Church of Christ

[Yeshua1]

Christ did in fact baptize during the early days with his apostles, it was not the sacrament of baptism as we know it today. That sacrament, inserts us into the mystery of Jesus’ death and resurrection and applies the merits of Christ’s action to ourselves.

We, the baptized, are initiated into the sacramental life of the church and placed on a path to holiness and to heaven.

Salvation is found in Jesus, alone, NOT in the RCC or any other church!

And we receive the promised Holy spirit when we place faith in Jesus, not in getting sprinkled or dunked in water!

 

[lakeside]

I prefer to follow Jesus and his Church as per bible. And then later His Church gave us the Holy Bible. You prefer to follow a misguided interpretation which is in conflict with each others church, so much man-made confusion. Satan loves it, all you have to do is take a look at these end days beginning with the '' reformation "the devil has been having a "field day'' ever since that man-made event.

 

[BobRyan]

The Holy Bible tell us that Jesus baptized.

Where does the Bible say that?

 

[BobRyan]

I prefer to follow Jesus and his Church as per bible. .

That's how we got the Protestant Reformation.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Rebel]

Christ did in fact baptize during the early days with his apostles, it was not the sacrament of baptism as we know it today. That sacrament, inserts us into the mystery of Jesus’ death and resurrection and applies the merits of Christ’s action to ourselves.

We, the baptized, are initiated into the sacramental life of the church and placed on a path to holiness and to heaven.

Wrong on both.

To say that the baptism which the apostles did is not the same as the baptism which came later is about the most convoluted thing I've ever seen.

 

[Zenas]

Where does the Bible say that?

"After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing." John 3:22.

"Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2 (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were) . . . ." John 4:1-2.

It has always been interesting to me why John said Jesus was baptizing and then only a few verses later says that actually the disciples were doing the baptizing. I have a theory. It's unprovable and unknowable but I think Jesus baptized His disciples and then gave them the work of getting people wet.

 

[Zenas]

To say that the baptism which the apostles did is not the same as the baptism which came later is about the most convoluted thing I've ever seen.

Why do you say that?

 

[Yeshua1]

I prefer to follow Jesus and his Church as per bible. And then later His Church gave us the Holy Bible. You prefer to follow a misguided interpretation which is in conflict with each others church, so much man-made confusion. Satan loves it, all you have to do is take a look at these end days beginning with the '' reformation "the devil has been having a "field day'' ever since that man-made event.

The true church of jesus would be those who are saved by the real gospel, and that church existed from the time of Acts forward!

Do you see the RCC as being found in the book of Acts then?

And jesus gave to his church, his peopke the scriptures during the life of the apostles, and NOT when rome agreed with what God had alrready established as the canon way before their councils!

 

[Yeshua1]

Why do you say that?

Paul referred to their being one baptism, so doubt that his and others were different!

 

[Zenas]

Paul referred to their being one baptism, so doubt that his and others were different!

Actually they were. See Acts 19:1-7. One had salvific value and the other did not.

 

[Darrell C]

How would characterize this "denomination"? A cult? Orthodox?

My experience with them is that among them, like many of the denominations out there, are well meaning and sincere followers of Christ. Some tend to be a little charismatic, lol, and their doctrine can certainly be disputed, but all in all I would not call them a cult nor orthodox.

The truth is, though, you will find the different types of believer in just about any denomination. Fundamental, charismatic, nominal...

Doubtful we will find any fellowship where there is a consistent and harmonious agreement on every point of Doctrine. Doubtful we will find a fellowship flawless in doctrine. And if I did find such a fellowship, I would not join it, because I would not want to wreck it, lol.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

My experience with them is that among them, like many of the denominations out there, are well meaning and sincere followers of Christ. Some tend to be a little charismatic, lol, and their doctrine can certainly be disputed, but all in all I would not call them a cult nor orthodox.

The truth is, though, you will find the different types of believer in just about any denomination. Fundamental, charismatic, nominal...

Doubtful we will find any fellowship where there is a consistent and harmonious agreement on every point of Doctrine. Doubtful we will find a fellowship flawless in doctrine. And if I did find such a fellowship, I would not join it, because I would not want to wreck it, lol.


God bless.

There are sincere and saved person in that church, but their tenet of water baptism is a requirement in order to have real salvation is another Gospel....

 

[Darrell C]

There are sincere and saved person in that church, but their tenet of water baptism is a requirement in order to have real salvation is another Gospel....

I don't really look at it that way, but simply ascribe it to confusion which has great historical precedent.

I've known enough CoC members to say that many of them understand we are saved by Christ, and that only Christ can save. That they throw in water baptism is not really any different, in my view, than the popularity of teaching tithing under New Covenant standards in many Baptist Churches.

Same thing with the charismatic error of Subsequent Spirit Baptism.

While there are Doctrinal Distinctives in all groups, error in Theology does not disqualify one from salvation. Their error is the very reason they are saved to begin with, and along the way, many among the groups with more radical error will slowly grow in Christ and shift their beliefs to a stronger and more correct doctrinal view. Doesn't mean they abandon the people they fellowship with, but it also means they don't agree with their error.

Take works-based faith, for example: many charge certain groups with a works-based mentality and doctrine and overlook the fact that within most of us...there is at least a certain amount of that. It's just natural when fallible people such as ourselves are found in a context of Holy God. We all want reassurance in what we believe, and that is why most of us who frequent Doctrinal Discussion Forums...are here.

I think most Church of Christ members, if pressed, would admit that one can actually be saved apart from water baptism. The only reason not to would be due to another natural tendency most of us have, a dislike for being wrong about anything. But there is clearly Biblical certainty that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost took place apart and before water baptism.

So I don't look at their doctrine as "another gospel," simply the Gospel with unnecessary baggage.

And when you can point out the denomination that is free of that excess baggage, let me know.

I would also just mention that we have to be careful not to equate the leadership of any group with the individual members of that group. There is often quite a distance between the actual doctrinal positions of the group and what the individual understands and believes. I would say it is our duty to address the actual teachers, not with hostility, but with a fervency we would have with someone we believed not to be saved. If we care whether the lost learn the truth, how much more should we be concerned for those who already claim to belong to Christ.


God bless.

 

[Rebel]

I don't really look at it that way, but simply ascribe it to confusion which has great historical precedent.

I've known enough CoC members to say that many of them understand we are saved by Christ, and that only Christ can save. That they throw in water baptism is not really any different, in my view, than the popularity of teaching tithing under New Covenant standards in many Baptist Churches.

Same thing with the charismatic error of Subsequent Spirit Baptism.

While there are Doctrinal Distinctives in all groups, error in Theology does not disqualify one from salvation. Their error is the very reason they are saved to begin with, and along the way, many among the groups with more radical error will slowly grow in Christ and shift their beliefs to a stronger and more correct doctrinal view. Doesn't mean they abandon the people they fellowship with, but it also means they don't agree with their error.

Take works-based faith, for example: many charge certain groups with a works-based mentality and doctrine and overlook the fact that within most of us...there is at least a certain amount of that. It's just natural when fallible people such as ourselves are found in a context of Holy God. We all want reassurance in what we believe, and that is why most of us who frequent Doctrinal Discussion Forums...are here.

I think most Church of Christ members, if pressed, would admit that one can actually be saved apart from water baptism. The only reason not to would be due to another natural tendency most of us have, a dislike for being wrong about anything. But there is clearly Biblical certainty that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost took place apart and before water baptism.

So I don't look at their doctrine as "another gospel," simply the Gospel with unnecessary baggage.

And when you can point out the denomination that is free of that excess baggage, let me know.

I would also just mention that we have to be careful not to equate the leadership of any group with the individual members of that group. There is often quite a distance between the actual doctrinal positions of the group and what the individual understands and believes. I would say it is our duty to address the actual teachers, not with hostility, but with a fervency we would have with someone we believed not to be saved. If we care whether the lost learn the truth, how much more should we be concerned for those who already claim to belong to Christ.


God bless.

I have to say that your post is one of the most sensible and charitable posts I have ever read.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't really look at it that way, but simply ascribe it to confusion which has great historical precedent.

I've known enough CoC members to say that many of them understand we are saved by Christ, and that only Christ can save. That they throw in water baptism is not really any different, in my view, than the popularity of teaching tithing under New Covenant standards in many Baptist Churches.

Same thing with the charismatic error of Subsequent Spirit Baptism.

While there are Doctrinal Distinctives in all groups, error in Theology does not disqualify one from salvation. Their error is the very reason they are saved to begin with, and along the way, many among the groups with more radical error will slowly grow in Christ and shift their beliefs to a stronger and more correct doctrinal view. Doesn't mean they abandon the people they fellowship with, but it also means they don't agree with their error.

Take works-based faith, for example: many charge certain groups with a works-based mentality and doctrine and overlook the fact that within most of us...there is at least a certain amount of that. It's just natural when fallible people such as ourselves are found in a context of Holy God. We all want reassurance in what we believe, and that is why most of us who frequent Doctrinal Discussion Forums...are here.

I think most Church of Christ members, if pressed, would admit that one can actually be saved apart from water baptism. The only reason not to would be due to another natural tendency most of us have, a dislike for being wrong about anything. But there is clearly Biblical certainty that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost took place apart and before water baptism.

So I don't look at their doctrine as "another gospel," simply the Gospel with unnecessary baggage.

And when you can point out the denomination that is free of that excess baggage, let me know.

I would also just mention that we have to be careful not to equate the leadership of any group with the individual members of that group. There is often quite a distance between the actual doctrinal positions of the group and what the individual understands and believes. I would say it is our duty to address the actual teachers, not with hostility, but with a fervency we would have with someone we believed not to be saved. If we care whether the lost learn the truth, how much more should we be concerned for those who already claim to belong to Christ.


God bless.

That is why I have seen many being really saved and true Christians in that church despite their false understanding of the Gospel, but when we add ANYTHING to the finished work of Christ upon the cross, that is still another gospel!

 

[Darrell C]

That is why I have seen many being really saved and true Christians in that church despite their false understanding of the Gospel, but when we add ANYTHING to the finished work of Christ upon the cross, that is still another gospel!

So you feel you are flawless in doctrine and practice? Have been since you were saved?

My friend, we all start out in ignorance and with error in our views. How my theology has changed since 95, heck, since five years ago, depicts my need for a better understanding of God and His Word.

Did I fall prey to "another gospel" because some of the instrumental people in my salvation experience were, and still are...in error?

But that is the beauty of the Gospel, as it is not dependent upon the individuals the Lord uses to bring about salvation, nor do they stand in the place of enlightenment, a place only the Comforter, God Himself stands. Peter himself was instrumental to the Gospel in his day, yet even Peter fell prey to a heritage that was apparently difficult for him, as a Jew, to overcome in yielding to the truth of salvation in Christ. He was a hypocrite, plain and simple. In error, plain and simple.

Yet he did not preach "another gospel."

Everyone has error. One preacher put it like this: "Everyone has a little heretic in him."

I think that is true. It's just when we take delight in finding those heresies in professing brothers and sisters, and forget that Christ died for them same as we...that we fail to obey the command which should have us encouraging, discipling, exhorting, building up our brethren. If someone is wrong about something, a proof that we are right might be that we can, from the Word of God, show that person the error and perhaps get them to agree, not with us, but with the Word of God.

What more notable cause could we seek in our lives, especially when we hope for the fruit of such endeavor will be the saving of souls, fruit in their lives as they grow.

Among the Church of Christ I am sure we can find just about any personality, even as we can in any denomination. Ignorance does not preclude zeal for Christ and evangelism. When I was saved, baptism was something that seemed necessary. Not because a Baptist told me it was, but because of the Word of God. I didn't view it as the means of salvation, nor did I despise it as the tendency is of some, who so detest Baptismal Regeneration that they, no pun intended, throw out the babe with the baptismal water, lol.

Maybe get to know some Church of Christ members. Find out they are no different than Baptists in a general manner, meaning you will find those that are nominal, and those fanatical.

And I would just ask...where in Scripture do we see a demand that we, rather than God, demand doctrinal flawlessness from anyone. Do we not see, rather, exhortation to teach, both explicitly as well as by the example the Apostles set forth? No greater evangelist than Paul do I think this world will ever see, yet Paul knew there was a time to chomp (lol), and a time for compassion. He could sit down and eat a pork chop if he chose, yet skip dinner...for the sake of his brother.

He set the example: preach Christ and Christ crucified. When it comes to so-called "gray areas," well, I think that is why the Lord gave us Doctrinal Debate Forums, lol.

See you in the fray, my friend.

God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

So you feel you are flawless in doctrine and practice? Have been since you were saved?

I also have changed my stances in reswgards to certain doctrines and theology, but again, if the church of Christ holds that we MUST be water baptized in order to complete and effect for us salvation, how can that not be a perversion and adding to the gospel message?

 

[Darrell C]

So you feel you are flawless in doctrine and practice? Have been since you were saved?

I also have changed my stances in reswgards to certain doctrines and theology, but again, if the church of Christ holds that we MUST be water baptized in order to complete and effect for us salvation, how can that not be a perversion and adding to the gospel message?

I think there is just a charismatic tendency in doctrine among them, and in fact we can see a "Subsequence" taught even in more fundamental and conservative fellowships.

So we do not see the Church of Christ as alone in their particular brand of subsequence. Nor are they alone when it comes to the importance placed on Christian Baptism.

And both are tied, I feel, to the same error, which is the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. I take the view that the Baptism with the Holy Spirit is in fact that indwelling process which occurs at the time of salvation, whereas many view it as the "empowering" of God, rather than the indwelling.

Consider:


Matthew 3:11-12

King James Version (KJV)

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.


Now nowhere in the context of John's statement can we read into it a context of empowerment in regards to the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. John defines the two baptisms in v.12 (underlined for salvation and emboldened for judgment).

This Baptism does not take place until Pentecost, as evidenced here:


Acts 1:4-8

King James Version (KJV)

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.


While I can understand how some could render this to refer to empowerment, I also think that if it is carefully considered the conclusion will be drawn that in view is the very promise they were taught of Christ in John 14-16 which was promised of God in the Old Testament.

For some groups, error on this point leads to a subsequent empowerment which creates two classes of Christian, which could be identified as "the saved" and then, of course...Super Christian. Cape and all, lol.

But again, it is not just the Church of Christ confused about the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, few, I think, give due diligence to the absolutely phenomenal difference between that provided through the establishment of the New Covenant and all Covenants before it. There is a difference between the Old Testament Saint and the born again member of the Body of Christ. That does not create two classes of Christian, because we know that ultimately there will be one Fold, and even now there is but One Shepherd. But is akin to the difference between Abraham and Moses, for example. Abraham was not under the Covenant of Law, but that does not preclude a consistency and harmony in the Redemptive Plan of God.

In my time as a believer I have primarily fellowshipped in Independent Baptist Churches. Among them I have encountered both the antinomian as well as the legalist, and I see no difference in degree of error in saying one must be water baptized to be saved and that one cannot, for example...work on Sunday, lol. Or that one must tithe. Or that if one does not attend every meeting held one needs to question his salvation.

A saying that irritates me to no end is this: If you come to church on sunday morning you love the church. If you come to church on sunday evening you love the Pastor. If you come to church on Wednesday evening...you love the Lord.

See the implication? It teaches that our salvation can be measured by our attendance, which is unreasonable. Would that mean that those whose professions such as nursing or law enforcement...don't love the Lord? They would find another profession, I reckon, if they did, lol.

All I am saying is that we need to understand that all of us, at some point in our walk, are going to embrace and even promote the doctrines of the fellowships we belong to. The problem with that is that for most (and of course I excuse such as ourselves, brother, being diligent to be in His Word and taking much more interest in knowing the truth, lol) the doctrine they hold is going to be an admixture of what their fellowship teaches and the particular spin it takes as they impose their own understanding into it. Which means that someone that attends a CoC fellowship could possibly not understand the import of a doctrinal position such as Baptismal Regeneration. They might promote it but have not given enough thought to it to see the implication of such a doctrine.

Your job is to be there to impress upon them the importance of understanding how we are saved.

Right?

But I can tell you this, if you vilify those they love, meaning those they fellowship with, don't expect your discussions to be doctrinal, but instead to take on a more emotional tenor, destroying any real chance to engage in a serious doctrinal address of the issue itself. I think many remain in their current denominations just because of the people there. I am like that. But of course, there is really no denomination that perfectly teaches the views I have, so searching for that fellowship is kind of pointless, lol.

And time for me to get out of here. Hope you and those here have a blessed day.


God bless.

 

[Walter]

I think there is just a charismatic tendency in doctrine among them, and in fact we can see a "Subsequence" taught even in more fundamental and conservative fellowships.

