Churches of Christ

I agree. This happens with Chinese who practice ancestor worship. Parents don't care if you go to church and even become a Christian, but they do not want you to get baptized.

 

I am not meaning this to turn into a discussion about Baptism, but to keep it about what the OP wanted.

I have been told that Churches of Christ with cities in their name such as "Springfield Church of Christ" are different from other CoC. Is this true?

 

I am not meaning this to turn into a discussion about Baptism, but to keep it about what the OP wanted.

I have been told that Churches of Christ with cities in their name such as "Springfield Church of Christ" are different from other CoC. Is this true? </font>[/QUOTE]No, that is not necessarily true. Each congregation is autonomous. There is no set of guidelines or man made directions. Even without any creed or manmade doctrine, the same thing is taught among most congregations. I have been to many, many congregations in my life, and without exception, they have all taught the same thing concerning how one gets into Christ, where salvation is found. However, even the church of the first century had problems and division that needed to be corrected, and the church is no different today.

 

So which is it? Is it by Baptism or the Blood?

So Baptism washes away your sins, but it's not Baptism that saves you because there is no power in water, it is the Blood of Christ which saves, but wait, no, it's Baptism that saves you????? Makes perfect sense

Matthew 3:11
"As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. </font>[/QUOTE]There is one baptism (Eph 4:5). Which is it? If you pick with the Holy Spirit, you better be prepared to show when water baptism was abolished.

What cured Naaman? The water or God? Could he have been cured without dipping in the water? Would a person today be cured of leprosy by dipping in the Jordan river 7 times? If you can understand this concept, then you can understand what the New Testament says about baptism.

 

What cured Naaman? The water or God?
God

Could he have been cured without dipping in the water?

Yes, obviously, how many healings did Jesus perform without water being involved?

Would a person today be cured of leprosy by dipping in the Jordan river 7 times?

No, they would just be wet.
Unless that is what God told them to do.

2 Kings 5 (Naaman is healed)
10Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, "Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh will be restored to you and you will be clean."

11But Naaman was furious and went away and said, "Behold, I thought, 'He will surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, and wave his hand over the place and cure the leper.'

12"Are not Abanah and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?" So he turned and went away in a rage.

13Then his servants came near and spoke to him and said, "My father, had the prophet told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more then, when he says to you, 'Wash, and be clean'?"

14So he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child and he was clean.

The purpose of Naaman dipping in the Jordan was not because the Jordan had (or has) any magical healing powers over leprosy, but to humble Naaman. This is evident from his response to what Elisha told him to do in verses 11 and 12.
Naaman was looking for a quick fix, but instead he had to swallow his pride before he would be healed.

 

Exactly. The same is true with baptism. He gave us instructions to be baptized for the remission of sins and we obey whether we can figure it out or not. The power is always in God, not the actions. However, ingoring the instructions and expecting to receive the promise is another thing.

I agree with all your answers except that after Naaman received his instructions could not have been healed if he ignored them. Yes, I agree that God could have chosen another way, as He often did, but the promised result was always obtained after faithful obedience. When Jesus spit in the dirt and made mud and told the guy to go wash, I'm sure it might have seemed foolish to those around him, but he obeyed and received his sight. The power is in God, not the spit, dirt, or water.

 

Well, then we are in agreement.

I meant that God did not have to use the Jordan to heal Naaman, not that Naaman could rebel and still be healed if he had dipped in a river of his choosing when God specified the Jordan.

 

double post

[ May 04, 2006, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: gtbuzzarp ]

 

Actually, some Churches of Christ are loosening up on such things as instrumental music, etc.

As far as baptism goes, Presbyterians, Mdethodists, Catholic/Orhtodox, and Churches of Christ are in agreement as to baptism's importance; we simply disagree on when and how wet.

 

That is the scriptural ideal of baptism, as it was originally established. Because of the development of the Church into organizations, which then divided into thousands, baptism became associated with "joining" an organization. And it was often held off until the person was initiated and taught the doctrines of the organization, which could take weeks or months. This is how baptism became separated from the initial act of conversion, and then became a "flippant" option.

But the Church of Christ position is to make it the agent of salvation, and that is NOT to be commended, as it violates the basic Gospel.

A more biblical model would be if Billy Graham and other evangelists set up a pool in their rallies and added baptism to their altar calls, and pointed the converts to solid biblical Churches, and the baptism did not require joining "their church". Then, it would be restored to the role it played in the NT.

 

That is the scriptural ideal of baptism, as it was originally established. Because of the development of the Church into organizations, which then divided into thousands, baptism became associated with "joining" an organization. And it was often held off until the person was initiated and taught the doctrines of the organization, which could take weeks or months. This is how baptism became separated from the initial act of conversion, and then became a "flippant" option.

