Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I'm a big time spewer. Spew...Spew...Spew! CoC... Spew... no instruments...spew...something about baptistm...spew...spew...spew....
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A question of authority
- Thread starter Watermaker
- Start date
SpiritualMadMan
New Member
Matt, there is a big difference between passionately debating and defending ones beliefs and proselytizing, (actively trying to coerce or entice someone to change their religious affiliation.)
Just a thought.
No, some of "us" are lukewarm Christians that accept anyone's belief if think we should all just get along. Glad not all of "us" are like that.
Matt, there is a big difference between passionately debating and defending ones beliefs and proselytizing, (actively trying to coerce or entice someone to change their religious affiliation.)
Just a thought.
Defending of false religions is not allowed on this board. Should we allow muslims, hindus, and buddists in here next?
Matt, why the hostility? If Watermaker is proselytizing, he is either disguising it very well or doing a very sorry job of it. The purpose of this forum is to have a free and sometimes very frank discussion of various beliefs, and Watermaker is simply saying that since we all have the same Bible we ought to agree on what it says. Nothing wrong with that premise, although it leads to some interesting questions. Let's discuss the issue and refrain from attacking Watermaker for no other reason than that he belongs to the Church of Christ.
SpiritualMadMan
New Member
Watermaker - one of the problems we have is something I call "Spiritual-One-Up-Man-Ship".
Where, no matter the debate or scriptural foundation no one else can be right but "me".
Paul had problems with people who declared that eating meat at any time and under any conditions was wrong. Whereas some others were strong enough in the Lord that they didn't really care where their meat came from... The NT Scriptures are not Black & White on this area. Except to say that if my eating meat offends my brother, I will refrain from eating meat.
There are a number of topics like this.
But, none, IMHO, that directly affect Salvation.
It's when we make them an issue that separates that we need to stand back and ask ourselves is this (minor) point of doctrine worth the division?
(Is it *MY* cause or is it His Cross?)
And, yes, John 17 is also one of my Favorites...
And, I will strongly suggest that the reason the World doesn't know Jesus is come in the Flesh is because we can not be united on such a basic level as reaching the Lost and Salvation.
Yes, if I am to live and move within a Baptist church then I need to be comfotable and familiar with Baptist Doctrine.
The same is true of any church that Preaches Jesus Christ God's Son Savior, Lamb of God, under whose name is Man's Only Hope of Salavtion through Grace and not of works lest any man should boast.
But, then works do play a part in the Faith Walk, not because we have to but because we want to. And, they will be tried by fire.
But, I ramble...
Where, no matter the debate or scriptural foundation no one else can be right but "me".
Paul had problems with people who declared that eating meat at any time and under any conditions was wrong. Whereas some others were strong enough in the Lord that they didn't really care where their meat came from... The NT Scriptures are not Black & White on this area. Except to say that if my eating meat offends my brother, I will refrain from eating meat.
There are a number of topics like this.
But, none, IMHO, that directly affect Salvation.
It's when we make them an issue that separates that we need to stand back and ask ourselves is this (minor) point of doctrine worth the division?
(Is it *MY* cause or is it His Cross?)
And, yes, John 17 is also one of my Favorites...
And, I will strongly suggest that the reason the World doesn't know Jesus is come in the Flesh is because we can not be united on such a basic level as reaching the Lost and Salvation.
Yes, if I am to live and move within a Baptist church then I need to be comfotable and familiar with Baptist Doctrine.
The same is true of any church that Preaches Jesus Christ God's Son Savior, Lamb of God, under whose name is Man's Only Hope of Salavtion through Grace and not of works lest any man should boast.
But, then works do play a part in the Faith Walk, not because we have to but because we want to. And, they will be tried by fire.
But, I ramble...
No, these groups don't believe in Christ. CoC does. Not like the LDS, whose concept of Christ is false, but like us, they believe in a Trinitarian God. So what, if they don't like musical instruments (a goofy idea, but not harmful). So what if they believe in baptism for the remission of sins. They also refuse to baptize without a profession of faith--just like us. Matt, have you ever attended a CoC service? Did you know that many of them allow all baptized believers to receive the Lord's Supper at their church? So just what are you talking about when you say "cult"?
My last post on this thread. I'm not on this board to debate about cults. The final thing I'll say is that CoC does not believe in Christ. Christ is able to save man all by Himself. CoC does not believe Christ can do that.
LOL
Matt, this is very offensive to those of us who do our best to be sensitive to the beliefs and convictions of other believers. I'm pretty sure you don't have the last word on any of this. You, like the rest of us, is prone to theological error.
By the way, do you have any higher theological training? Accredited?
Just wondering.
CoC believe in the redemptive work of Christ.
The others do not.
It's not the same thing.
preacher4truth
Active Member
Uh, not necessarily.
Some of my family was CoC.
They believed they were:
1. Saved by baptism. ALMOST.
And:
2. Needed works to finish it.
My grandfather on his deathbed, through witnessing to him, asked if he could be saved right then. In tears he renounced these beliefs, repented of being such a sinner, and begged forgiveness and to trust only in the finished work of Christ alone. He told me trusting in baptism didn't feel comfortable. BTW, he was never baptized after believing. He died a couple days later. He never was conscious from the next day on. My wife and I prayed and prayed for him to believe and he did.
