Church of Christ Question

Churches of Christ don't necessarily have some predetermined set of rules or doctrines that one must confess in order to become a member. It is their attempt and belief to go BACK to the bible after man and doctrine had strayed the church from that which was originally composed by Jesus and the Apostles. The bible(Word of God) is the doctrine, the ONLY doctrine! So it is here that the fundamental arguments and disagreements over such things as baptism and salvation, once saved always saved and other religious doctrines have their origens and have been debated many times over. I can not venture to say how many threads and how long of threads have been on this site concerning 'baptism', 'once saved always saved', 'speaking in tongues' as well as many issues with all sides concerned arguing veheminately that their point is right! All state that theirs is straight from the bible! Well as a member of the Church of Christ, and not one so intolerant as you have made them all to be, and one who has done many years of study regarding baptism, eschatology, etc., I have debated relentlessly on this site with several other denominations who all also believe they are right and the others are wrong. Surely the bible can not support so many differnt and diverse doctrines as ALL truth, can it? Many supporting their beliefs on these so called "controversial" subjects will use a passage or two yet deny many more. The bible in its entirety must be the source of truth regarding these topics and NOT man made doctrines!!!

 

I was born and raised in the Church of Christ denomination and years ago used to think as your in-laws do. That is a way of thinking that is somewhat prevalent among the 50-years-old-and-over members of the Church of Christ. I doubt that most of the under-50-years-old members believe that way anymore.

 

I was raised in a Baptist church, saved in a Baptist church, baptized and ordained in a Baptist church, have pastored 3 Baptist churches over the past 20+ years, and, if God grants me continued sanity, will die a Baptist.

For years I labored under the delusion that Baptists despised the Campbellites because they were in doctrinal error. While this is doubtless true for some, I finally realized that many Baptists despise the Campbellites, not so much because they are wrong, but because they think they are exclusively right.

If you want to fault the Campbellites fault them because they believe in salvation by good works and deny the direct work of the Holy Spirit on man's heart - for that is the essence of Campbellism. But don't fault them for thinking that right is exclusively right. That is not spiritual pride - that is just plain common sense.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Yeah, that's because most of the "under-50" crowd - Campbellite or otherwise - doesn't believe in much of anything anymore other than having a party and calling it church.

Mark Osgatharp

 

I find myself often disagreeing with your posts, Mark, but you are spot on in that assessment.

KenH(who just graduated from the "under-50" group two weeks ago )

 

As far as I know the Church of Christ movement believes that baptism is necessary for salvation. That is a works based salvation; not salvation through grace by faith. The Bible says that we are justifed by faith. It also says: "For by grace are ye saved by faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast."
Baptism is a work, a work of man.

Every member of the Church of Christ that has ever posted here believes that baptism is necessary for salvation--baptismal regeneration.
I don't believe a person can be saved unless they put their faith in Christ alone; not faith in Christ plus....
Faith in Christ plus baptism.
Faith in Christ plus your church.
Faith in Christ plus the seven sacraments
Faith in Christ plus keeping the Sabbath
Faith in Christ plus the Ten Commandments
Faith in Christ plus Circumcision
Faith in Christ plus confirmation, etc. etc.

Salvation = Faith in Christ, and faith alone in Christ. If Christ alone is not the object of your faith, then you are not saved. "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith..."
DHK

 

I am no longer a Church of Christ member having left back in 1999 but one can certainly place his faith in Christ without believing that he is adding to his faith by thinking that a believer needs to be baptized.

I am not going to write anyone out of being saved. God saves whom He wills when He wills regardless if there are faults in his/her understanding of the Bible.

None of us have perfect faith, perfect understanding, or perfect anything within ourselves. And we certainly have no business thinking that our own understanding of the Bible is going to limit God's grace.

 

A man can have faulty understanding of many things in the Bible and yet be saved. But if a man's understanding of what it takes to be saved is faulty, then I contend that he is not saved.

For example, if a man trusts in Christ to save him but is led into the error of sprinkling for baptism or open communion, he is saved; because correct baptism or communion are not conditions of being saved.

But if a man thinks he is saved because he was baptized - or anything else other than trusting Christ - he is not saved; because you can't be saved in any way other than trusting Christ.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Just curious, have you ever heard a Church of Christ member state that he/she was saved because he/she was baptized?

 

Many times; on this board.
In fact one of them bluntly came out and told me that I was not saved because I did not believe that baptism was a part of salvation. My "gospel" was different than "his gospel" and I concur.

