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 …?”
The comments in this series have largely focused on the baptism question — which is inevitable given that Garrett is urging us to fellowship denominations other than the Churches of Christ. The comments follow very much along the traditional lines, and I’d urge us to think of the question in some different ways. After all, people have long-ago stopped listening to the traditional arguments — on both sides.
First, many denominations baptize believers by immersion for remission of sins. We are not alone in this respect at all.
The independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, of course, share our baptismal doctrine and practices — and yet many treat them as damned in their sins.
The Roman Catholics often baptize adult converts by immersion for the remission of sins, and they have always done this — although not always uniformly. European cathedrals typically have a separate baptistry that is designed for immersion. Recently, many (not all) American cathedrals have built baptistries for immersion.
The Eastern Orthodox have always baptized adult converts by immersion or dipping — except they do it three times — and theirs is also for the remission of sins.
All Baptists baptize by immersion, and some do so for remission of sins. Yes, really. I know some personally. Not every pastor follows denominational teaching, and not every Baptist denomination adheres to Zwinglian teaching (the teaching that baptism is symbolic of grace previously received traces back to Zwingli).
The Wikipedia says,
Baptism by submersion is also practiced by the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), although the faith does not suggest rebaptism of those who have undergone a different Christian baptism tradition. …
Seventh-day Adventists believe that “Baptism symbolizes dying to self and coming alive in Jesus.” They practice full immersion baptism.
Anabaptists perform baptisms indoors in a baptismal font, a swimming pool, or a bathtub, or outdoors in a creek or river. Baptism memorializes the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.[Rom 6] Baptism does not accomplish anything in itself, but is an outward personal sign or testimony that the person’s sins have already been washed away by the cross of Christ.
Also listed as practicing baptism by immersion are Christadelphians, Trinitarian Pentecostals, and various “Holiness” groups, Christian Missionary Alliance, Assemblies of God, and Oneness Pentecostals. The Plymouth Brethren baptize believers by immersion, but take a position similar to the Southern Baptists as to its effect. The International Church of the Foursquare Gospel is also immersionist.
For denominations outside the Reformed/Calvinist tradition, baptism is almost always for the remissions of sins.
Now, if all these groups practice baptism of believers by immersion and most do so for the remission of sins, why don’t we treat any of them as part of “us”? — unless, of course, we are rank sectarians who believe that only those in the Churches of Christ are saved?
If we’re not a denomination and, rather, simply congregations of the church of Christ universal, why don’t we consider other churches that immerse for remission of sins part of “us”? Indeed, why act as though we have a patent on correct baptismal theology and practice and no one else does it the way we do?
It seems that we’re looking for ways to damn all others. After all, we ignore all evidence to the contrary and we certainly have a bad habit of exaggerating the errors of other denominations while excusing our own. Read the comments in this series, if you doubt me. And that tendency sure seems to evidence a desire to be the exclusive place of salvation.
Oh, and there are lots of our former members who left the Churches of Christ and now worship as part of another denomination. They have perfectly good baptisms, too — by any standard. Are they damned? If a member of the Churches of Christ joins an instrumental Christian Church, is his baptism canceled?
Now I readily admit that many of those other denominations have errors in their teachings and practices. And we’ll take that question up shortly. But can we not at least admit that there are those in the denominations with baptisms that are just as good as ours? And that their converts come out of the baptistry 100%, totally, utterly saved?
Where we as a fellowship have gone wrong — and many others have, too — is in teaching baptism as an act, a requirement, rather than as a gift and blessing from God. If we taught the beautiful deep meaning of baptism as imitating Jesus Christ, we could easily segue into the gospel truth of His death, burial and resurrection paving the way for our own: dying to sin, being immersed into the water and into His life, rising again (first as a new person, later as an immortal one). If we taught baptism as a gift from God (Luke 20:4); as an opportunity to testify to our belief in the resurrection of Jesus by literally acting it out; as salvific through the pledge of a good conscience toward God — the beginning of a covenant with Him to luve a Christ-like life! — I can’t help but believe that more people would understand it better and want to submit to Him in baptismal waters.
Because some of us just don’t react all that well to a first exposure to the subject communicated as “You must be baptized and do all of these other things I’m telling you to do or you will fry forever in the endless fires of hell.”
Teaching baptism as an act or work or law or commandment tend’s to minimize God’s role in it. It is our obedience, yes; but also our response to His grace and the incomparable act of sacrifice that He worked as His law of live required … and baptism communicates our willingness to sacrifice self and enter into partnership with God — yes, through the presence of His Holy Spirit in our lives — to let Him work through us His purposes in this world.
Wonderfully said Keith.
Jay wrote: ” And that their converts come out of the baptistry 100%, totally, utterly saved?”
I ask, were they all totally and utterly lost until the moment they came up from the water? This is the point of difference with many who also immerse believers. What we seem to practice is that we baptize people who have faith in Jesus, who have repented of their sins, and are determined to live to please God…but are still lost. Their penitent hearts and their faith in Jesus has done nothing for them. Is that a fair representation of your position?
