a proclamation of repentance. I don’t see the point in it. What would be the expectation after you sign it? Vowing to never disagree or point out any error. I think some have promoted this idea that real Christians never disagree with error or point out anything that goes against scripture.
“and we hereby declare that we repudiate our divisive ways,”
I don’t know of anything that is more “divisive” than books like this, and the new “progressive” church. What was it about the “log in your own eye”? The bible does not say everyone will see things the same,I believe it was Jesus’ will that they would. But the same Jesus said “the gate is narrow, and few will enter” one statement was made as a “wish” the other was made as a “fact”.
Some people are deeply offended by any teaching that sets aside their personal self-righteousness. This is exactly the reason the Pharisees despised Jesus and his followers.
It’s now over 2,000 years later and nothing has changed. People who love religion and whatever rites or rituals, or name, associated with it, do not want to hear about God justifying ungodly sinners who have no merit and only receive the gift as offered based upon the righteousness of Jesus who died for them and now lives for them and in them.
I have been going Churches of Christ for the last year, I came from another background, but my new wife was from a CofC background and we sought a Church where we could worship.
We have visited 4 Churches (one her home Church in another town). I would like to share my experience and it is mine alone.
The first time I set foot in CoC Church, to meet her while dating I asked where the sanctuary was located and I was told “this is a CofC we do not have sanctuaries we have auditoriums” Not the most welcoming first visit.
Over the year as we looked for a Church Home, They had the Lords Supper weekly, but not once did anyone invite us to break bread after the service for lunch.
I listened to “sound doctrine” but not once was I invited to a bible study class, asked to come to an fellowship party, invited to anyone’s home, and not once was I asked about my spiritual condition or if I was hurting.
We sang a Capella, but not once did someone express the Love of Christ to me by reaching out to me.
I heard lists of rules and how to live up to the standards, but I seldom heard of the one who died for me to pay for my inability to live up to the standard of perfection. I heard of what I had to do, but not of the Love and Grace of a Savior who died for me.
The form was there, but the love, joy and fellowship of a community of believers was lacking.
I continued visiting CofC Churches with my new wife out of respect to her tradition, and my belief that somewhere there was a Church that worshiped “correctly” but taught of the love and grace of a Savior who died for sinners. A Church that would reach out and love a visitor and would care and welcome them.
Two Sundays ago I visited a Church that Jay suggested to me, it worshiped “properly” and it welcomed us with open arms, I was told how glad they were that we were there, we were invited to a Bible study, we were asked to join two other couples for lunch, we got a letter later that week inviting us back.
Christ said in John13:35
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
Which Church do you think is growing?
INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC IN WORSHIP
Many say that they see no harm in using instrumental music in the New Testament Worship of the church today. They are looking at it from a moral viewpoint. Morally speaking, it is not wrong; regiously speaking it is. We are taught in the Scriptures to worship God; and the same book teaches that we must worship according to Divine instructions.
We are under the grace and truth of Christ and not the Old Testament. David said sing and play; but we are not under david. Christ now has ALL AUTHORITY, Mat. 28:18. David and Moses have not authority. Therefore, we must look to Christ and the inspired writers on the New Testament to learn how to worship today. Jn. 4:24.
SINGING SPECIFIED
The New Testament is not silent on Church music. It is very plain. There are two kind of music- Vocal and instrumental. We are commanded to use singing in worship today, Eph. 5:19,Col. 3:16.
God commanded Noah to make the ark with gopher wood, Gen. 6:14. He did not tell him not to use cedar, not to use cedar, not to use pine, or not to use oak. However, when God specified the KIND of wood to use, that excluded every other kind.
Since singing is the KIND of music we are commanded to use, every other kind is thereby excluded.
INSTRUMENTAL ANOTHER KIND
Instrumental music in worship is another KIND of music and is therefore excluded. To use it is a sin. It is a presumptious sin.It is not immoral but a Spiritual religious sin. It is an addition to the will of Christ. It may be used in the home, but not in the worship. We eat beans at home, but it would be a religious sin to put them on the Lor’s table. 1 Cor. 11:34.
“WHOEVER TRANSGRESSES and DOES NOT ABIDE in the DOCTRINE of CHRIST does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.” 2 Jn. 1:9. Instrumental music is not in the DOCTRINE OF CHRIST ( THE WHOLE GOSPEL “NEW TESTAMENT” (Romans 2:16).
Cut ‘n paste king, guestfortruth!
snippet from Royce’s comment —-“do not want to hear about God justifying ungodly sinners who have no merit and only receive the gift as offered based upon the righteousness of Jesus ” ————.Royce how can that not be teaching “universal salvation” wasn’t God’s grace offered to everybody? Didn’t Jesus say he came to save “the world” ? was God’s grace given to every soul, or offered to every soul?
Anne, on August 17th, 2011 at 1:43 pm Said:
Laymond, I don’t think we see eye to eye on all things, (and that’s okay), but I like the way you think sometimes.
That means she is not as consistantly off her rocker, as I am 🙂
JMF,
There’s substantial overlap between the independent Christian Churches and the Churches of Christ in terms of legalism, but they seem to cover a wider range toward the progressive end of the spectrum. Their growth appears to be driven by their very aggressive church planting programs — which are out of the more progressive congregations.
So, yes, some follow CENI but, in my limited experience, most do not. After all, they aren’t trying to defend a cappella music and so don’t need the argument to defend their orthodoxy. This means they’ve not suffered the schisms that the a cappella Churches of Christ have.
Of course, they did have a substantial number of congregation leave to form the DIsciples of Christ denomination — the numbers for which are in free fall.
Alabama John,
The name issue remains a serious one, as so many in the Churches of Christ associate salvation or, at least, a willingness to fellowship with the name. And there are those among the progressive Churches that intentionally seek to redeem the name. And yet the trend is toward picking a truly non-denominational name.
Amazing, isn’t it, that the choice of a non-denominational name will get many Churches disfellowshipped by supposedly “non-denominational” Churches!
John,
You make a good point, but I’m beginning to see a movement among Churches in smaller towns toward more progressive teachings. The Spirit works in towns of all sizes!
Laymond,
Let me take your questions in reverse order.
It depends on how you define “church.” A larger congregation is not necessarily a better witness (although it could be). But division within Christ’s church, schisms, wrangling, and hateful attitudes toward sister congregations is a dreadful witness that is highly destructive to the cause of Christ.
The unscripturally narrow view of salvation and fellowship that pervades many Churches of Christ greatly harms not only their ability to do evangelism, but their ability to keep their children saved and the ability of other Churches of Christ to be effective. And the statistics show that many of our congregations are losing so many members that they are bleeding and dying.
Yeakley says that from 1980 to 2007, Missouri lost 18% of its congregations. Oklahoma lost 7.2%.
In terms of adherents (members and children who live with them), West Virginia lost 25.5% during the same time. Oklahoma lost 12%. Tennessee lost 4.5% — 10,187 souls in just Tennessee!
The goal isn’t to “become more acceptable to the public.” The goal is to become more faithful to Jesus. And the divisiveness and bitter attitude prevalent in some Churches of Christ is not faithful to Jesus — and makes it harder for other Churches of Christ to be faithful to the Great Commission.
If I see a brother lying the road, severely wounded and bleeding to death, (a) I should tell him and (b) he is free to respond that my health isn’t perfect either. In fact, I’m old, fat, bald, and arthritic. But I’m still going to try to put pressure on my brother’s wound — even if it makes him mad because he’s the sort of guy who responds to any criticism defensively. I’ll take the heat until the bleeding stops.
Neither I nor my home congregation is perfect. And yes we need to make changes.
I recently posted a lengthy presentation we made to our church about doing a better of job of retaining our children — by being more faithful!
I’ve posted many suggestions for doing church better — referring not only to conservative churches. Check the Index. You might start with the Leadership link.
Earlier this year, I posted other material we presented to our church about improvements we need to make.
But these improvements are about how to be more faithful to Jesus — not how to grow and not how appeal to the public. But, I’m convinced, being faithful to Jesus will appeal to many and result in more evangelism. Nonetheless, the teaching begins with faithfulness, with the prayer that God will give the increase.
Well, the conservative Churches, as a whole, are not being blessed with God’s increase. But I don’t think it’s God’s fault. Or the fault of a wicked public. Or the progressives. Or Post-modernism. It’s the fault of a profoundly unscriptural theology that leads to a lack of faithfulness.
But not always. God’s Spirit sometimes manages to overcome bad teaching and touch hearts in remarkable ways — even where the Spirit is denied. The conservative Churches are not utterly without redeeming qualities. There is much good there — but it’s good that going to die if some changes aren’t made. I would hate to see the Churches of Christ and their many fine institutions die because they were unwilling to hear much-needed criticism.
The conservative Churches really are losing members and congregations rapidly — and denial is not a healthy response. Sometimes, when someone is addicted to severely self-destructive behavior, an intervention is necessary. No one likes to hear bad news, and it’s only human to blame the messenger. But it’s a message that the conservative Churches desperately need to hear.
Hank wrote,
That’s not what I said or what Leroy said. The point is that we can no longer divide over every disagreement. Some disagreements merit division and some do not. And until the conservative Churches can state the “Major Premise” — that is, the rule for how to tell the difference — they’d be well advised to stop drawing lines until they can at least articulate a principled, scriptural rationale.