 

Bro. James i agree with you in theory but (unless I'm mistaken) Alexander Campbell was more aligned with the Christian Church ( Deciples of Christ) than the Church of Christ.
There mas a movement which came out of the Cane Ridge Revival of 1801 in Bourbon county KEntucky, that was referred to as the Strong Campbell Movement.
Barton w. Strong was the Presbryterian Pastor at Cane Ridge and Alesxander Campbell was involved in the movement. Church of Christ sometimes refer to a Preacher from that revival by the name of "Racoon Smith" that would be more in line with what they teach than Alexander Campblell.
I have howver heard people refer to Church of Christ people as Campbellites but Church of Christ do not generally refer to themselves as Campbellites. there is a lot of fascinating history associate4d with the Cane Ridge Revival and Just outside of Paris Kentucky stands to old Cane Ridge Meeting House.
I have been there and have Cane Ridge read a few books about this. My Favotrite was
"Cane Ridge , America's Pentecost". I think the book is out of print but can be found on internet out of print book sites, such as amazon etc.

 

Did they state that they were saved because they were baptized regardless of whether they had come to Jesus in repentance and faith?

 

1) That is true. Campbell aligned himself with the group that approved of instrumental music in the worship service and that approved of missionary societies.

2) No, they don't. It is a perjorative term.

 

Did they state that they were saved because they were baptized regardless of whether they had come to Jesus in repentance and faith? </font>[/QUOTE]They state that there are five specific acts that a man must "DO" in order to be saved. I don't know if I can remember them all accurately, but I believe it goes like this:

faith + confession + repentance + calling + baptism = salvation.

If one of the aforementioned is missing then a person is not saved. Each one is considered a work in itself, but they are "works of God" (even baptism), not of man.
DHK

 

I was taught it was:

Hear + Believe + Repent + Confess + Baptism

The idea of five points came initially from Walter Scott(my personal favorite when I was a Church of Christ member):

"During his years in Pittsburgh, Scott concluded that the confession that "Jesus is the Christ" was important. He decided this proposition stood at the very center of the entire Christian faith. Everything else, he believed, flowed from that confession. In time Scott developed a "plan of salvation" which he held to be the "gospel restored." He demonstrated this "plan" using a "five finger" exercise and he used it to great advantage. Scott's exercise is not the usual "five finger" exercise used today. As Scott went through his fingers he explained it was:

Faith to change the heart.

Repentance to change the life.

Baptism to change the state.

Remission of sins to cleanse the guilt.

The gift of the Holy Spirit to make one a participant in the Divine Nature."

- LINK

 

To All,

bmerr here. Thought I'd stop in and see what's up for discussion. Nice to see mman still hanging in there.

If I may adress DHK's comment, "They state that there are five specific acts that a man must "DO" in order to be saved", I'd like to point out that it is not the church of Christ that came up with the plan of salvation. Each one is supported by Scripture, and examples can be found of each one. DHK had the five steps almost right. The five steps are:

- hear the word of God (Rom 10:17)
- believe (John 8:24; 3:16)
- repent of sins (Luke 13:3, 5; Acts 2:38; 17:30)
- confess Jesus as the Son of God (Rom 10:9; Acts 8:37)
- be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Roim 6:17, 18)

At this point, one becomes a Christian. Following this, one must live faithfully until death (Rev 2:10).

The pattern of faith, repentance, and baptism is found in each conversion account in Acts. It's not the church of Christ's plan, it's God's plan.

Something to keep in mind about Eph 2:8, 9 is that the works by which man is not saved are works of which one might boast, such as good deeds, or the keeping of the Mosaic Law. All works are not ruled out by Eph 2:8, 9.

Scripture is quite clear about the fact that one must "work righteousness" to be accepted by God (Acts 10:35; Is 64:5). Paul opens and closes his letter to the Romans with mentions of obedience (1:5; 16:19). Obedience to God's commands is not something of which a man would boast. All the obedient man could say is "We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do" (Luke 17:10).

Concerning one's understanding of baptism being important, it seems illogical to think that one could be taught error and obey truth. If one is baptized as a public declaration of their faith in christ, believing that their sins have already been washed away, then their baptism is not for the purpose God intended it to be (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16). One should wonder then, "Whose purpose was served by such a baptism?"

Just as there was only one door by which one could get into Noah's ark, there is only one way to get "into Christ", and that way is baptism (Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27). If anyone can find another way in, let me know.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

This is a works-based religion. It is not by grace through faith as the Bible teaches. It is through works is one saved, as stated above. Bmerr's post makes this quite clear.

"But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." (Isa.64:6)
DHK

 

DHK,

bmerr here. Nice to hear from you, too. Let me encourage you to back up in Isaiah one verse for the sake of context.

Is 64:5, 6

"Thou meetest him that rejoiceth and worketh righteousness, those that remember thee in thy ways: behold, thou art wroth; for we have sinned: in those is continuance, and we shall be saved.

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."

Notice the contrast between "righteousness", "thy ways", "those" in verse 5 with "our righteousnesses", and "our iniquities" in verse 6.

God accepts those who work His righteousness, and remember Him in His ways. Those who do so will be saved.

On the other hand, those who insist on their own righteousness and remain in their sins by not obeying God end up being taken away by their iniquities.

I gave Scripture references to back up my statement. I didn't make it up. One was Acts 10:35, where it is written,

"But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him",

and the other was Is 64:5, which is given above.

That's God's Word you're arguing against.

In Christ,

bmerr