I agree with you, Jay, that there are rel and valid baptisms in all denominations – but please keept this distinction: Leroy urges us to fellowship Presbyterians and Methodists in general (on a denominational level) if I got him right.
One of our Bible Study groups is attended by a brother who has been baptized as an adult in the Roman Catholic Church and is still attending mass regularly – but he likes our Bible Studies and will maybe sooner or later face a fork in the road. Yes, I do believe he was validly baptized. And no, there is no need for a re-baptism, even though “ritually” his baptism was imperfect (by sprinkling).
So there is one faith, one Lord, one baptism, one father, one hope, one spirit, … one body? Not quite, is it?
I see other baptizing churches very much as part of the church of Christ, but by adding special names to CHrist they are somewhat in a Corinthian sitiation (Paulists, Petrists, Mennonites, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists …). By this they don’t cease to be a church of Christ, although it is an expression of the schism they are part of and should let go of. But I do regard them as saved and as part of the church of Christ in its disunified state.
This you should have asked also, just to make a distinction between e.g. Baptists who baptize all converts and e.g . Presbyterians who baptize mainly infants:
Pingback: What Must the Church of Christ Do to be Saved? « Leaving the Noise Behind
Where in scripture are we instructed to withhold fellowship from other believers in Christ beyond:
“…every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. … Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.” – 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 15
“Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.” – Titus 3:10
and possibly
“It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. … When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.” – 1 Corinthians 5:1, 4-5
Aren’t these instructions regarding individuals? Are there instructions anywhere to shun or avoid or ignore others who believe and are obedient to the extent of their understanding? If the understanding of others is deficient, isn’t it incumbent upon us to OPEN lines of communication with them? Is there anyone to whom we should not feel and express love?
Keith,
You’re right. I’ll expand on your point in tomorrow’s post. But our treatment of baptism as a “work” is a gigantic mistake, maybe our biggest.
Royce,
I don’t fit very well into either the Baptist (Zwinglian) or 20th Century Church of Christ (sacramental) view of baptism. Many assume that those are the only possible positions and so, when I disagree with one, try to fit me in the other. I’m somewhere else.
1. I think baptism is normatively — that is, designed to be — the moment God imparts the Spirit and saves the Christian.
2. I think baptism is a gift of God, normatively given via the church.
3. I think the design of baptism is for believers, not infants.
4. I think God saves all with faith (including trust and repentance) in Jesus.
4 trumps 1, 2, and 3.
Therefore, I think we should teach and practice baptism of believers by immersion for the remission of sins. That’s very much NT doctrine. But so is: all with faith in Jesus will be saved. And God keeps all his promises, especially the one about saving those with faith, as he covenanted with Abram.
The fact that God will make exceptions for non-normative baptisms does not mean we should teach or practice non-normative baptisms, except as exceptions that show the love and grace of God. Glory to God in the Highest that the effectiveness of baptisms does not depend on the expertise of the person administering the baptism or the expertise of the convert but on the graciousness of God!!
Some wish to debate whether we’re saved before or at baptism. Here’s the key: even if the Baptists are dead wrong and we are absolutely right, Baptist baptism still works, they are still saved, and they are our brothers. Therefore, I don’t personally have a lot of interest in debating the question. It’s a legitimate question, but it’s like arguing over when my birthday is — interesting I’m sure, but my parentage and inheritance remain the same regardless of the answer.
An analogy might help: Here in Alabama, marriage requires a license, blood tests, a preacher or judge, and — for many — flowers, pictures, dresses, and videos. If you fail to get a license and, later, a certificate, your marriage won’t be recorded in the state’s log of marriages.
But Alabama follows the “common law,” that is, the law as developed by the English courts going back to Henry II. And so we recognize common law marriage. A man and woman are legally married if they intend to be presently married and give some evidence to the world of that intent. That’s it.
Common law marriage is a bad idea. The wife may never prove her right to inheritance or to a pension from her husband’s employer. She may not get alimony if he leaves her. But she is flat out married and entitled to all those things. It’s just really hard to prove in an age when most people get married the “right’ way.
Therefore, I would never, ever counsel a couple to be married at common law. But if a couple say their vows wrong, forget the license, fail to sign the certificate, etc., they are still married and should still head off on their honeymoon in all good conscience. They don’t have to be re-married. After all, even a severely flawed wedding ceremony evidences an intent to be presently married and gives ample public evidence of that intent!
And so a wedding done very wrong works. They’re still married, and their honeymoon is not adultery, and people should not slander them by claiming they aren’t really married because they did it wrong.
Why would the Holy Spirit separate the Good News from Baptism ?? Paul says that Christ did not send him to baptize but preach the good news… I Cor 1:17….
Why does the Holy Spirit focus our attention on Spirit baptism in contrast to Water baptism in Acts 11 as Peter recalls the conversion of Cornelius…Who received the Holy Spirit according to verse 17 when he BELIEVED…
These are strange versus to have to deal with when one insists that it is the work of baptism that saves us…I assume that’s what one believes when they say that the work of Jesus on the cross was insufficient to accept by faith…that we have to help him out…
Jay,
Thanks. I look forward to the rest of the posts on this subject and promise to comment less than on the last topic.