So, Hank, what do you believe the scriptures teach is the Major Premise?
Anne wrote,
I know of no one in the Churches of Christ who teach this. None.
Readers,
The fact that A believes grace is broader than B believes, does not mean that A believes there are no boundaries at all. Some here seem to reason that if I don’t agree with your boundaries, I must think there are no boundaries at all! And that is not a fair and correct conclusion.
The question before us is what are the correct boundaries. And the history of the Churches of Christ demonstrate that taking that question on one issue at a time, with no principled Major Premise, only leads to subjectivism and division. The only rational approach is to determine — from the scriptures — where God has placed the boundaries. And God is reasonable and rational and fair. He surely taught the boundaries in his scriptures in a way that we are capable of finding and understanding!
I remember watching a debate on IM at Freed Hardeman in which the FHU professor declared that he’s read the entire NT in preparation for the debate in an effort to find that principle — and couldn’t find it! And yet he was happy to declare the IM advocate damned.
How on earth did he conclude that IM damned if he couldn’t find the rule for what damns and doesn’t damn?
What could be sadder to the God who sent his Son to die for us that his people damn each other without having a reason to do so?
Johnny,
I’m delighted to have you as a reader and appreciate your sharing your experience with us.
Jay,
I am no logician, nor the son of a logician. But, I know that replacing the scriptural teaching on baptism for the “sinner’s prayer” is unbiblical and against the will of God. You know the same. And while I am not exactly sure of what you want me to say about a so callled “major premise”, but the people (brethren?) who reject the clear teaching on the purpose of baptism are in error.
We all understand that you and your churches are cool not making an issue over such “scruples” (as you consider such differences), but many of us have chosen to reject such clearly unbiblical teachings. The “sinnerns prayer” (and such perversions) we believe, are doctrines of demons.
And frankly, we are against (and feel obligated as Christians) to oppose those who insist on teaching as much. I have already pointed out that this year, I worked at a county fair wherein some Baptist “brethren” of ours were mocking those who preached baptism as necessary to salvation and passed out hundreds of tracts entitled “Acts 2:38 – Satan’s Favorite Verse”. I can send you a couple that I intercepted.
And while you may believe that for the sake of “unity” we should all ignore such twistings of the scriptures…many of us do not believe that God would feel the same.
So, you tell me – does rejecting the Bible teaching on baptism and the man made concept of the “sinner’s prayer” constitute a “major premise”?
For whatever it’s worth, my father in law talks a lot of smack on the narrowmindedness of the church of Christ and brags a lot about the “intra-denominational” church he attends while on vacation in Puerto Vallarta. When I asked him what they teach on baptism (seeing how there are people who sprinkle infants, advocate the sinners prayer, and everything else you can think of), he said “they don’t teach no doctrine”. Sadly, he doesn’t understand that “doctrine” simple means “teaching”. I tried to tell them that in essence, his “church” down there then “doesn’t teach no teaching”.
At least they can be all “unified” and not need to repent of causing division….
But, when my immediate family vacation down there, we can’t in good conscience worship with those “believers”.
Is that so wrong?
Jay,
You’re a very patient man. God bless you.
Hesed,
Randall
Jay, you wrote:
“My own observative is that moderate CoCs are unstable and tend to become either conservative or progressive over time — or else split — since the leadership cannot promote one view or the other without driving off substantial members. This leaves them internally very political — negotiating and compromising to make decisions rather than applying God’s will as the membership agrees. Internal division can be masked through compromise and by great preaching, but it doesn’t last.”
My experience has been the same as yours on this point. I believe the progressive and conservative churches of Christ are following mutually exclusive paths. Trying to be “moderate” is an unstable position. My hope has been to encourage moderates to realize there really is no middle ground. If they are not willing to be consistently conservative, they must in the end be willing to accept the whole progressive agenda.
Can one of yall give me a working definition of progressive, conservative, and moderate?
History Guy… that’s easy…You, Me, Them…:)
Hank…what do you believe the “Sinner’s Prayer” to be that causes you to cast condemnation and dispersion on those that you think employ it ??
Sure Price, I’d be glad to,
The “sinner’s prayer” is a man made way of becoming a Christian employed by the religious groups who totally reject what the Lord and his apostles taught regarding baptism.
It causes many people to be lost and go to hell because those who employ it promise those who pray it that they are saved, even though they really are not saved.
The vast majority of people and churches/denominations who claim to be Christian propagate this false teaching. And most of the, despise the rest of us who preach the truth about how to actually be saved.
The worst of those who reject what God declares about baptism, go so far as to write and distribute tracts which call Acts 2:38, “Satan’s Favorite Verse.”
You can see for yourself right here:
http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/acts2.html
For whatever it’s worth, in said tract, the Baptist preacher calls those of us who believe and teach the truth on baptism “cultists”.
What do you think, Price? Do you think its a good idea to invite these types of “preachers” into our pulpits as a sign of how we are “united” with the Baptists, like Jay and Leroy do.
Do you, like Jay, believe the issue is merely one of “our scruples”?
“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are careful to tithe even the tiniest income from your herb gardens, but you ignore the more important aspects of the law–justice, mercy, and faith. You should tithe, yes, but do not neglect the more important things.
Matthew 23:23
I sometimes wonder if he thinks the same about us.
Hank,
“the rest of us who preach the truth about how to actually be saved.”
I pray that you pray constantly that this is so and that you have it all just right as the responsibility is so great.
Might want to add a little humbleness and ask for grace if while you are trying hard to be right, ask for mercy just in case you missed something.
Even worse, in case you learn later on something was missed by you, and you caused someone else to go wrong. by your preaching.
AJ,
“the rest of us who preach the truth about how to actually be saved”, was/is in reference to “becoming a Christian”
It was/is in reference to preaching the truth about baptism AS OPPOSED TO the so-called “sinner’s prayer”.
And frankly, the truth about what God requires of lost men TO BECOME A CHRISTIAN is really not so confusing, if one believes the Bible.
Many things are difficult to know for sure (to be absolutely certain of), but whether or not the “sinner’s prayer” is man made is not.
If you wish to twist my words into making it seem as though I claim to know and understand all things pertaining to God and his word, you can go ahead and do so. But, the honest reader here will know and easily see that it is merely a “straw man”.
But, while we are at it, what are YOUR thoughts relative to the validity of the sinner’s prayer? Is it merely a matter of “scruples” to you as well?
Thanks
Laymond, I don’t know that might be debatable that I’m not off my rocker!
Jay, I think you took my comment too narrowly that I was meaning in just this discussion, I wasn’t. I have been on some sites, read some books, comments from others that do seem to promote this idea that we should just be like the hippies from the 60’s —love, peace and no war! and that if you do have a firm stance on a subject you are just an old backwards conservative. I was reacting to something that Laymond had written that brought that thought to mind.
I haven’t read Leroy’s book yet and from what little I’ve read I haven’t been convinced I want to. I disagree to a point with the line of thinking that our numbers are shrinking so therefore everything we’ve done in the past we should repent of and go in a different direction. To me that is like a politician putting his finger in the air to find which way the wind is blowing and then coming up with his speech. If we are truly following God, He will provide the increase. Does God ever promise that our congregation will be the biggest in town? I don’t think so and it seems sometimes we put too much stock in numbers. It’s easy to get people to follow when you don’t expect much, but when it’s not all fun and games they leave. I think Jesus experienced that a few times.
Know that is not to say that we don’t need to just sit on our Bibles and proclaim we are right and not be smart about getting the message of God’s love out to our community. But it does trouble me when it seems I see some in the church in panic mode that our numbers are dropping so therefore we must change our “doctrine” to make it more palatable to the masses.
Jay, thanks for taking the time to explain where you are coming from, I was struck by your statement that the members of “these conservative churches” are saved, but the conservative branch is doomed to extinction because of their “hatefulness, and narrow mindedness” . In my mind that is like saying “the brother under that hood with the KKK on it is saved ” I believe that does away with the “love thy neighbor, as thy self” thingy. I don’t think they are hateful or narrow minded because they insist on worshiping in the way they believe is right. but that is just me.
And no I would not be considered a conservative in anything. Although I don’t like the distraction of IM in worship services.
Alabama John said “Even worse, in case you learn later on something was missed by you, and you caused someone else to go wrong. by your preaching.”
This question might be better asked of the older “progressive preachers” have you always preached this sermon, I believe the answer would be “I have not”. Especially Leroy. how are they going back to undo the wrong.
I don’t ask anyone to follow me (like Paul did) I ask people to follow Jesus, that way I can’t go wrong.
Hank,
I never want to twist your words or anyone elses.
I may misunderstand and respond due to that misunderstanding but it is not a dig in any form and you can take that to the bank.
I pray everyday prayers that have almost the same words and request as included as the sinners prayer.
Reason why, it doesn’t matter to me who wrote it or what it is similar to what denomination or preacher, but that I am asking for help and forgiveness as a sinner.
I’ve heard many pray of all beliefs and usually based on what they ask for, or forgiveness of, you cannot tell what denomination is written across their foreheads.
When a man is talking to God from his heart, all this other stuff we argue about is meaningless and if the wrong word or phrase is used, doesn’t matter as God understands, Ever get a laugh or cry from mistakes expressed a prayer of your children? God does too!