But the Church of Christ position is to make it the agent of salvation, and that is NOT to be commended, as it violates the basic Gospel.

A more biblical model would be if Billy Graham and other evangelists set up a pool in their rallies and added baptism to their altar calls, and pointed the converts to solid biblical Churches, and the baptism did not require joining "their church". Then, it would be restored to the role it played in the NT. </font>[/QUOTE]The basic gospel is the good news about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (I Cor 15:1-4).

Baptism is how we obey the death, burial, and resurrection (Rom 6:3-4, 17).

Jesus said, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." - Mark 16:15-16

When I teach, "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved", how is that violating the basic gospel? Do you really think Jesus wants us to go teach the whole world something that violates the gospel?

 

Part of the Gospel is that before we even get to the good news, there has to be bad news that necessitated the good news in the first place.
The bad news is that man is fallen, and cannot save himself by any deeds he does, and that even with "God's instructions" (Gal.3:21). So the good news is not more works (pattered after the OT). So once again, that passage is not saying that Baptism is what saves; baptism is not the focus, just something that was to show that one believed.

 

So Jesus didn't really mean, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" when he said, "He that beliveth and is baptized shall be saved."???

He really menat, "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized"? If that's what He meant, why didn't He just say that or do you think He was confused and got it all mixed up?

Is that your gameplan to twist Jesus' words and hope He is OK with it?

It takes faith to believe Jesus' when He said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved".

 

I'm not twisting or denying Jesus' word; you're the one twisting them into "he who is not baptized in addition to believing is not saved", and that's not what it says. Once a person believed, baptism was not a question back then. So that is not the subject, as if that is what completes salvation.

 

Baptism makes a person wet. If you are baptized in a polluted river and swallow some of the water and consequently get sick, the consequece of getting sick may be the "inward" happening that you are talking about. Otherwisde demonstrate what happens inwardly when you get baptized. Are you resorting the RCC doctrine that the baptismal waters have some magical power in and of themselves to impart grace? Will they make you "feel" more holy, or just make you "feel" more clean because you just had a bath. Jeremiah mocks at your view of baptism.

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.
DHK

 

No, the poster wanted the OP, as stated, answered. You deliberately avoided that. You answered as David Koresh or Jim Jones would have answered. Afer all "they believed the Bible too."
The fact of the matter is: You do not believe what the Bible says about baptism. Thus simply state your beliefs as a member of the COC instead of beating around the bush.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]OK, DHK, let's see who really believes what the bible says about baptism and who doesn't!</font>[/QUOTE]I will answer your objections. But note that you did not answer the OP. You answered like any cult would answer; like Jim Jones would answer; like David Koresh would answer--evasively--"we believe the Bible." All the cults "believe the Bible." Mormons defend the practice of polygamy from the Bible. Do you? Why not? Don't you believe the Bible? You position is absurd. The OP stated "What are the beliefs of the COC. You did not answer that. You evaded it.

You are the one that rejects the teaching of Mark 16:16 simply because you don't understand English grammar. You twist the meaning of the verse to make it fit into your own pre-conceived theology, even if it goes contrary to the entire totality of Scripture. Let me give you an example:

Matthew 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
--Taking Christ's yoke is becoming one with Christ. It has many pictures, one of which is salvation. Under a yoke we are one with Christ.
Thus it says; "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me,...and ye shall find rest unto your souls." How does one find rest (salvation)? Not by learning, but by taking the yoke of Christ upon him. That is where the rest comes in. Christ takes the yoke. We bear nothing. Learning contributes nothing to acquiring rest. This is plain simple grammar. Often a second clause is put in but not ocnditional to the resulting object. The condition is in the primary clause only. And so it is in Mark 16:16. The conditon is in the primary clause only: "believe." This is evidenced by the second half of the verse where baptism isn't even mentioned (he that is baptized not).
If you can't understand English grammar in the light of other Scripture, then you are doomed to confusion.

I don't twist Scripture. All Scripture is in harmony. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. You make the Bible contradict itself.
"Be baptized...(eis) for the remission of sins."
John said:
Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water (eis)unto repentance:
--Did John baptize because they had repented or so repentance would come (as you believe). You believe that somehow the magic in the water will bring repentance. John certainly didn't. Neither did Peter.

Of course! I am not a Hindu. Are you? Do you wash in the Ganges River expecting the "holy" waters of that polluted river will wash away your sins.

I say again, Jereemiah mocks at your beliefs:
Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.
--At the time of Acts 22:16 Paul had already called upon the name of the Lord. He was already saved. This verse has the sense of "thy sins having been washed away."

A person is baptized into Christ. Where do you get the idea that he isn't. The above passage is purely symbolic teaching the meaning of baptism. When a person is baptized it is symbolic of his old life being dead to sin. His old life of sin is buried and he raised again, in newness of life symbolizing the new life that he has in Jesus Christ. This is a beautiful picture of our salvation in Jesus Christ. If it isn't a picture (or symbolic), then your salvation is no different than Hinduism.

The baptism takes place at salvation. It is the baptism of the spirit. So, yes, the verse plainly teaches salvation by faith and faith alone.
For as the previous verse states:

Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
--No baptism mentioned there. Why not mention the context?

Who were you baptized by: man or God? Baptism is a work of man.
Where on earth did you quote from? The COC specialty version? Here is what the KJV says:

Colossians 2:12 Buried 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.
--We are (symbolically) buried with him in baptism.
--Symbolically we are also risen with through faith. It is a picture. The same picture is given in Rom.6:3,4. We are not Hindus.
--Symbolically he has raised us from the dead. That is the picture given in baptism as the preacher brings us up out of the water. God doesn't bring us up out of the water. A man does. It is a work of man. Man does it. It is symbolic of what God does in our lives at salvation. We do not believe in the superstitions of Hinduism that the waters of the Ganges make us holy. Do you?

You are right. Baptism does not save. That is what the Bible teaches. If you want to hold to the superstition that H2O holds some magic powers then go ahead and be a Hindu. As for me and my house we will serve the Lord.

1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
--Baptism--not the putting away of the flesh. It clarifies that it isn't baptism that saves. It then uses that small conjunction BUT the answer of a good conscience toward God. It is not baptism but a good conscience toward God. And then it tells how: by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is not baptism, the physical baptism that put away the filth of the flesh. In other words baptism cannnot put away the filth of the flesh. It cannot take away your sin. That is an impossiblity. It is a good conscience toward God, which baptism represents--faith in Christ.

I was baptized into Christ when I was saved--by the Holy Spirit.

Context shows you which he is speaking of. It is in the context of salvation which water baptism has nothing to do with.

No, Jesus wasn't being deceptive etc., but you are. You are the one that has twisted all of the above passages.
Was Jesus lying, being deceptive, kidding, etc. when he said:

Matthew 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

What does "learning of me" have to do with "finding rest unto your souls?"
--It doesn't, and neither does being baptized have anything to do with salvation.
DHK

 

There is also some of them who use music in their church. We have some around us in eastern Kentucky. They are separate also I think but I know they use pamphlets from some other Church of Christ ministers. Also, they did believe they were the only one going to Heaven but think they have relaxed on that issue for I know of a case where they let one of their members help in a baptism with a Baptist minister (think it was First Baptist) and then the canidate took up original membership in Primitive Baptist. You don't see that very much but its ironic when it comes to family what leaders will do sometimes. I know they went against their own beliefs and would not do it for someone else.
Of course that don't reflect on the ones on here at all and please don't take it that way for we all have things happen among us that is not traditional.

 

Baptism by the Holy Ghost is what saves. Even John the Baptist told us that he indeed baptized with water but there cometh one after him that would baptize with the fire and Holy Ghost. (to complete the saving). When the Gentiles came in Jesus had already died for He had to break down the middle wall of partition before we even had a chance, but after His death then we receive the Holy Ghost baptism to save us and then go to the water and be baptized for not putting away the filth of the flesh but to answer a good consquence to God, of which if you still had a bad consequence you certainly couldn't answer a good one. Also all those who were baptized of John had to receive the Holy Ghost after Jesus had died and arose again by the laying on of hands and it was a time of transition for them but for us it was a time of being brought into the fold. Amen,
BBob

 

Baptism makes a person wet. If you are baptized in a polluted river and swallow some of the water and consequently get sick, the consequece of getting sick may be the "inward" happening that you are talking about. Otherwisde demonstrate what happens inwardly when you get baptized. Are you resorting the RCC doctrine that the baptismal waters have some magical power in and of themselves to impart grace? Will they make you "feel" more holy, or just make you "feel" more clean because you just had a bath. Jeremiah mocks at your view of baptism.

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]No I am not resrrting the RCC dotrine that baptismal waters have some magical waters have power.
The water is H2O.

 

dkh,
the more I think about it your accusations are ridiculous.
Nobody on this board says "shiboleth " good enough for you. You love to take things that are written and twist them in strange ways.
Get a Life!!!
Or better yet ,
GO EAT A BUG!!!!!!
These are my last words on this board.

[ May 09, 2006, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: atestring ]