Royce
Royce,
Please comment! Your comments are always appreciated.
Jay, you common law marriage is a good example. Another is Paul on Abraham’s faith; counted to him as righteousness, in effect saying the moment of faith, seals the deal. The only problem is Abraham is so faithful that what he intends to do, he always does! God says go, he goes, God says sacrifice Isaac, and he tries to.
The point is if we were faithful like Abraham, the moment of rigthteousness could be intent because the follow through is so faithful. Honestly, this is not your regular guy. This is what we should be; so faithful that action always follows intent.
So, I say to my Baptist brothers; if you are an Abraham, intention to be saved, saves you; but if you are most people; you better back up that intent with some follow through action.
I can’t follow you here, because 4 doesn’t trump 1-3 but INCLUDES 1-3. And as soon as we take the position of “faith alone” (which was created by inserting the “alone” in Rom 3:28!), baptism and any onther aspect of faithful obedience becomes obsolete or at least a matter of choice.
This does NOT mean that God will not save anyonewho has soncere faith but lacks biblical teaching of baptism. But WER cannt say they are saved, because they don’t meet the critera spelled out in scripture. According to e the NT’s unanimous testomaony batiptism is tied to salvation in a way we cannot separate it from.
So we need to be very careful: Who will and will not be saved is – in the end – God’s choice according to His perfect principles.
He has revealed the way of salvation in the sacred scriptures, and it is not up to us to take take away from or add to the conditions and terns of salvation. So we MUST NOT teach salvations without baptism. And we must not teach unity without baptism!
For those who like math problems: Eph 4:4-6 contains 7 “ingredients” of unitiy (I am repetitive, I know, but this is crucial)
1 Body
1 Spirit
1 Hope
1 Faith
1 Lord
1 Baptism
1 Father
1+1+1+1+1+1+1 = ???
1 !!!
If we take awy baptism from this it is therefore not 7-1 (which still would leave us with 6), but 1-1 which leaves us with nothing!
The same is true with any other of the 7 parts of unity.
Take away 1 Body: (7=1) – 1 = 0
Take away 1 Spirit: (7=1) – 1 = 0
Take away 1 Hope: (7=1) – 1 = 0
Take away 1 Faith: (7=1) – 1 = 0
Take away 1 Lord: (7=1) – 1 = 0
Take away 1 Baptism: (7=1) – 1 = 0
Take away 1 Father: (7=1) – 1 = 0
You can’t have one without the other. This is the bare minimum of what unity consists of, Jay – and you reduce it to nothing!
Alexander
I invite all to see this Video about the Truth about Baptism. by John More
Sincerely,
Guestfortruth
oops, sorry for the many typoes … but I mean it. This is the key issue!
Alexander
Alexander…I follow you on Eph 4 as far as unity goes…but I would disagree with you on whether the entirety of the NT teaches that baptism is tied to salvation…Jay just put forth an abundance of scripture that ties salvation entirely to faith. But, I’m not aware of many that teach of a faith that insists on the refusal to be baptized..perhaps I’m just not clued in… But for those that believe that we are saved by Grace through faith and yet are baptized as a public declaration of that faith…are you refusing to fellowship with these people ?? Are we to refuse fellowship to our very young new Christians who don’t understand all the theology ? If you do I find that unfortunate…Surely the Eph 4 passage you quoted would suggest that we all have the same Spirit .. are we to divide the Spirit into sects based on our understanding of the “rules” which are often disputed ? I think not.
Thomas AND Alexander Campbell were not baptized by immersion as adults until approximately 1811- about two years after Thomas published the Declaration and Address. Even then, they were not baptized in order to receive the remission of sins (they never were for that purpose). They were immersed b/c they finally decided immersion was the appropriate mode of baptism. They NEVER thought nor taught they were not saved nor part of the one church of Jesus Christ prior to their immersion. They were Presbyterians until they were forced out of the Presbyterian church! Then they were Baptists until they were forced out of the Baptist church. They did recognize there was one church of Christ but they believed it included Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists etc so long as those people believed Jesus was the Messiah and were obedient according to their understanding.
So Alexander, at what point in time in the lives of Thomas and Alexander Campbell would they have qualified to be considered by you as your brothers in Christ?
Hesed,
Randall
Do you get my point in the highlighted words? Had I been a Baptist in the years before 1812 and had met Alexander Campbell, I had taken him aside on this issue. To be sure I think I had learned a lot from him as well. I think he was on the right path that opened his heart to baptism as soon as he stumbled over it (that was when his first child was born).
So – in hindsight – his attitude was right, and therefore he proceeded to baptism. But until he was baptized he was – strictly observed – still outside of the covenant. (7=1) – 1 Baptism = still ZERO.
Again, this does not rule out God’s Grace towards those who seek him earnestly; but we must not confuse this with “assurance of salvation”. By no means: “Assurance of Salvation” (and also brotherhood in Christ) is tied to promises that are connected with but few but very clear conditions, such as Mark 16:16.
Alexander
In the years before the reformers, most churches had emphasized ritual and actions (especially giving) over faith. Luther and others tried to remind folks that faith was really importatnt. Later, others including Calvin, wishing to realign theology to the new times, came to the conclusion that faith was more important than actions, even primary or supreme. So the pendulm had gone to the other side.
Let’s not get extreme in our day, its not faith vs. practice but a faithful practice of life. Walking in the light requires accepting light (faith) and walking (obedience’works). The flow of intent to action should be automatic. If Christ is Lord and I want to follow Christ, then I’ll do as He did, including being baptized. If He bothered to do it, why would it be optional for us? Which amoung us is better than our Lord?
Moment of salvation: beleif, repentance, baptism? Only a theologian carres. God’s will is all of the above, not what is the minimum that I can do for God. Remember the Spirit descended when Jesus came out of the water, why would we want to skip that?
What role does Jesus and His work have to do with salvation anyway? He did not ‘almost” reconcile sinners to God with His worth and work, He completely did so.
Christ not only died for us, He also lived for us. He lived the life of perfect obedience the Father always desired of mankind and He did it without sin and completely satisfied the demands of the law. And He also took upon Himself all of it’s penalties, for us.
As my representative and yours, when he died, I died and you died, and have been freed from the demands and penalties of the law by that death. Just as a woman is freed from marriage when her husband dies we are free from the law by the dead body of Jesus and alive eternally by his resurrected, glorified body.
All of the “requirements” of salvation are being discussed but the question not being addressed, at least if it has been I’ve overlooked it, is this one. Does God justify ungodly sinners based upon the righteousness of Jesus or the acts of the sinner?
Anyone who thinks God didn’t know Abraham, or Noah, or Peter, or Jay Guin would be faithful to walk in the light (though imperfectly) has not read enough Bible. Jesus reminded his disciples in John 17 that they didn’t choose Him, rather He chose them, and He doesn’t err.
You know I really believe I could of written the Bible in such a way all this would be clear and simple to follow.
Pauls writings are the most confusing and he was supposed to be the most educated. Gamaliel (sp) didn’t do too good a job in my eyes.
I am a Federal Contractor retired, almost, and built things all across this USA.
In every case, an Architect wrote specs and drew plans very detailed so that if 1000 of us built one of what was drawn, all 1000 buildings would be identical. No arguments or disagreements, just build by doing as directed.
The grace, baptism debate has been going on for who know how long and no answer ever comes from it. Should be simple if its that important. just follow the plan.
Sometimes I wonder about Paul as it seems we cannot follow what he directs. Either we are too thick or one verse says one thing and another says the reverse. Was he by his writings just seeing how much confusion he could muster.
I cannot believe an architect could write directions better than God!
From the way we differ in so many scriptures, it sure seems so.
If the law is that confusing, it tells me God is not that strict about that subject and if any point we debate on mattered that much it would of been made easier to understand.
Are we to be graded at judgment day on how well we figured out the hidden codes or how well we followed those commandments that were plain and simple like the 1st two commandments with promise right out of Jesus mouth?
Alexander,
In your math, imperfect baptism = no baptism at all, whereas imperfect hope or imperfect faith will score 100%. You’re putting your finger on the scales here.
No, Jay, I am not talking about perfect baptism or perfect faith here, as I pointed out in one of my replies. Just a few verses later Paul says that we have to grow in faith and knowledge (Eph 4:11-13). So our faith at the time of our conversion does not need to be complete.
But it has to rest on certain truths:
a) Understanding of sin and the need of forgiveness
b) Believing in Christ’s work on the cross and His resurrection
c) Willingness to submit to Him as Lord
Period. The rest follows in the course of discipleship.
As for baptism:
Infant baptism is no baptism at all – let’s just forget this error.
But in all other cases the essence of baptism is our faith in Christ, not the mode of baptism. As I said, if the mode were essential, the ECF would not have accepted our immersions, because we dip only once instead of three times as they did. But this was not the mindset of the Early Church. Read the Didache (around 80 AD) and you’ll see that the mode of baptism may vary with the circumstances – but baptism is always based on repentance.
Therefore it is not about “perfect baptism” as to the mode, neither as to the deeper meaning of it. If you were baptized by a Baptist and taught insufficiently on baptism, does that nullify your faith and committment to Christ? By no means.
But if you have not been baptized yet at all – again: infant baptism is no baptism at all – then you are still outside of the covenant.
Prove me wrong, Jay
Alexander
“a) Understanding of sin and the need of forgiveness
b) Believing in Christ’s work on the cross and His resurrection
c) Willingness to submit to Him as Lord
Period.”
You will need to remind me where this formula is specified in the text. Citing the translation used will help.
“Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.” (1 Tim. 4:16) What do we learn from the example of great followers of Christ? The apostle Charge Timothy a us today to take a heed of Us that means our way of living in this world Morally and religiously according to the standard of God’s word living the gospel in his whole counsel (Acts 20:27), with the teaching that is found in the new Testament. Jesus warn us of being involve with the doctrine of man example the Pharisees and Sadducees and Herod “5 Now when His disciples had come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. 6 Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.”7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have taken no bread.” 8 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have brought no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up? 11 How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?—but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the DOCTRINE of the Pharisees and Sadducees. ( Matt.16:5-12) What was that doctrine? “ Interpretation of interpretation from their human traditions and they like to tell others “Do this, Do that” but, not to practice it what they preach ” Luke tell us about what was the leaven of the Pharisees “He began to say to His disciples first of all, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. 2 For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known. ( Luke 12:1-2) also the inspired writer Mark tell us in just 1 versus the whole picture of the the situation about false teaching of Man following traditions and be condescend to don’t say anything in the moral situation of Herod compromising the doctrine of God related “Marriage and Remarried” saying ““Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.” (Mark 8:15) those are two things that can compromise the teaching of God. The apostles never compromise the truth in word or deeds. Peter and the apostle said ““We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29) the same way we should be to stand for the truth of God who is Jesus and his teaching written in the New Testament. ( 2 Jn. 1:9, Jn. 8:31-32 ) The apostle John said “I rejoiced greatly that I have found some of your children walking in truth, [ according to the Word of God ] as we received commandment from the Father.” (2 Jn. 1:4).
Paul said to Titus regarding the elders:” holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.
10 For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11 whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain.” (Tit. 1:9-11). To over houses, regarding Christianity, is serious situation. How serious is seen further in Paul. He said, “But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. 17 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, 18 who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some.” (2 Tim. 2:16-18). False doctrine eats as does a gangrene. It rots the soul. It overthrows faith. One must have his faith intact to go to heaven (Heb. 11:6;Jn. 8:24). To destroy faith is to destroy a soul. Jesus said, “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” (Jn. 8:24) what does it mean don’t believe in him? Means reject him as Lord and choose to live according the god of this age. (2 Cor. 4:3-5).
Peter put it this way: “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in DESTRUCTIVES HERESIES (different options), even denying the Lord who bought them (Gnosticism), and bring on themselves swift destruction [ “metaphorically talking “ lost of their souls suddenly without knowing it emph. mine]. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth (Jesus and his teachings found in his Testament “under the perfect law of Christ”) will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.” (2 Pet. 2:1-3). This “WARNING” is a reminder about what Jesus told us before during his ministry on earth. Jesus warned, ““Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?” ( Mat. 7:15-16). Jesus said, “For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” (Mat. 24:24).
Paul said to the Ephesians Elders, “Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.” (Acts 20:30). To the church of Christ at Rome he said, “Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.” (Romans 16:17). But this divisions are necessary as mentioned in the letter of Paul to the church at Corinth “For there must ( Greek = dei “necessary”) also be factions (Greek = Aireseis “heresies” ” choice,”) among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you. (1 Cor. 11:19). There are two choices “ be with God or without God ” (Col. 1:13; 2 Jn. 1:9) there is not a “lukewarm” Examples, “Living godly or living worldly” “Half Truth” “with one foot in the body (church) of Christ and other in the world religions plus immorality ” with God and without God” (Rev.3:16).
The Church of our Lord is not a denomination, it is not a sect. For one to charge the Body (church =) of Christ is a sect is as false as false can be! However, the liberals of our day are not the first to make such charge. Paul’s enemies accused him of being a member of a sect: “For we have found this man a plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” (Acts 24:5). Paul denied that they could prove that the church of Christ is a sect. He said,
13 Nor can they prove the things of which they now accuse me. 14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets. (Acts 24:13-14).
Since the days of the apostles, the church of Christ has been under attack and today is not the exception. “ They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.” (1 Jn. 2:19) It is difficult distinguish between a disciple called Christian by name and practice between from those who called themselves Christians by name.
Jay ask: “why don’t we consider other churches that immerse for remission of sins part of “us”?” because when somebody comes from a Denomination (Ecclesiastical Hierarchy) with a human creed denominated by their founder.
why act as though we have a patent on correct baptismal theology and practice and no one else does it the way we do?
We acts saying the truth in love ( Eph. 4:15) we wants in our deep heart to everybody to be saved as God wants it we know that some denominations share common teachings but their traditions of mans separated them from the truth that can make them free from sectarism, we know that there are good people that has been blind by their religious leaders and they need to make the decision to be with Christ and his (body) Church of Christ (the kingdom) but the scripture reveal that not all are going to be save, it is written “The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,” (2 Thes. 2:9-11). Have you wonder what is that strong delusion? It is the “free will “ that people use everyday and even Christians makes use choosing to do right or wrong , true or lie, etc. People don’t want to search the truth of God in his inspired book and be faithful to it. They want everything express without putting time to investigate the scriptures, between them there are fair-minded people looking the truth as the Bereans (Acts 17:11) . Always is easier believe a half truth than the whole truth. The whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). Even in our congregations some that don’t remain faithful to the doctrine of Christ living godly the gospel without any responsibility are going to be lost. So the number according to Christ teaching is “13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” ( Mat. 7:13-14). This is the truth reveal by Jesus our head and Lord.