God knows our hearts and wants to hear from them, not our mouths expressing the latest head bands.
Laymond,
That is why preachers shouldn’t write books or Bible lessons until they get some age on them.
Time in study and discussion over time changes many views and its bad to see one still stuck in the old belief because it was written down. Especially if folks are quoting you.
Better to see them publicly admit the error in the book, but how many have you seen do that? Normal to see then stick with it til death.
“That is why preachers shouldn’t write books or Bible lessons until they get some age on them.”
Exactly John, and I believe “elders” should be elderly.
JMF,
You can’t speak of Independent Christian Churches like they are all one flavor just as you can’t do the same with the CofC. The Christian Standard, the Christian Church weekly periodical, recently had an article on growth in the Christian Church. They have grown numerically in the last 10 years and quite a bit of that growth has come from Mega-Churches and new emerging Mega-Churches. The Independent Christian Churches have quite a few Churches that have Sunday attendances over 1,000 people. I think that is a major difference between the CofC and the Independent Christian Church. I guess you can make up your own mind about whether that’s good or bad but it is a fact.
As to CENI and the Independent Christian Church, I was raised in that branch of the Restoration Movement and CENI was a foreign term to me until I began attending the CofC. Not that some Churches weren’t more rule driven. I remember being at a Camp Meeting and listening to a man from Ohio tell me that his Church had no Elders or Deacons who smoked… by rule. I took a cigar out of my shirt pocket, lit it up and said ” My Church doesn’t have rules like that”.
Doug
Doug — thanks.
Hank,
I am pasting the satanic Sinner’s Prayer below:
“Father, I know that I have broken your laws and my sins have separated me from you. I am truly sorry, and now I want to turn away from my past sinful life toward you. Please forgive me, and help me avoid sinning again. I believe that your son, Jesus Christ died for my sins, was resurrected from the dead, is alive, and hears my prayer. I invite Jesus to become the Lord of my life, to rule and reign in my heart from this day forward. Please send your Holy Spirit to help me obey You, and to do Your will for the rest of my life. In Jesus’ name I pray, Amen.”
Specifically, what part of that prayer do you disagree with?
I expect you’ll say “none of it”, and you’ll suggest that the damnation lies in the fact that these people have things out of order, and that the saving actually takes place after the baptizing.
Fair enough. Granted, you and I both know that we can stack verses next to one another — your verses suggesting baptism saves, mine suggesting that faith saves — and my stack with be about ten times higher than yours. But that is simply proof-texting.
So let us not be mistaken: this argument has nothing to do with the Sinner’s Prayer, rather, it is the age-old argument about whether the baptismal water is sacramental.
Lastly, Hank, is it fair to suggest that the typical Baptist position involved discrediting “Satan’s favorite verse?” Is the typical COC position CFTF? Is Westboro Baptist a cross-section of all evangelical Christianity?
Of course, not.
Further,
Here is a thought I’ve had recently: we are so simple that we imagine all of this on a two-dimensional plane. The 5-step plan, etc. Could God, at the least, be three-dimensional? Or does faith, etc. exist on a line?
That will likely make no sense to anyone but me.
HistoryGuy–
Amen!! I HATE, LOATHE the terms progressive/liberal and conservative. They just don’t make sense except for the definition that we give them. Same for politics.
HistoryGuy,
When I speak of “progressive” churches, I mean churches that aren’t guilty of the Galatian heresy, that is, churches that believe we are saved by faith, not works. I key indicator would be whether that church sees such issues as instrumental music as salvation or fellowship issues (to be distinguished from whether they consider IM right or wrong — an entirely different question).
A “conservative” church adheres to the central distinguishing tenets of the 20th Century Churches of Christ, that is, that ecclessiological error damns or breaks fellowship. Too many “acts of worship” or an elder with the wrong number of children and the entire church is damned.
A “moderate” church is a congregation with substantial numbers in both camps.
I’m open to better terms or another way of expressing these distinctions without short-hand labels. It would get tedious having to write (and read) “those guilty of the Galatian heresy, that is, churches that …” every time I would want to say “conservative.”
I prefer “conservative” to “legalist” because those in the conservative camp would take “legalist” as an insult.
Just so, I prefer “progressive” to “liberal” because “liberal” (like “legalist”) is routinely used as an insult, with the intended implication that a “liberal” rejects the authority of scripture entirely.
“Change agent” doesn’t really work because the term refers to a leader in change. Not all progressives are change agents. But I find no insult in the term. I rather hope that I am one.
And I don’t like speaking in terms of the “left” and “right” wings of the Churches, as those terms have national political implications that color the conversation and make “progressive” sound like “Democrat” — which is often extremely far from the truth.
Yeakley uses “liberal or progressive” and “conservative or traditional.” Well, I find that conservative Christians reject the term “traditional,” as they consider their beliefs to come from the scripture and not from tradition.
And so, this is my best effort at avoiding words with a history of insult and contempt.
Boths terms have their shortcomings, but I’ve not found better ones. I’m open to suggestions.
Finally, in the present discussion, Leroy is pressing for a return to the original Restoration Plea of unity across denominational lines (but not without any boundaries at all). As I normally use “progressive,” a Christian might well not be wiling to extend fellowship to those not baptized by immersion as a believer and yet still be a “progressive.” Therefore, not all progressives would accept the salvation of all Methodists or Presbyterians. However, only a progressive would seriously entertain the thought, as for a progressive, baptism is the issue, whereas for a conservative there could be hundreds of issues to get over.
All would agree with Alexander/aBasnar that the 7 ones of Eph 4:3-6 are essential. There are, of course, elements in many mainline denominations that dispute orthodox faith in Jesus — and they are not Christians.
But the vast major of Methodists and Presbyterians have as much faith in Jesus as are those in the Churches of Christ — and all denominations have their fair share of nominal believers and even a few heretics. But I’m persuaded that God will judge us one by one, and not solely by our denominations.
Laymond,
I may have mis-written what I meant to say. Let me add a thought that will surely get me excoriated. No, I don’t contend that the conservative Churches are saved. Some are. Some may not be. Many are in very serious jeopardy for their souls.
I explain my fears in detail in the Do We Teach Another Gospel?.
The gist of my fear for my conservative brothers is the argument Paul makes in Galatians, concluding with —
The Judaizing teachers in Galatia argued that those with faith in Jesus would not be saved unless they submitted to certain boundary markers — circumcision, sacred days, etc. They argued that those who didn’t bear these marks were not saved!
Paul didn’t respond by asserting that the Galatians had the wrong boundary markers — replacing circumcision etc. with a cappella music, weekly communion, and the name “Church of Christ.” No, rather than insisting on other markers, Paul insisted that faith expressing itself through love is the only true marker — and that insisting on any other marker is to preach “a different gospel.”
He wrote,
Paul pronounces a similar curse in Romans —
Notice the accusations that Paul suffered —
That he was seeking to gain the approval of man!
That is was preaching antinomianism. (Rom 3:8)
These very same arguments have been made against me in the comments in just the last few days.
You see, I figure that the closer my teaching is to Paul’s, the more I should suffer the same accusations he suffered. I take great pride in suffering those insults!
But my goal here is not to be insulted. Rather, I’m deeply saddened that Satan has darkened the hearts of so many who struggle to grasp the simplicity of the gospel — the true gospel by which we are saved.
It’s just not complicated —
This is not antinomian (lawless) because in John (as in Paul), “faith” includes “faithfulness” — not perfect faithfulness, of course, but the faithfulness of a heart genuinely turned toward God.
(Joh 2:24 ESV) But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people
“Entrust” literally means “believe in.” He did not trust them!
(Notice how Jesus equates “believe” with “follow me” — as is typical of all the Gospels.)
You see, it’s not just the division of the conservative Churches of Christ and the sad reputation they’ve brought on the Churches of Christ, it’s the state of their souls that concerns me. Teaching the true gospel not only may rescue many from gehenna, but also restore unity and redeem the reputation of the Churches.
And that’s a result I pray for constantly.
Hank,
One of the things I used to hear about the sinners prayer is it is simply wrong to recite any memorized prayer.
Upon thinking about it with friends after hearing a lesson preached on that subject we remembered the many phrases we heard and said ourselves in prayers of the men in the conservative churches of Christ.
I believe the one most often heard and still is in the older folks prayers is “guide, guard, and direct”. There are many others.
Do you think that memorization is wrong?
Specifically what do you see wrong in the statements and request made of and to God in that sinners prayer?
I remember as a child in school when the whole class every morning stood up and said the lords prayer together. All of us in the church of Christ could say it all but were taught to shut up at the erroneous part about YOUR KINGDOM COME as the kingdom (church) had already come but the denominational members were too dumb to know it.
AJ,
You ask, “Specifically what do you see wrong in the statements and request made of and to God in that sinners prayer?”
The problem is not with “reciting a memorized prayer” at all. The problem, as I stated previously, is in rejecting everything that God had to say about the purpose and meaning of baptism and echanging that for a man-made prayer wherein lost sinners are promised forgiveness before and without being baptized.
Not only are those who believe in and practice the sinners prayer teaching people that they are saved when in actuallity they are not saved, they also despise those of us who believe the truth about baptism. As I pointed out earlier, many Baptists pass out tracts entitled, “Acts 2:38 – Satan’s Favorite Verse” and call us “cultists”.