So we do not see the Church of Christ as alone in their particular brand of subsequence. Nor are they alone when it comes to the importance placed on Christian Baptism.

And both are tied, I feel, to the same error, which is the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. I take the view that the Baptism with the Holy Spirit is in fact that indwelling process which occurs at the time of salvation, whereas many view it as the "empowering" of God, rather than the indwelling.

Consider:


Matthew 3:11-12

King James Version (KJV)

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.


Now nowhere in the context of John's statement can we read into it a context of empowerment in regards to the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. John defines the two baptisms in v.12 (underlined for salvation and emboldened for judgment).

This Baptism does not take place until Pentecost, as evidenced here:


Acts 1:4-8

King James Version (KJV)

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.


While I can understand how some could render this to refer to empowerment, I also think that if it is carefully considered the conclusion will be drawn that in view is the very promise they were taught of Christ in John 14-16 which was promised of God in the Old Testament.

For some groups, error on this point leads to a subsequent empowerment which creates two classes of Christian, which could be identified as "the saved" and then, of course...Super Christian. Cape and all, lol.

But again, it is not just the Church of Christ confused about the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, few, I think, give due diligence to the absolutely phenomenal difference between that provided through the establishment of the New Covenant and all Covenants before it. There is a difference between the Old Testament Saint and the born again member of the Body of Christ. That does not create two classes of Christian, because we know that ultimately there will be one Fold, and even now there is but One Shepherd. But is akin to the difference between Abraham and Moses, for example. Abraham was not under the Covenant of Law, but that does not preclude a consistency and harmony in the Redemptive Plan of God.

In my time as a believer I have primarily fellowshipped in Independent Baptist Churches. Among them I have encountered both the antinomian as well as the legalist, and I see no difference in degree of error in saying one must be water baptized to be saved and that one cannot, for example...work on Sunday, lol. Or that one must tithe. Or that if one does not attend every meeting held one needs to question his salvation.

A saying that irritates me to no end is this: If you come to church on sunday morning you love the church. If you come to church on sunday evening you love the Pastor. If you come to church on Wednesday evening...you love the Lord.

See the implication? It teaches that our salvation can be measured by our attendance, which is unreasonable. Would that mean that those whose professions such as nursing or law enforcement...don't love the Lord? They would find another profession, I reckon, if they did, lol.

All I am saying is that we need to understand that all of us, at some point in our walk, are going to embrace and even promote the doctrines of the fellowships we belong to. The problem with that is that for most (and of course I excuse such as ourselves, brother, being diligent to be in His Word and taking much more interest in knowing the truth, lol) the doctrine they hold is going to be an admixture of what their fellowship teaches and the particular spin it takes as they impose their own understanding into it. Which means that someone that attends a CoC fellowship could possibly not understand the import of a doctrinal position such as Baptismal Regeneration. They might promote it but have not given enough thought to it to see the implication of such a doctrine.

Your job is to be there to impress upon them the importance of understanding how we are saved.

Right?

But I can tell you this, if you vilify those they love, meaning those they fellowship with, don't expect your discussions to be doctrinal, but instead to take on a more emotional tenor, destroying any real chance to engage in a serious doctrinal address of the issue itself. I think many remain in their current denominations just because of the people there. I am like that. But of course, there is really no denomination that perfectly teaches the views I have, so searching for that fellowship is kind of pointless, lol.

And time for me to get out of here. Hope you and those here have a blessed day.


God bless.

Darrell C, we may have some big differences in doctrinal beliefs, however, the manner and tone in which you post and present your positions is done in such a way which makes me pause and consider what you post here. Unfortunately, that is not the case with far too many who participate on this board. The name calling and venom that is spewed often makes me quit reading before I get anywhere near finishing what has been contributed. Thank you for the charitable way you discuss doctrine with the absence of vilifying anyone who might disagree with you.

 

[Yeshua1]

I was an Elder in the AOG, and was taoght on their pentacostal beliefs, so know well of what you are speaking here on!

Would say that the AOG errs by mistaking the work of the Spirit recorded in acts as being not just for those situations, but as normative for all times, and has misunderstanding that all of us are indwelt, and up to us to stau filled with/in/by the Spirit, which would their "powering" of the so called Baptism...

that is still though NOT adding to the Gospel proper, as they still view it to be Grace alone/faith alone to get saved, unlike adding water Baptism as a requirement though!