Jay said “It seems that we’re looking for ways to damn all others.” We don’t have the power to damn everybody but the Gospel of Christ can.(Mark 16:16) Some damn themselves twisting the word of God for their own destruction. “15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; (2 peter 3:15-17) ” But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, 13 and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you, (2 Peter 2:12-13, Jude 1:11-13) “18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,” (Romans 1:18). some of this false brethren (those who creep into households) and never get to the understanding of truth for their unfair mind “carnal mind” (2 Tim. 3:6-8,2 Cor. 11:25) . We don’t have the power to damn, but God has put limits to his people. Example 1 Samuel 15. And Jesus teaching about the leaven of the Pharisees and when that delusion make a choice (heresy) produce a departure from God’s word and his pattern for today “footprint”. We can make righteous judgment but God and his word condemn to whom reject his truth and the difficult part is that not everybody are able to see a spiritual disease. But with the mirror “God’s word” is possible to diagnose and confirm those symptoms that can kill the body of Christ.
Jay said “and there are lots of our former members who left the Churches of Christ and now worship as part of another denomination.”
You know, why those members were to a denomination? Not because lack of love but,because of your teaching saying that the church of Christ is a denomination, so they don’t see any difference about “church of Christ” with any religious group. Just because wants to be like the others nations. “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being priest for Me; Because you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children. (Hosea 4:6). We have a great lesson from the people of God in the Old Testament.
Has some body watch the video about the truth about baptism?
@ Bob Brandon
I’m not sure whether you really don’t know the texts or whether you just want to start an argument on the basics of repentance …
When Eph 4:6 ties the one baptism to one Faith and one Lord, of course we have to define these terms within the context of the NT. So, my three essentials (you could find better words for it) are certainly part of what the terms in Eph 4:4-6 mean.
Alexander
@ guestfortruth
I did. But I doubt that our progressive friends will be happy with it 😉
The only part I object to – although it is a fine video – is that in the end he tends to make the validity of baptism dependent on the correct understanding of baptism. In his view being baptized with a Baptist-theology of baptism would not be valid. I hold to the conviction that the faith in our Lord Jesus (not in baptism) expressed in baptism is what saves, not our theological understanding thereof.
But other than that: A fine video, and we ought to take this very seriously, I have the impression that Leroy makes baptism something omittable for the sake of unity; but if that’s the way to unity we might cast out all of our NTs as well, so there won#t be one verse left where we might eventually split over. Oh wonderful unity!
Alexander
Alexander,
For the sake of unity I called “union” . we can not reject the N.T. You are right! We remain faithfully to the teaching of the Apostles Acts 2:42.
he tends to make the validity of baptism dependent on the correct understanding of baptism. If you repeated again you’ll see that he said that is important understand the reason of your baptism. before than that understand the purpose of Baptism for remission of sins (Acts 2:38) that the Campbell’s understood later he and his family . and they were baptized by a Baptist minister clarifying that their baptism was for the forgiveness of Sin not to be members of the Baptist denomination. He said that to be baptized according to the New Testament teaching is “Required faith and Repentance” culminating in the symbolism mentioned in Romans 6:3-6.
He mentioned the example of those baptized with john baptism just for repentance Acts 19:4-5 “4 Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Then they were baptized with the right purpose. Our Baptist friends baptize according their tradition and they were converted by Calvinism with the time. You can read the book “ Traces of the Kingdom by Keith sisman “ http://churches-of-christ.ws/indextr.htm
Alexander,
Acts records several household baptisms. Clearly when people are being baptized by the thousands, as in Jerusalem, some of these people had young children. Either they were baptized or not.
If they were baptized, then the case for infant baptism is made. If not, then we have to come with an “age of accountability” and figure out when children can be baptized and whether, when they reach this age, they must be baptized or else be damned, leaving us wondering whether we must wait until our children are damned before they can be saved — which is the traditional CoC teaching, as “accountability” means they must be accountable for their sins.
In short, for some reason, God left us with an obvious and huge hole in our theology. Whichever way we fill it, we have to proceed by analogy. Do we analogize to circumcision (infant baptism) or to the Torah’s teachings on the age of accountability (20!) or do we pull age 12 from the Jesus’ visit to the temple or age 14 from Bar Mitzvah (not a First Century practice that I can find)? Do we judge based on when the child is able to understand “the Christ, the Son of the Living God” or guilt?
Whichever way we go, we have to confess that we’re inferring from premises and not teaching the plain meaning of the scripture, because the scripture says precious little on the topic.
And I have my opinions (which I’ve expressed here a few times) and you have yours, but I’m not willing to say that my inferring from uncertain premises are the boundaries of Christian fellowship. And I figure that if God wanted us to take a particular position or else be damned, he’d have answered the question.
In the absence of clear guidance (as distinguished from my own inferential skills), I think the rule is grace. And that conclusion has the decided advantage of being consistent with the dozens of plain and insistent statements in scripture that all with faith (properly defined) are saved.