In case you didn’t know, the “sinner’s prayer” is a prayer that lost sinners are taught to pray wherein they “invite Jesus into their heart and accept him as their savior.” The problem is, the whole idea is unbiblical and an invention of man. People simply do not become Christians that way.
Therefore, most of us cannot be united or unified with the people and churches who believe and preach as much.
Of course, even though they know that all of the above is true, many have opted to “overlook” such false teaching (for the sake of “unity”), and consider such unbiblical practices to merely be “our scruples.”
Meanwhile, those of us who reject the false doctrine and actively teach against it, are considered “legalistic, judgemental, and divisive.” In fact, most recently, we have been urged to repent of our disgusting sectarianism. To confess our sin of hinduring the Lord’s work, and ask for forgiveness.
To many, standing up for and defending the obvious truth in even this case makes us Pharisaical and guilty of blocking the untiy of the church. But, regardless, we will no compromise such clear teachings of the Lord…
JMF asked, concerning the “sinner’s prayer” – “Specifically, what part of that prayer do you disagree with?”
The entire thing JMF. You see, praying to God for forgiveness is a spiritual blessing available only to those who are in Christ Jesus. Just as all spritual blessings ar in Christ Jesus.
While many who believe in and teach the sinner’s prayer are genuine and sincere and do not intentionally mean to be teaching a lie – it still is a lie. It just is nowhere taught in the Bible.
And as far as “stacking verses” and seeing which stacks are higher, such is a very poor way of discovering truth. The sum of the word is truth and all of the verses go together and “count” equally. Even if God teaches something barely once, it will count just as much as if he said it 100 times. I have heard other people make the argument that the NT tells us to believe way more than it tells us to be baptized and that therefore being baptized is not essential to our salvation. But, it’s a silly argument
Hank,
Have you ever thought about how many people could potentially be lost because they have their confidence in baptism and not in Jesus and His work?
There is danger in leaning too heavily upon baptism. God is not obliged to make righteous every person immersed in the coc churches. The way some of our people teach baptism is not much different than Roman Catholics. God saves no one because they have done rites or rituals, it doesn’t matter which ones.
Two things about the traditional view of baptismal regeneration (which you seem to believe, based only on your comments here..) are puzzling. 1. You believe we only baptize lost people. 2. It is more difficult to be saved after Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection than it was before. These are curious beliefs.
Before Jesus died He could justify a person in any setting, any time he chose. Now, after His cross work, a degree of difficulty has been added so that millions are excluded from God’s grace because they not only must repent and have faith in Jesus, they have to find someone to immerse them.
Multiplied millions will be in heaven whom we would have disqualified for scores of reasons. They didn’t sing right, they didn’t do communion right, they didn’t say the right words when someone went under the water, they had the wrong name on the church house, a woman gave a testimony in the assembly, a trio sung a song in worship, a congregation supported an orphan home, etc, etc. How can God not be angry with such utter nonsense?
Hank,
I guess what bothers me is I hear many pray that are not members of the church of Christ that I am a member of. Lots of error and even bad language but right hearts trying.
I believe God hears their prayer just as He did Lydia praying on the side of the river that had never heard of Christ but she believed like all people there is a God.
Same with Cornelius and others.
That may be the real difference in the two of us and that’s OK. I don’t believe either belief will send either of us to hell unless it stops us from reaching out to others that are in error.
Once there was in a sermon how wrong it was for the man that used to hold up the sign saying JOHN 3:16 at football games on TV because it didn’t tell the whole story so it was misleading folks.
There are few sermons preached on Sunday that tell the whole salvation story, most are to make one point or two,.
Maybe that is a way to look at the sinners prayer, just making a point or two, but not all encompassing.
If its misused, the fault is with the users, not the wording itself.
Royce asked,
“Have you ever thought about how many people could potentially be lost because they have their confidence in baptism and not in Jesus and His work?”
Sure, I have. But just because some people could be potentially lost because they had their confidence in baptism rather than in Jesus and his work – does not mean I have the right to totally change and reject what the Bible actually teaches about the purpose of said baptism.
That would be like asking, “Have you ever thought about how many people have their confidence in their repentance and not in Jesus and his work?”
If so, should we also begin teaching that repentance too is something one does AFTER they have been saved. That way, we make sure they don’t place confidence in their repentance? Don’t you think there is a danger in leaning to heavily on repentance?
You can talk all you want about “baptismal regeneration” and compare baptism with a trio of singers and the supporting of an orphan home in an attempt to skirt the issue, but the honest reader will easily see what you’re attempting to do.
Now, you have every right to reject and alter what the Bible actually teaches concerning the meaning and purpose of baptism. And you have every right to exchange said Biblical teaching on baptism in favor of the man made “sinner’s prayer”, just don’t expect those of us who are against doing those things, to be “unified” with you and invite you to teach our people. And don’t call us “divisive, pharisaical, legalistic, and in need of your forgiveness” just because we reject such man made teachings.
Don’t get all mad and/or frustrated just because we won’t consider the sinners prayer v. the Biblical teaching on baptism a “scruple.” Carry on brother, God will judge us both….
I am surprised that in this ongoing debate about “sinner’s prayer” versus baptism that no one is mentioning one of the most important aspects connected with conversion…repentance.
John the baptizer “preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins” (Mark 1:4) His message was connected entirely to repentance that manifested itself through bearing “fruit worthy of repentance.” (Matt. 3:7) Even the Christian ministry to the Gentiles required them to “repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.” (Acts 26:20 ASV)
There is nothing mentioned in Scripture of baptism doing anything just on its own. All it is is water. Therefore, to elevate its relevance over other aspects of conversion is incorrect, and just as much so as a “sinner’s prayer.”
Without genuine faith that leads to repentance (as described above) there is no need to be baptized. And I believe this is one of the greatest errors that the CofC makes…they do not teach genuine faith and repentance as much as they teach baptism. In fact, in a lot of CofC the message of baptism is heard more than the message of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross for our redemption.
I believe in the complete message of conversion…a faith that is truly heart changing and repentance that bears fruit worthy of the opportunity offered by God through His grace. Baptism is necessary as it is commanded, but I believe that this too is an extension of active faith and repentance.
Anyway, I thought that I would throw that out there for what it’s worth.
Blessings to all who walk according to His Spirit.
Good points, Wade. What you write is true. To be honest, I have been guilty of such myself. Thanks
Royce, I don’t know if you were baptized or not, but if you were, WHY? as I told you a long time ago you sound like a Baptist who refers to Coc as “waterdogs” why would you want to be a “waterdog” ? if it is not necessary. If you were baptized, thinking the way you do, you probally got your suit wet, and messed up your hair-do for no good reason.
Let me be clear, I am not referring to ALL Baptist. the Baptist are as splintered as the CoC.
AJ,
The rejection of the “sinner’s prayer” is not because it is not “prayed correctly.”
The rejection of the SP is because the whole concept of BECOMING A CHRISTIAN via ANY prayer (regardless of the sincerity of the prayer and how well worded it is).
In the Bible, only those who were baptized were forgiven of sins and added to the church. That DOES NOT mean that anyone who is baptized (immersed in water) has been forgiven of sins and given the gift of the Holy Spirit. But, it does mean that only those who have been baptized, have received said blessings.
And the sinners prayer is only prayed by those who do not know or deny what the Bible teaches about baptism. It is an invention of man and those who teach it are promising salvation to those who are not yet saved. That is why it is not Biblical and wrong.
Don said “…they do not teach genuine faith and repentance as much as they teach baptism.”
I don’t know how you came to that conclusion, It sure didn’t come from any teachings that I remember, that might be an outside view, go sit in the pew a while, or better ask a CoC about repentance, and what part it plays.
Laymond,
My comments come from 35 years of being a Christian in the church of Christ, and I know it from experience that what I said is correct.
Don, you sure have a broad brush in your hand to make that comment, I was raised in the church and am still a member @ seventy, and have never heard a preacher or anyone else say “be baptized, and repent” I believe it has been the other way.
Please bear with me just one more time on this, If we could repent, and sin no more, then baptism would not be necessary, but we can’t we all sin. baptism in not just the forgiveness of past sins, if we are baptized into Jesus Christ, and remain faithful, we can be forgiven for present and future sins as well. So in my opinion and in scripture, baptism is very important. I don’t see how we can be “in Christ” or buried with Jesus, without baptism.
The floor is open.
Hank, why would you call such a jerking “brother”? LOL
I agree with “most” of what you say. Sinners are not saved by praying. They are saved by trusting Christ. In Acts it is stated “their hearts were cleansed by faith”. Peter’s testimony was that he received the Spirit when he believed, just as did Cornelous and his folks. His justification for baptizing them was just and true.
Cherry picking verses is something we all have done. We are however, to care about “all Scripture”. Some, in their zeal to defend a pet doctrine have suggested that much of Paul’s teaching be ignored or removed because it destroys man made doctrines of salvation. I doubt that God shares that view.
None of us are infallible, our words and ideas are not inspired as Scripture. I cannot and will not accepts a view that is at odds with much of Scripture, the early churchmen, and the Restoration Movement fathers.
Either Jesus is enough or He is not. I know He is quite enough.
Laymond,
Every few years, a wave of re-baptisms hits the Churches of Christ as a preacher persuades members that they didn’t fully understand the “Lordship of Jesus” when they were baptized. People thus feel not truly baptized as they feel they did not truly repent. And so they go forward and re-commit themselves to Jesus by being re-baptized.
As long as this continues, we have to accept that many people are baptized without understanding repentance.
Examples of the teaching of the necessity of re-baptism due to a lack of repentance abound —
http://www.churchesofchrist.net/topics/Mark_A_Copeland/ba/ba_11.htm
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/656-is-re-baptism-scriptural
This desire to rebaptize Christians who were baptized as believers by immersion for the remission of sins in a Church of Christ by a Church of Christ preacher suggests that we aren’t very confident in our teaching on repentance.
Jay,
What you say is true. However, I suppose that there have been untold millions of souls who have “re-prayed” the sinner’s prayer due to the same lack of repentance and understanding. So, I do not believe that the coc’s are any more negligent in terms of preaching repentance but. It is tempting to all “denominatios” to try and just get “points on the board” if you will.
For example, I went to a Harvest Crusade or two at Angel’s Stadium where there have been hundreds “pray the prayer” who likely never pray again. No doubt, scores and scores of people who got caught up and/or pressuered to “get save” attempted to be “resaved” by praying the SP over.
In fact, I would say that there have been more people who have re-prayed the SP than there are of those who have been rebaqptized. Probably WAY more, in fact. Actually, there have probably been people who have “invited Jesus into there hearts” over a hundred times…
Don’t you think?
Hank,
I have no idea how many have re-prayed the sinner’s prayer for the sake of seeking salvation. What you say may well be true, but I have no experience that supports it, but then, I have no experience that disputes it.
Re-pray the sinner’s prayer? Nope. I was raised in the Baptist church. Yes, we prayed the sinner’s prayer. I personally have never heard in my life of someone praying that prayer who wasn’t then baptized (as a Southern Baptist – other groups I don’t know about). The idea that someone would not be baptized is and was completely foreign to me and every Baptist I’ve ever met.
Even after becoming a part of the coC, it was almost hilarious to hear the outrageous garbage “our heritage” spews forth about things they haven’t got the foggiest clue about. Of course, it didn’t compare to some of the garbage some of my brethren spewed forth about our own little holy huddle; such as bringing into question the correctness of someone’s baptism if the person PERFORMING the baptism didn’t have all the right beliefs! Shear LUNACY!
And, by the way, if you DON’T “invite Jesus into your heart” or “accept Him as your savior,” then I would suggest you have a very, very skewed concept of what faith and repentance are.
Jay said “This desire to rebaptize Christians who were baptized as believers by immersion for the remission of sins in a Church of Christ by a Church of Christ preacher suggests that we aren’t very confident in our teaching on repentance.”
Jay, I am not a fan of preachers suggestion Christians be re baptized but if one’s conscience bothers them, I am for what makes them feel more confident. I also am not confident children should be coaxed into baptism, there are very few in my opinion who grasp the seriousness of the situation. and I would say none of then are in need of it. but if they ask to be I certainly would not take it on myself to refuse. (“we dunk them, and let God sort them out”)
Laymond,
While I understand the desire to allow young people to be confident in their salvation, this whole rebaptism thing concerns me — because our confidence should be in the perfection of Jesus rather than the perfection of our baptism.
I’ve known many people who, after conversion, committed a serious sin. They felt dirty and so wanted to be re-baptized — feeling that baptism is the moment when we have the most confidence before God. But the opposite is true!
Paul plainly teaches that we are “much more” saved by Jesus after our baptism than upon our baptism! It’s so important he says it twice. Our conversion and reconciliation means that God will be even more gracious than ever for us. After all, when we were first saved, Paul says, we were sinners and enemies of God. Now that we’re reconciled — indeed, sons of God, part of his family — our confidence should be all the greater.
Our serious misunderstanding derives — quite literally, I think — from placing more faith in baptism than in Jesus. And it’s a tragedy.
Boy, the title of this discussion should be sinner’s prayer love it or hate it.
I was baptised because Jesus was and I wanted to be Christ like. Jesus was not baptised for sins, but as an example for us. The point is the ritual does not save. Baptism doesn’t have the power, the Sinner’s Prayer doesn’t have the power, nor does Systematic Theology. God is the source of life, rebirth, and the power.
You know when the man from Mesopotamia came to the prophet he was smart to realize that dipping in water wasn’t a cure for his disease. The servant of the prophet reavealed the truth,; God wanted him to dip in the Jordan, and God heals.
For most of my life in moderate C of C, anyone who comes forward is asked if they beleive, then are baptised. I think it is fine to ask and accept the sinner’s prayer as a more formal method.
You see a real Christian beleives in Christ and God who sent Him, and obeys or imitates our Lord. I have no problem with SP or asking if one beleives, but refute a theology that makes that action superior to obedience. Where would the whole history of faith in God be if Abraham accepted the sacrifice of Isaac (faith) but stayed home the next day (disobedience). Nothing wrong with the principle of the entire God man relation; trust and obey.
In Peter’s sermon recorded in Acts 2 he explained that what was taking place had been prophesied by Joel, part of which was “And it shall come to pass that whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved”. (Acts 2:21)
It might just be Scriptural for a sinner to cry out to God to save him, forgive his sins, and ask Christ to be Lord. I remember a sinner’s prayer that seemed to be successful. A tax collector cried out ” God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” in Luke 18:13. And, the next verse says the fellow when home justified. A sinner’s prayer heard and answered! Can God not still do such a thing? He can and he does.
A change of mind and direction in life (repentance), the heart felt cry of a sinner for mercy, the public confession of Jesus as Lord, being with other believers, loving others, even enemies, taking the Lord’s Supper, and even being baptized are all usually expressions of faith. Of course there are impostors, make believers ,who think that by their doing they will gain favor with God.
I am somewhat suspicious of anyone who rejects a person who is right about Jesus and His work, who claims to love Him, and whose life reflects his belief. I don’t have the ability to search and know the hearts of men so I can’t determine who is in and who is out. And, neither can any of you. I hope God will give me grace to love those He has accepted, and If he has accepted them I am one with them.
Jesus didn’t come to condemn the world and he didn’t send any one of us to do it either.
Hank, can you show me and the others here one place in the Bible where different understandings of baptism is a test of fellowship?
Jay,
You stated the case very well in your comment two places up the thread to Laymond.
Jay, and a few others, I disagree with the moderates dying. Actually, I think the moderates are the mainline, and the conservatives over emphasize obedience, and the progressives over emphasize grace. We need beleiving in God, obeying God people to be full people of God. To me the two sides at extreme (which they become when discussing) are only partially Godly.
Royce wrote:
“I remember a sinner’s prayer that seemed to be successful. A tax collector cried out ” God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” in Luke 18:13. And, the next verse says the fellow when home justified. A sinner’s prayer heard and answered! Can God not still do such a thing? He can and he does.”
But remember Royce, that in this parable, the tax collector was not praying to become a Christian and a member of the Lord’s church. In fact, there was no church yet for Christ had not yet even shed his blood to purchase as much.
The “sinner’s prayer” under discussion here is the same that promises a means for sinners to become members of the church. The parable of the Pharisee and tax collector has nothing to do with this. He was not trying to accept Jesus or become a Christian as the parable took place before there were any members of the church. The church was established AFTER our Lord died and went to heaven. The same thing goes for the “thief on the cross” who too had died before Jesus was raised and the church was established. Those examples simply don’t apply to the topic at hand.
But, those who propagate the SP are teaching that it is how one is added to the church today in lieu of baptism. And it is a lie. It just is.
Royce then asks,
“Hank, can you show me and the others here one place in the Bible where different understandings of baptism is a test of fellowship?”
No. Back then (in the Bible) there were no “different understandings” of the meaning and purpose of baptism. Back then, the “sinner’s prayer” was thousands of years from yet being invented by men. Nobody ever even had thought of such a concept yet….
Back then, to be forgiven of sins and to be added to the church, they were baptized. There simply was no such thing as the SP as is so popular today. There just wasn’t bro.
Can you show me ONE actual person in the Bible saying a prayer TO BECOME a Christian?
Why is this even an issue? Why can’t people just recognize that it is an invention of men?
Seriously…….
Hank, you and I are im agreement but I would never teach it your way. The power of salvation is God, not SP, baptism water, etc. The ritual does not save. As from the Garden to the new Garden at the throne of God, its the power of the Everlating our trust in Him, and obedience to what He asked.
Allow me to correct myself, EVERLASTING of Gen 2:8-9 to Rev 22:1-2.
Larry, for the record – I too believe that the power of salvation is with God and not in any ritual. But, God has declared, in no uncertain terms, that he excorcises his power to save when and while we by faith obey his instructions. Colossians 2:12 KJV tells us that we are “Burried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”
I try not to put more trust or emphasis upon the instruction(s) of God to lost sinners than what the Bible teaches. I am aware of the temptation of man to trust in his obedience more than in the blood of Christ.
Nevertheless, God still declares thet he is the author of salvation to all who obey him.
What exactly do you understand “my way” to be when you say that you and I are in agreement, but that you would never teach it “my way”?
“Our serious misunderstanding derives — quite literally, I think — from placing more faith in baptism than in Jesus. And it’s a tragedy.”
Jay when we place our faith in what Jesus told us to do, how is that not showing faith in Jesus ?
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them ———————- .
Act 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.
Jay said; “While I understand the desire to allow young people to be confident in their salvation, this whole rebaptism thing concerns me — because our confidence should be in the perfection of Jesus rather than the perfection of our baptism.”
Jay, Have you ever asked in prayer for forgiveness of your sins, more than once (I have) what is the great difference in being baptized more than once, and asking for forgiveness more than once in prayer. isn’t it the same request. Do you see asking God for forgiveness of daily sins as no confidence in Jesus? If we repeat the “Lord’s Prayer” isn’t that asking for forgiveness of sins , more than once? I don’t feel guilty for saying the “Lord’s Prayer” every day, when I feel like it. And if I felt I was in need of it, I would be baptized again.
So Hank,
The thief on the cross, the tax collector, the woman at the well, and others will be in one compartment in heaven and “the Lord’s church” will be in another. What about Abraham and all the other OT people of God? Are they in yet another compartment?
According to what you say here even Peter and the other disciples are not members of “the Lord’s church”. There is no record of them being baptized after Jesus was raised from the dead and ascended back to the Father. On what basis would Peter be in a different category than the thief on the cross according to what you believe? How many families does God have Hank?
The one person in the book of Acts who destroys your view of the elevated position of baptism is Peter. Unless you believe he was baptized before he believed. When he preached to gospel to the Gentiles he said:
“And he (Jesus) commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” Acts 10:42,43 Is this what you teach? No it isn’t.
When Peter had to defend baptizing those Gentiles to the brothers in Jerusalem he said this:
“And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” Acts 11:16,17
Who are you to stand in God’s way? Peter’s testimony here and in chapter 10 where part of his sermon is quoted was that he and the others received the Holy Spirit “WHEN WE BELIEVED in the Lord Jesus Christ” And he asked after his sermon and after the people had received the Spirit , ” “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit JUST AS WE HAVE?” Acts 10:47
I didn’t make this up. Peter, like others, received the Holy Spirit when he believed. ‘All the prophets” agree “everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name”. Those who disagree with “all the prophets” are those who teach that this is not true.
When Peter and Paul and the others had to face the conservatives who demanded circumcision to be saved it was again Peter who set the record straight.
“Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.And God, who knows the heart,bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” Acts 15:7-11
You say I’m wrong to teach the same gospel Peter did. Salvation is by grace through faith. Baptism is one of two great gospel symbols in the church along with the Lord’s Supper. Neither is means of grace but both point to Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and in the supper, his coming again. It was wrong to tell people that they had to be circumcised to be saved. Peter condemned it here and Paul in Galatians. And it is wrong to lead people to trust water baptism rather than Jesus Christ who alone can save.
You teach what you want, I’ll go with Peter and Paul.
“Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, ”
Royce, sounds like “God’s way” was baptism. otherwise why, after they had believed, did they need baptism?
Laymond,
Hey Jay,
For whatever it’s worth, I thought you might be curious to know that JM Hicks, wrote,
“In a survey of 778 Southern Baptist pastors, 74% said they would not accept the baptism of those coming to them from the Assembly of God, and 87% said they would not accept the baptism of those coming from Churches of Christ.”
Hey Royce, whatever bro. You’re all over the place.
1. The church had a starting point and the people who lived and died before it was started, simply were never members of it.
2. The tax collector under discussion was not an actual person – it was a guy in a parable (like the prodigal son or something)
3. I don’t know anything about the OT people of God being in “another compartment of heaven”, but I know they were not in the church. HOW COULD THEY BE if they died before the church began? Come on, man.
4. You say, “You say I’m wrong to teach the same gospel Peter did.” But, I don’t say that. Actually, I wish you would.
5. And for the 700th time, just because a bunch of verses promise salvation “to all who believe”, without mentioning repentance and/or baptism, DOES NOT mean that repentance and baptism are not just as essential. ll of the verses are true. They all go together and count equally.
6. And the sinner’s prayer (as a means TO BECOME A Christian/member of the church) is still a man made invention. You tax collector was trying to “invite Jesus into his heart” to become a Christian. Again, the church didn’t even exist back then. How could it have?
Rather, your tax collector was NOT trying to become a Christian..
Hank,
I wasn’t aware of the stats on the Southern Baptist Churches, but I know why many think that way. You see, in the 19th Century, centered in Nashville, there was a movement among the Southern Baptists called “Landmarkism” — which included the doctrine that they must reject “alien immersions.” Landmarkism was formally rejected around 100 years ago, but the SBCs have congregational autonomy, and Landmarkism still influences many smaller, rural congregations — the largest number of congregations although not necessarily the largest number of members.
I know someone who frequently moved his membership between Methodist and Baptist Churches in a rural area, and the small Baptist Churches insisted on re-baptizing him each time he left the Methodists, evidently to wash the Methodism off him! But he was just trying to find a good Sunday school program for his kids.
The Landmark Movement also taught that there’d been faithful Baptists going back to Pentecost, including the Anabaptists, the Lollards, Hussites, etc.
And they insisted that the one true church would be shown by certain “marks of the church” — including the date of founding and the name of the founder. They insisted that they were founded in 33AD at Pentecost whereas the Campbellite churches were founded by Alexander Campbell in the 19th Century.
Sound familiar? Evidently, as the Baptists and Churches of Christ debated one another in the late 19th Century, we chose to debate by turning their claims around against them, saying that WE were founded in AD 33 and WE have the correct marks, etc. And we began rejecting alien immersions, just like the Baptists (following the teachings of Austin McGrary and contrary to the teachings of David Lipscomb and many others).
I suspect that when the Southern Baptist Convention rejected Landmarkism as “creedalism” many unhappy Baptists were easily persuaded to join the Churches of Christ, which by the early 20th Century had adopted much of the Landmark doctrine.
The Southern Baptists still wrestle with Landmarkism, as the statistics demonstrates. Here’s an interesting articles in one of their publications where present leaders are asked about non-Baptist immersions and the salvation of non-Baptists: http://sbctoday.com/2010/04/30/landmarkists-really/
Hank, your cleaver on before and after church is another example of where I agree but would say it another way. Per Hebrews the sacrifices of the Jews never paid for sin. Jesus paid for all sin, from Adam to the trumpet call. While some of those are in the church, and others under Mosaic law, and others of direct age such as Noah and Abraham, all are redeemed by the blood of Christ. The scenes in Revelation do not often divide the church rredeemed from the other times.
The point is this: faith and obeying God are universal, the exact practice God has changed. We should be baptised and remember Him in communion because He did and asked us to. I do not beleive in making up methods to obey God in leu of the sacriments He gave us.
Both you and Royce are right: its the request of the simmer for salvation (faith) and God’s power to redeem us. Then to obey God, you would build an altar and offer sacrifices in Abraham’s time, take an offering to the temple in Solomon’s time, or be baptised since Pentecost. Anyway, to any that would suggest that a plea to God is salvation complete, I would rejoice that they started right and teach that we can read how to complete our obedience.
I guesss this is part of being a dying moderate, that I always seek to unify you conservatives with those progressives. While I’ll strongly suggest that anyone today should be baptised, I will not say that baptism (alone) gives salvation and obeyiing God is salvation. However, inventing the SP and saying that does it, doesn’t cut it either. Faith without obedience is only beleif, and works without faith is devoid of the connection to the Divine, where all power is. We should be baptised because we have faith in Him and wish to do it just like Jesus did. We trust God to make the full connection to redemption. Let us not take pride in the moment of redemption: faith or water but thank God that we beleive, act, and He completes salvation.
Hank,
I am not picking on you but would genuinely like to know how you believe about salvation for all those of old you mentioned that were not members of the church of Christ because there was not one yet as Jesus had not died..
Larry,
You write, “While I’ll strongly suggest that anyone today should be baptised, I will not say that baptism (alone) gives salvation and obeyiing God is salvation.”
Neither would I. In fact, nothing (alone) “gives salvation”. And not that you have done it, but I get frustrated at how often those of us who simply teach what the Bible does regarding baptism are accused of believing and teaching that baptism is all that is required to be saved and that once we are baptized, we have earned and God owes us heaven.
You write, “While some of those are in the church, and others under Mosaic law, and others of direct age such as Noah and Abraham, all are redeemed by the blood of Christ. The scenes in Revelation do not often divide the church redeemed from the other times.”
I know, and I never suggested otherwise. But, Noah and Abraham still were never members of the church. And that was the only point I was making. You see, Royce was trying to use the tax collector in the Lords parable as some sort of Bible example of a guy praying the so called “sinner’s prayer” and so I had to remind Royce that it was a poor example because the SP under discussion here is the prayer wherein lost sinners are encouraged to accept Jesus and become Christians via a man made prayer rather than being baptized as the Bible actually teaches. The example of Royce just doesn’t work. Its apples and oranges. Same thing with the thief on the cross.
And while I respect your efforts to unify conservatives with the progressives, to say that they are both right on the issue at hand is, well, wrong.
For one, most progressives here know that the SP is unbiblical and that it is baptism that puts one into Christ and his church (BUT NOT BAPTISM ALONE, NOT WITHOUT GENUINE FAITH AND REPENTANCE AND NOT WITHOUT TRUSTING IN THE BLOOD OF JESUS)
Too, I have never heard of a person or a church believe in and encourage the sinner’s prayer who did not reject virtually everything the Lord and his apostles taught regarding the actual meaning and purpose of baptism.