Matt Wade has a valid point. I stand with his point.
Watermaker
New Member
Matt, I'd be happy to give you book, chapter and verse for everything I teach, believe, and practice if you like. While we may differ on matters of opinion, neither of us would have to surrender a single matter of faith in our discussions, though a surprising number of people don't know the difference.
Watermaker
New Member
Well my group, of course! Just kidding...
Well, as a starting point, I'd suggest that we first try to agree on at least the possibility that the Bible can be understood by all men alike. I think that to say otherwise would indicate that God is either unjust, or that perhaps He is unable to effectively communicate with His creation, man. I doubt that any here would attempt to support either idea. Jesus indicated that a proper interpretation of Scripture was possible.
Luk 10:26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
Notice two questions:
1. What's written?
2. How do you read (interpret) it?
Would anyone not agree that this is a fair representation of the text?
Next the response:
Luk 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
This man simply quoted the Scriptures. He didn't paraphrase, comment, add to, or diminish aught from, he just quoted. And how did Jesus rate the man's response?
Luk 10:28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
IMO, the implication is that the fellow could have answered wrong.
Another example might be God's instructions to the Israelites concerning putting blood on the mantle and the door posts. I've not read of ANY confusion with those instructions. None of the Israelites (to my knowledge anyway) lost any of their first-born on that dreadful night. There was no disagreement on what was to be done to avoid that 10th plague. God told them what to do and they did it, period.
I don't figure God was out to fool anyone when He inspired those apostles and prophets to speak and write what they spoke and wrote. He wants all men to be saved. The terms of salvation under the New Testament in Jesus' Blood have been the same for all men since the first Pentecost after the Resurrection (Acts 2). Our responsibility is to look to the Scriptures and ask the same question asked by those who first heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ: What must we do to be saved? What were they told? How did they respond? Why would we do any differently?
I need to go to bed, but I'll check back in the morning. I look forward to hearing from you all.
In this assessment you are wrong. They do require baptism as a requirement for salvation. They believe that without baptism one cannot be saved. That is not just like us!
That is what sets them apart as a cult. It is a works=based message of salvation, requiring the WORK of salvation to be saved. Salvation is wholly of God--by grace through faith and not of yourself. It is the gift of God, NOT OF WORKS. Baptism is a work, something that man does.
Watermaker
New Member
Watermaker
New Member
Sorry, I told myself I'd try to keep on topic, but as far afield as this thread has gone already...oh well.
Watermaker
New Member
Missed this question earlier, but I attend one of the churches of Christ in TN. I find "church" with a small c in Romans 16:16,
Rom 16:16 Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.
Hope I'm in the cool one.
Watermaker
New Member
You know, all this talk of baptism and such is a perfect example of the reason for this thread. Most here insist that baptism is not necessary for salvation. Others, like myself, teach and believe that it is. Adherents to each point of view cite Scriptures from the same Bible, (often from the same version) to show why they believe as they do. This is not unity! This is confusion, and we all know who the author of confusion is, right?
The simple fact of the matter is that both views cannot be right. Somewhere, sometime, ideas other than God's have entered into the discussion. Authority derived somewhere other than the Bible has been introduced. There are only two sources of authority - Heaven, and man (Luke 20:4). What I'd like to do is delve into the Scriptures and doctrines of each view and determine which is right. And of course, I think I'm right. However, I recognize that I'm human, and therefore fallible.
So, if we can all take a break from accusing each other of heresy and such, perhaps we can dare to closely examine our own beliefs to find out what they're based on. It's good to inspect the foundations from time to time (2 Pet 1:10; 2 Cor 13:5).
The simple fact of the matter is that both views cannot be right. Somewhere, sometime, ideas other than God's have entered into the discussion. Authority derived somewhere other than the Bible has been introduced. There are only two sources of authority - Heaven, and man (Luke 20:4). What I'd like to do is delve into the Scriptures and doctrines of each view and determine which is right. And of course, I think I'm right. However, I recognize that I'm human, and therefore fallible.
So, if we can all take a break from accusing each other of heresy and such, perhaps we can dare to closely examine our own beliefs to find out what they're based on. It's good to inspect the foundations from time to time (2 Pet 1:10; 2 Cor 13:5).
preacher4truth
Active Member
[/QUOTE]
Yes, you believe you're fallible, but not in this doctrine. In that, you see your view as infallible. So your use of humilty and being fallible is not even used in context to truth. Sir, please. The only way there will be unity here on this issue is if both sides accept and embrace the other person and his or her view. That is not going to happen. The following will reveal as to why, at least for me, and perhaps for others.
Plain and simply, I don't accept your view. As you read on, you will discover why, and so will others. Your entire premise is to capture someone to your side. It's not just that you care to have pure dialogue, your intent is to convince one, or more, to believe that you are right, and all along they have been wrong. This will not and does not stop at or on the doctrine of baptism. It's the begininning point to other beliefs you desire the person(s) to embrace. Once this is accomplished, the said person(s) will then see our side as wrong, as you do, and your side as right.