Jay said “In short, for some reason, God left us with an obvious and huge hole in our theology.(Bible) Whichever way we fill it,” Jay, your study about God “theology” is not the sacred biblical study of God’s word “ letting the bible interpret the Bible”. You know a lot of theories from the Theologians and few Scripture. Most of the theologians priest from the RCC use fault premises by don’t going to the scriptures as they did before the release of the sacred Scriptures. Making use of philosophies as predicted by the Holy Spirit in the first century , all the priest and monks during the medieval times were on dark (ignorant of the Scriptures) before the Scripture were available to the common people. The sacred Scripture was not written chronologically because God’s wants us to search in the Scriptures. His word declare “You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.” (Jn.5:39). Jesus told to them “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.” (Mat. 22:29), John Wycliffe ,William Tyndale , ( Martin Luther with his German translation adding faith alone). God in his providence made possible the sacred scripture to bring the light from the darkness of ignorance . The seed of the kingdom has prevail the attacks of humanist like Voltaire et al. and some high Critics scholars from Harvard seminaries that put the doubts in the heart of the New Testament Christians. You are under the impression that Alexander Campbell was the founder of the church of Christ and that is a lie made by our friends the Baptist. The Anabaptist before becomes “ the Baptist “ they called themselves the church of Christ even Tyndale called himself a church of Christ ( before they took the position of John Calving and hold his TULIP) . There are evidences of churches of Christ in England before our restoration movement here in America. God in his general providence choose several men in America looking for “THE ANCIENT ORDER” “RETURN TO THE OLD PATHS” and the most notable men were the Campbells, He has the desire to restore the church of Christ as it was in the New Testament. This bring to my mind the blind man who received the sight confessing a great truth to the Pharisees saying “31 Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him.” ( John 9:31). God hear the prayer of brother Campbell and when his eyes were opened as the blind, he saw the necessity of being baptize according to the old Gospel message. He imitate the jailer and his family was baptized by a Baptist minister with the understanding that he was baptized for the forgiveness of his sins (Acts 2:38) and not to be a member of the Baptist denomination . So the providence of God works that way in the conversion of brother Campbell and family.
Jay said” we have to confess that we’re inferring from premises and not teaching the plain meaning of the scripture, because the scripture says precious little on the topic.” The baptism topic? What topic? Or do you mean about the “Silence of the Scripture” ? (Deut. 29:29). “ God always command for what he says and not for what he does not say in his word”.
Jay said “In the absence of clear guidance (as distinguished from my own inferential skills), I think the rule is grace.” The rule is the word of God and grace is what Jesus did for us in the cross allowing us be his people and be participant of the spiritual blessings. Are you saying that the message of the Holy Spirit written in the scriptures is unclear? Why do you reject the lamp ? “Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path.” (Psa. 119:105). Our Lord Jesus put us the example to know the Scriptures (Mat.4:4,7; 1 Pet. 1:21) many don’t feel the need to be “Mighty in the Scriptures” as apollos was (Acts. 18:24) Many do not feel the need to love and meditate in the Scriptures all day long ad David did (Ps. 119:97). Therefore, I exhort each and every one of us to really take this seriously, and to start keeping God’s word in our hearts like David did (ps.119:11). Philippians 3:14-16 “ I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you. 16 Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule (Gr. Kanon), let us be of the same mind. What is that rule? Gal. 6:16 “ And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.” 2 Cor. 10: 13,15,16. (A measure) 2 Tim. 3:16 The apostle Paul explain the effect of following this rule in the next versus 17, the apostle invite us to imitate his example the way he imitate Christ, “ Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern.”
We need to recognize the ruler as final Authority for determining right or wrong in measurements. How long is this line? _______. Joe may say one quarter inch; Jim may say one inch. But when the ruler reads one-half inch, Joe and Jim both give up their personal opinions. Were it not for the ruler, questions involving measurements could never be settled. All agree that his authority is essential in its field. In our spiritual realm the word of God assist man in determining what is right and wrong spiritually is even more important. In 2 Chronicles 20:6, King Jehoshaphat said: “O LORD God of our fathers, are You not God in heaven, and do You not rule over all the kingdoms of the nations, and in Your hand is there not power and might, so that no one is able to withstand You? He and the nation of Israel was fearful of their enemies and asking God help against his enemies, he declare “You rule over all the kingdoms of the nations” That affirmation is evident when our Lord Jesus have all power today ( Mt.28:18), Jesus commanded to teach every nation “ all things whatsoever I have commanded you” Mt.28:19. These nations, then, would hear the commands of Jesus through His apostles. In order to guarantee that the apostles and other inspired men would teach the truth, Jesus promised them the special guidance and teaching of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). The apostles in turn taught men what the Spirit taught (1 Cor. 2:12,13). The church then accepted the apostles’ Teachings ” not as the word of men. But as it is in truth, the word of God” (1 Thes. 2:13), Thus, an apostle’s teaching was as authoritative as Jesus’ own words. Jesus spoke through the Spirit. Who spoke through the apostles, who spoke Christ’s will to men. Further, Christ’s apostles taught all the will of Jesus. Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them into “all truth” (John 16:13). Paul later announced “I have not shunned to declare to you the whole (ALL) the counsel of God.” (Acts 20:27). See also 2 Peter 1:3. Men – yes, even angels- who rejected the apostles’ teachings as final religious authority, were accursed of God (Gal.1:6-9).
Fortunately, the apostles and other inspired men recorded their teachings in written for future generations. For example: Peter wrote so that after his death the church might have a permanent record of his teachings (2 Peter 1:12-15). Luke wrote so that his readers might know accurately the teaching they had already received orally (Luke 1:3,4).John wrote his gospel so that men might believe in Christ and have eternal life (John 20:30,31) and he wrote his epistles to keep Christians from sinning ( 1 John 2:1). Paul said he wrote that the church might “understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:3-4). Consequently, what these inspired men wrote was to be regarded as “the commandments of God” (1 Cor. 14:37). Inspired men obviously recorded Christ’s will in the New Testament. Paul writing during that these scriptures were almost completed, said “ ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16,17). NOTICE! The Bible contains everything necessary to furnish man “unto all good works” and to make him “perfect” Since the Scriptures furnish man unto EVERY good work, no other source of information is necessary( The bible interpret the Bible). Any work furnished from another source, which can not be found in the Scriptures, is not a GOOD work, for the Scriptures furnish “unto all good Works” Also 2 Timothy 3:16,17, says that the Scriptures contain sufficient knowledge to make man “perfect.” Obviously, one becomes perfect through the word of God “in all the will of God” (Col. 4:12). Since the Bible contains all the of Christ’s will, the church was not to rely on “cathesism,Synods,Councils,opinions, feelings , assumptions, imaginations etc.” or “go” beyond “that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). Those who added to, or subtracted from the apostle “writings were to suffer eternal punishment (Revelation 22:18,19).
Do you know why God did not give us specific instructions in his sacred book? because he wants us study the Scriptures and abide to his will living the whole counsel of God . I can tell what the psalmist said “Your word I have hidden in my heart, That I might not sin against you.” (Psalm 119:11) because at the end we are going to be judge by his Word.
Jay,
why do you stop the truth? remember what is said in 2 Thes. 2:12 “that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. the apostle peter said “13 and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you,”
guestfortruth, on August 24th, 2011 at 10:10 am Said: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
guestfortruth, on August 24th, 2011 at 3:47 pm Said: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
you have said before that is your spam filter but I don’t believe you, you have hidden things from your readers and that is not honest and God knows.
GuestforTruth,
You call me dishonest for no reason. Your comments get trapped in the spam filter because they are so long, and I can’t change that. Accusing me of dishonesty with no evidence of all, in a public forum, is intolerable behavior because it is the very opposite of Christian behavior. It will not be tolerated.
(Eph 4:31 ESV) 31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.
(Col 3:8 ESV) 8 But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.
(1Pe 2:1 ESV) So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander.
In fact, your comments are in the spam filter. Well, one was, but has been released. The other remains. And it will remain there because I’m blocking you from further comments for 30 days. If you want to be reinstated, email me on or after September 24, and we’ll talk.
Well, I found it an interesting article and look forward to reading the next ones (already out….but I only have so much time. LOL) I have two comments to make:
1. I don’t know how anyone could seperate the “trust” out of faith since in many cases (but not all) you almost have to use ‘trust’ in place of faith.
2. I hope this thought on Baptism will help. In the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, the command of the commission is given. Go….baptize. In the book of Acts, we see the Apostles going out and doing just. Pentecost, Samaria, the Eunuch, Cornelius, Saul, jailors, sellers of purple, etc.
Then we have in the Epistles statements that look back to the baptism that the beleivers did. Statements that explain in fuller detail what that baptism meant from God’s perspective and what it should mean to us now that ‘we have been buried with him’
A view like that seperates the necessity from the meaning. The apostles had NO CHOICE but to preach baptism as they preached the Gospel…it was a direct command from Jesus. Understanding what baptsim meant in its fullest sense does not seem to be required—unless you think the Epistiles are reminding readers what they knew rather then providing new informaiotn.
I choose to take the Baptists, Evangelicals and such to task specifically for NOT preaching the Gospel as Christ commanded and Peter exemplified. When Phillip “preached Jesus” the response of the Eunuch was “here is water, why can’t I be baptized”. Today, people “preach Jesus” and people walk away thinking they are saved w/o even hearing about a baptism.
Could we argue that a person who beleived, once baptized is saved? Could we argue a person who waits till spring to be baptized 5 months later is saved in their faith? Sure….but do we have the authority to tell a person he is? No. We do have the authority to tell a beleiver who has been baptized into Christ that they are ‘based on their faith’, saved. I think we should stick to what we can read.
Oh, someone commented about Paul’s ‘not being sent to baptize” It is a hard verse until you look at the whole chapter context and realize that Paul DID baptize (something he wouldn’t have done if Christ had not sent him to do ANY baptizing) but rather his emphasis was not to baptize disciples to him. He still taught baptism and the Gospel as the death, burial, and ressurection which we as believers practice.
my 2 cents. and comments welcome.