And everyone who teaches men to accept Jesus via the SP, at the same time teaches men that they are saved Christians when really they are not. And that is wrong.
AJ wrote,
“I am not picking on you but would genuinely like to know how you believe about salvation for all those of old you mentioned that were not members of the church of Christ because there was not one yet as Jesus had not died..”
What do you mean in saying you would like to know “how (I) believe about salvation”? I don’t understand what your asking. And which people “of old” do you have in mind?
What I can say, is that however it is that men were saved by grace through faith before the church was in existence, it surely wasn’t by them needing to be added to the church. Since of course, there was no church before there was the church…
Hank,
I see nothing wrong with the wording of the Sinners Prayer, but I do see the wrong in the misuse of it. Not the prayers fault, but mans!
I meant all those people throughout the ages before Christ died that were not Jews or Gods chosen people and those afterward that never heard the word like you have. Those that were our kin folks, our ancestors..
They were not of the right blood before Christ and didn’t obey the NT laws afterward because most never heard of the laws, or Christ. They did believe in a supreme being and all looked upward for Him, God.
You see. in the churches I grew up in they were said to be all lost, their prayers to God were never heard so in reality, they were born to die and go to hell..
Condemned by God to hell before they were even born.
How sad it must be for the God of love to place a spirit with some of Himself inside it into by far most babies knowing they will be lost and some, a very few, put into babies that will be saved.
Wonder how that decision for each baby is made by God?
Just wondered if that is your belief too.
Alabama, the guilt is on us for not getting the word out.
AJ wrote,
“I see nothing wrong with the wording of the Sinners Prayer, but I do see the wrong in the misuse of it. Not the prayers fault, but mans!”
Again, it’s not “the wording” AJ, it’s the whole rejection of what God taught concerning the meaning and purpose of baptism. The people and churches who propagate the SP all deny what the Bible teaches about baptism. They make the SP take the place of baptism and teach the people who pray the SP that they are saved members of the church when in reality, they still are not saved and not members of the church. Honestly, how do you not see this? How do you not believe such is wrong?
The rest of what you wrote is confusing. Not sure what you were getting at?
I do see what is wrong in that teaching of the SP, but, its not the wording of the prayer as it didn’t write itself, it is man and what he is doing and teaching with the words that is wrong.
If someone got up to pray at church and we knew nothing about what meaning that prayer has to you and many others, what would be wrong with the reading or the reciting of those words at church or anywhere else? Unless we were schooled in it, it would just be another prayer we could amen..
The rest of what I am getting at is do you like the conservative churches of Christ I know of condemn all peoples except those in the church of Christ to hell and then only the few churches of Christ that believe and teach exactly as you do?
That cuts those going to heaven to a very small group, very small indeed and does not include any of us posting on here but you..
Is that your belief?
Oh, I see what you’re saying now, and I probably agree. But, the reason it is called the “sinner’s” prayer is because lost sinners (non Christians) are the ones who are encouraged to pray it. They are told that when they pray it (and mean it), that they will be forgiven of their sins and be added to the church. But, and again, that is not true. And so my problem is not with a Christian who pretty much prays the same words. Rather my problem is with those who reject everything the Bible teaches about baptism and replace it (baptism), with the so-called sinner’s prayer.
You wrote:
“The rest of what I am getting at is do you like the conservative churches of Christ I know of condemn all peoples except those in the church of Christ to hell and then only the few churches of Christ that believe and teach exactly as you do?
That cuts those going to heaven to a very small group, very small indeed and does not include any of us posting on here but you.. Is that your belief?”
No. That is not my belief.
Larry,
Just a few weeks ago, on TV they showed a tribe newly discovered and how happy that small bunch was.
Later they were all killed for some reason by folks from nearby.
Were they all to go to hell for not being obedient?
The answer would be YES in every conservative church of Christ I know of. They did not do the 5 acts.
If that is the case, why didn’t God lead someone to teach them as he did others?
That is what has never been discussed in the open, only preached, and most members do not believe like that. For many that is the unspoken thinking that is driving them to progressive COC.
I think that point and stand is silently the actually most disagreed upon position that is many times even a point of fellowship.
Hank,
I don’t remember your comments about the passages I quoted on the words of Peter. It’s the same reaction I have received the same reaction every time I have asked coc conservatives about them. Ignore…
Once more, what about Acts 10:42,43, Acts 11:16,17, Acts 15:7-11? Hank? Jay? Anyone?
This is the same Peter who is quoted in Acts 2:38. You believe him there, what about these passages? I’d like to have your reaction please. What have I missed?
Royce I doubt it will do little good in convincing you of your errant ways, but since you ask the question with scripture, I will answer it with scripture.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Luk 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them—————-.
Well Laymond, you really set me straight!
I’m being told I’m lost by a fellow who proudly and arrogantly denies the deity of Jesus the Christ and thinks he will be approved by God because of his good works. What irony!
I have baptized many people, but I did based on their confession that the best they knew how they had repented and were trusting Christ alone to save them. I’ll be glad to answer to Jesus face to face on my record on baptism.
Royce, What are you arguing with Hank about then?
If you wish to discuss the deity of the man Jesus, I would be glad to oblige. not here, but on your ground or mine. I know that you do not realize that the deity was not the “man” but the spirit that came to dwell upon him at baptism, but it would make for a lively discussion just the same. let me know where you want to meet, my place or yours.
Royce where in scripture is it said we are baptized to confess our belief in Jesus, where is it I would like to read it. I am not saying it is not there, but I don’t remember reading it.
Royce,
I will try to keep this brief. But, you are wrong in assuming that when the Holy Spirit fell on the Cornelius and company JUST AS HE HAD on the apostles “iat the beginning”, that it marked the time wherein either group went from being lost to saved. Think about it, the apostles were not lost until the HS fell on them. Rather, the HS falling on them had nothing to do with showing anybody whether they were saved of not. And while this is not the forum for a legthly study on it, just know that the “gift of the HS” is not the same thing “as the HS falling on them” for the gift of the HS is for all who believe and obey God whereas the HS fell on only a select few. Which is why Peter had to go back all the way “to the beginning” to find a like example. The “gift of the HS” was given to the apostles “WHEN WE BELIEVED” Acts 11:15, the HS fell on them much later (day of Pentecost). Will you argue that the apostles were lost up until the HS fell on them? If not, why arues as much with Cornelius? They were both unique and quite rare situations.
Further, the Gentiles were under there oww law prior to both flocks being converged into one with one shepherd. God had allowed “the nations” (Gentiles) to walk in their own ways Acts 14:16 and had “overlooked the times of ignorance” Acts 17:30. While this verse is rediculously made to say something it does not mean (like God overlooked and winked at sin), the truth of the matter is that the Gentiles could be saved even though they did not have the law of the Jews – they were a law unto themselves. And while they were “ignorant” less knowledgeable of Godns redeeming plan, they could be saved nonetheless. Provided they had not exchanged the truth of God for a lie, were God fearing, and devout. Just like Cornelius was.
However, after forcing the unbelieving apostles (concerning the fact that the Gentiles were just as acceptable to God) to welcome Cornelius and co. into the church/body of Christ, soon after God stopped overlooking the times of ignorance and made it a law wherein all men must be in the one body.
No doubt, the case of Cornelius (and all of the faithful Gentiles up until the Jewish church of Christ was forced by God to welcome them in) is unique and misunderstood by many. And Cornelius didn’t anymore go from being lost to saved with the HS falling on em anymore than did the apostles on Pentecost. Rather, they kept on being saved.
Just like when the Lord had went to his own and as many received him gave he the righ TO BECOME the children of God does not mean that the faithful Jews who received Jesus went from saved to lost to saved again. Rather, when the faithful Jews received Jesus… they merely kep on being saved.
Accordingly, the fact that the HS fell on those God fearing Gentiles JUST AS HE HAD FALLEN on the God fearing apostles at the beginning does not in ANY WAY demonstrate a case wherein we can argue that baptism is not essential in terms of becoming a Christian. I just does not make such a case. And NOBODY has EVER been a member of th church before they were baptized into Christ.
Have at it. But, if you get all silly again, know why I have chosen not to answer anymore. Happy Lord’s Day brother…
At the risk of being “silly”… According to what you have already said here, they couldn’t be in the church before Jesus died and arose, so how did they get in “the Lord’s church”?
Hank, with all due respect, you are all over the place, and you think I am so maybe we should just agree to ignore each other. Neither of us is gaining any ground with the other. I do wish you well.
Laymond,
Acts 8:26-38 is precisely the pattern I have used for over 50 years. I baptize believers.
“eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?”
Kinda makes one wonder what Phillip was teaching on doesn’t it. If you look up the page a little, it seems Phillip’s teachings had the same effect on others.
I wonder just what he could have said about baptism that resulted in their wanting it.
Of course, after people are taught about Christ and His work they must also be taught about baptism. They don’t learn anything about pleasing God unless they are taught.
Phillip preached Jesus to him, he asked if he believed with all his heart, and he did. He was a proper candidate for baptism. It is believer’s baptism, and those who put their trust in Christ and His finished work are safe. Salvation is by grace through faith. It is not by grace through good works, or by grace through baptism, or by grace through being in a church with the right name or a thousand other things.
“It is not by grace through good works, or by grace through baptism, or by grace through being in a church with the right name or a thousand other things.”
Or, grace through repentance?
Teaching the neccessity of repenting and being baptized to be saved does not lessen the fact that we are saved by grace through faith. It’s what grace through faith is.
I don’t understand why merely teaching what the Bible does about baptism (that it precedes forgiveness and that it is the point wherein God adds us to the body of Christ), makes people accuse us of being legalistic and rejectors of grace. I really don’t.
“Salvation is by grace through faith.” Maybe we should go a little deeper in explaining what we mean when we make this statement.
Since Royce made it maybe he should explain it. whose grace, and faith in what.
I have heard “saved by grace” but not telling us how to accomplish that.The way I have heard it we have nothing to do with it.
Act 13:43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
How were these people to continue in “Gods grace/favor” that needs to be explained.
So what was Paul telling them to do.
Hank, please direct me to the place where Cornelius was baptized before he received the Holy Spirit…Romans 8 says that a person belongs to Christ if the Spirit dwells in him.. The way I read the account of Cornelius, he received the Spirit prior to being baptized in Water… Which then reminds Peter than Jesus said that they would be baptizing with the Spirit UNLIKE John who was baptizing in Water…
Price, do you think we are baptized today with the baptism of John, or that of Jesus.?
Laymone…the baptism of John was insufficient for the folks in Acts 8…. I would assume it is insufficient for us today… I don’t recall a “baptism of Jesus” … I recall that one might be baptized with the Spirit…It seems that what was good for Cornelius might be good for us today…Your thoughts ??
Check the foolowup post baptism part one for a clearer view of this discussion.
” It seems that what was good for Cornelius might be good for us today…Your thoughts ??”
Well, Price I don’t recall anywhere that Jesus baptized with water for remission of sins. (except maybe his apostles)
Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:
Mat 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
Mat 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with:
Jhn 4:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
Jhn 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
There are many in churches today who say we are baptized with the “Holy Ghost” when we are submersed in water baptism, I don’t see that anywhere in scripture. If you do please show me. I know paul spoke of “holy ghost ” baptism but I believe that was by “laying on of hands” not emersion in water.
Yes I agree with you I believe water baptism is sufficent to take away sins, (the baptism that John preached) our acceptance after that depends upon God, God does not accept sin.
Price how do you understand “Baptism by fire”
At the beginning of the RM in America the conservatives were those who respect the Bible Authority and call everything by Bible names and Speak where the bible Speak and keep silent where the bible keep silent (coC). They kept the pattern in the New Testament Church. The liberals (Progressives) those that they did not see the word of God as Authority and continue copying things from the Denominations as ( I.M. Missionary Associations, District Associations etc.) and their option was “Speak where the bible is silent” (ICC). The Division was the consequence of the change in attitude toward the matter of Bible Authority : The necessity for having Bible Authority for all that we teach and practice, and (2) how Bible authority is established The I.M was simply the horse upon which the division rode out. In 1906 was notorious that those two groups split by those things. Previous mention above. In the line of the ICC grew up a ultra- liberal branch called (Disciples of Christ) in 1926 to be correct. As early as 1914, some 12 years before the formation of the ICC, a program emphasizing unity was launched by E.H. Koch, State Secretary of the Tennessee Christian Missionary Society. Later, in the early 1920s, “The Commission on Unity” was formed for the sake of addressing the issue of instruments of music in worship, especially. Its means of doing so was to distribute O.E. Payne’s book, which not only defend instrumental music in worship, but required. John B. cowden, one of the instigators, state in a letter to the Gospel Advocate (5/18/22) that they were proceeding “… on the hypothesis that there can not be unity until our divisive differences are settled, and settled right”. After considerable effort,
This movement led to and was effectively terminated by the Hardeman-Boswell debate on the instrument in 1923. It is worth pointing out that although this effort sough to accomplish unity by convincing our brethren that the use of the instrument was scriptural, it at least appropriately recognized that the use of the instrument was a crucial issue that had to be resolved.
In the 1930’s a movement aimed at unity between the ICC and the coC was inaugurated by claude F. Witty of the Westside-central coC in Detroit and james Deforest Murch, editor preacher and leader in the ICC while more men were eventually involved in this project, it initially involved the efforts of 50 men of each group. The first of several meetings with an equal representation of men from both groups was held in Cincinnati, Ohio, February 23, 1937. Several meetings followed in various places for several similar meetings followed in various places for several months.
The smaller, localized meetings also led to “National Unity Meeting” the first of which was hosted by the church where witty preached in Detroit on May 3-4,1938, with more than 1,000 in the audiences. A second such meeting was conducted at the Englewood Christian Church in Indianapolis in may 1939. It was at this second “National” meeting that brother H. Leo Boles, editor of The Gospel Advocate, was invited to speak. He delivered a “block-buster” speech lasting one hour and thirty one minutes in which he reminded those gathered that their fathers (Boles was the great grandson of “Raccoon” John Smith) had all originally believed and practiced the same things until introduction of the missionary society in 1849 and the IM about 10 years later. He charged that, as a further roadblock to unity. The ICC had plunged headlong into denominationalism.Specifically, he said:
You know where you left the Churches of Christ; hence you know where to find them; come back and unity is the inevitable result There will be no compromise or surrender on the point. [op[position to denominationalism] The churches of Christ, as long as they are loyal to the New Testament, can not compromise on this or any other point so clearly taught in the New Testament. You should not want any compromise on error; there will be no compromise. Do you now see the way to unity? …. It is a sin to follow ordinances, or services, based on the precepts and doctrines, opinions, and teachings of men (Col.2:20-23). It is not only wrong to bring such thing into the worship of God; it is wrong to tolerate them in the worship; it is wrong to affiliate with them or countenance those who bring them in.Hence, it is sinful to bring anything not commanded by God into the worship of God;… (Boles,16 30-31).
Since the ICC people were not willing to give up their cherished idol So well described by brother Boles, his speech had the effect of so cooling the effort as to practically end it. The murch-witty crusade not only produed several meetings, but spawned a journal, Christian Unity Quartely, jointly edited by murch and witty.
In 1950 Ernest Beam, a California preacher, began The Christian Forum, a paper designed to promote unity. He preached for and worked with liberal “Churches of Christ” that had no qualm about such innovation as the instrument and the missionary society until his death in the late 1950s. He met stiff and opposition from men like Foy E. Wallace Jr. and G.C. Brewer.
W. Carl Ketcherside of St. Louis, Missouri, a rabit extremist in opposition to such thing as “located” PREACHERS, ORPHAN HOMES AND CHRISTIAN COLLEGES, was adamantly pushing his views in public debates (e.g Wallace-Ketcherside Debate , 1953 one in Arkansas and other in his home congregation in St. Louis Missuri) in his paper, The Mission Messenger (Anti-movement), during the 1950s. His Soul-mate in these matters was Leroy Garrett who edited a little paper called Bible Talk. However, during the 1960 Ketcherside swung to the opposite extreme and began to champion what he calls “Unity in Diversity” or “fellowship without endorsement”. Garret swung with him, and began The Restoration Review whose sole purpose seems to be undermine and destroy the distinctiveness of the Lord’s church making the church a Denomination among Denominations.
The program promotes fellowship with all who have obeyed the “Gospel” regardless of their doctrinal beliefs of practice. Further, “doctrine” is distinct from “Gospel” doctrine has nothing to do with fellowship. Such matters as IM in worship, premillennialism, the missionary society, speaking in tongues, observance of the Lord’s supper on Thursday night or women preachers have no bearing on fellowship whatsoever. (For a through and devastating review of this heresy (Choice) see William woodson’s 1973 Gospel Advocate articles) While the Ketcherside/Garret views have been generously praised by ICC men, they never met with general acceptance among our brethren. The evil trio of tolerance, antinomianism and liberalism of the 1960 and 1970s in society has found its way into the church. This has produced a new generation in the 1980s, principally led by certain young preachers, that is basically contending for the Ketcherside-Garret approach, as will be demonstrated. Many have been caught up in it.
Jay said “No, instrumental music didn’t divide the Restoration Movement.” because the sectarians among us demanded division over any action that isn’t “authorized” — including located preachers, instrumental music, missionary societies, and fundraisers other than free will offerings.
Jay once upon a time when you were a conservative (state quo) without adding (Anti) and taking away (Liberal) to the word of God. Before you have the perception that you have about our Christian heritage respecting the Bible Authority until years ago by association with our sectarians ICC start with a Theological Innovation watching the Scriptures in a different way as their heritage father did it ( Silence is permissive) innovation wanting become as the other nations (Religious groups) promoting by the side a “Union” that was not allow it until 1996 by our “ACU” and after that allowing the ICOC be part of the fellowship 2006 if my memory works fine. Promoted by our acclaimed by the largest congregation Richland Hills and days later they introduce IM in their Saturday services. Before that way our brethren in that congregation be suspicious about the slow flame going on in that congregation. Years before they were preparing the environment for such heresy (choice) my analogy for this is “ put a frog in a pot of water and put the flame slowly two things can happen one the frog is going to be boil (die without knowing) or second the frog is going to jump out of the water and continuing living” false teaching kill the soul without knowing.
guestfortruth,
You are somewhat easier to read when you are cutting and pasting and make much more sense. 🙂