No matter how diplomatic you are attempting to sound, I know coC , and what they really think and feel towards our camp. They were my family. No one over here, IMO, is going to come over to your side on this issue. And by the way, unity isn't something we generate. That's the fallacy of the world. We guard the unity. It's something we already possess. Check Ephesians 4, especially 4:3, where we are to keep the unity. Something we already possess. This, the church is not to create it, it is to guard it and keep what they already have. So this ideology that thinks we are as a church to all of a sudden somewhere in history, all come together, and accept all others beliefs, is not what is being taught here.
Now you desire to move onto foundations, in other words history of the teachings of Campbell. This is the next level. It always centers around this idea that "the Baptists will be shocked and awed, they heard we came from Alexander Campbell (which you did) and I will prove them wrong!" Friend, I've heard it all from all of you, again, my family was coC.
Most people on this site are well aware of the teachings of the coC.
Also, how many on here have not been baptized? So what's the point? Well there is a point and an agenda. That's the entire reason watermaker is here. He knows you've been most likely baptized by immersion, but that is not good enough. Look, if it were all about making certain you were baptized and left at that, there would be no point whatsoever. But that is not what is at stake here, to him, it's who administered it, and under what authority, and name on the building, and belief about this and that, and on and on and on.
The whole point is, the coc does not accept the Baptists baptism. Thats a well know fact. Of course the person here may argue otherwise, but not only do I have family that is coC but as a pastor, I have families that came out of coC, and they hold still, (not the ones who came to our church, the ones still in coC's)and is popular, that they will not and due not accept or believe that Baptist baptisms are "efficacious" in other words, it is meaningless. Why? Because unless it is administered to one who believes as watermaker here does, then it is invalid and unscriptural. So with all the diplomatic behavior, and all the niceties aside, that is the truth of the matter. So when one goes off on others here, and says we need to accept them (coC) and their beliefs, be full aware they do not accept yours, and that you are not looking at the intent of said, nor at all the beliefs. So behind the scenes, at the end of the day, they do not accept Baptist baptisms, which means friends, they do not accept YOUR personal baptism as valid, or your doctrine, and if you don't agree with them, well, I'll let your imagination figure that one out.
For further knowledge of where these teachings have culminated, look for , google, Campbellism, Campbellites &c. There is some drivel out there on the matter, but you'll find the truth out about this sect. Also, the name of the church to them is very important, and if the sign does not say "church of Christ" then it is unscriptural. After all, they say, "What church did Paul belong to?" And many more things like this they teach to indoctrinate this into people, about the name on the building has to be correct or it is and cannot be a church whatsoever. The name of the Church on the sign is not what designates the local body as belonging to God. That's heresy and adding to the Gospel.
Let's put it in perspective:
1. They believe you must be water baptized, or you are not given a chance to get to heaven. Which is really what it is to them, only a chance. To think or know you are truly saved, right now, is to them, for the most part, heresy. This is adding to the Gospel.
2. If you have been baptized by a Baptist, it does not count.
3. Unless you have been properly baptized by a coC, then you just have not been Scripturally baptized at all.
4. Paul belong to what church? Well, of course, (they say) to the church of Christ. Thus...(and you can go on with this yourselves)
5. If your church is not named church of Christ, it is apostate.
6. Although we have all been baptized, it does not suffice them whatsoever. To leave it at that is not enough.
7. What is the name on your building?
8. What allowances do you use in worship as far as musical instruments are concerned?
9. If these are allowed, in addition to the name on the building this further makes your local body unscriptural.
10. "Give me an Acts (axe) and 2 .38's and I will destroy any Baptist". An allusion to Acts 2:38, wherein, we undertand as Baptists we are baptized "because of" not "so that" are sins can be forgiven. They believe otherwise, that we are baptized in order to be forgiven, or we are not forgiven at all. I know it sounds goofy, but they still use this phrase to this day.
11. Furthermore, there would not be this debate, if coC did not believe we are missing something in the Gospel, and thus, we are amiss, and must be brought to truth. Watermaker simply would not be here otherwise if it were simply a matter of whether or not we are water baptized. It's about by whom, and for what intent.
One last note. The church of Christ uses a tombstones epitaph, as proof the church of Christ existed before Alexander Campbell (1788-1866) dated 1807, that says this: "William Rogers born in Campbell County Virginia July 7, 1784 removed with his father to Cane Ridge, Bourbon County, April 1798. United with the church of Christ at Cane Ridge in 1807. Died February 15, 1862 in the 78th year of his age. He was the friend of God.” They use this as "proof" they existed prior to Campbells influence. Not much proof there, and it is extrabiblical anyhow. This tombstone is used by many to "prove" their point.
There is much more but that is enough. You have to know what they truly believe about you, and your salvation experience, and the fact they reject your church, your baptism, all of it. That's the bottom line about them.
- In Him
:jesus:
Last edited by a moderator: