Churches of Christ

[J. Jump]

All this group wants to do is try and show that Jesus didn't really mean what He said.

And it has been shown to you on MULTIPLE occasions now that your meaning and Jesus' original meaning are not even close. So the only one trying to show that Jesus didn't really mean what He said is you.

Jesus meant exactly what He said. The problem is you are ripping it out of its context and applying your own context to make it fit your theology instead of letting the Bible shape you.

Words have meanings and those meanings come from context. Your misunderstanding of context has led to your misunderstanding of the meanings.

It's not that Jesus didn't mean what He said. I believe that statement just as it is written, but you are applying eternal salvation to the context and that's not the context.

That's a simple concept to understand yet you continue to accuse people of twisting the Scripture. Nobody is twisting Scripture. Jesus said what He meant and meant what He said and we have to allow that to shape us instead of the other way around.

This verse has been shown to be in complete harmony with the rest of scripture.

That is absolutely a false statement when applying your context to the passage. The ONLY way that it is consistent with Scripture is if it is not in an eternal salvation setting, otherwise you make a mockery of Scripture and God out to be a liar.

 

[Hope of Glory]

It's an equally true statement that anyone who believes and then eats lunch will be saved. Or drives home. Or anything else. It's the believing that saves.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Mman,

I think you keep skirting the important question.

No one doubts that Jesus said that any who believe and are baptized will be saved. No one is going to refuse baptism - it is a sign of obedience.

But I'd like you to answer this question: You said that baptism is part of faith. Is it the faith that submits to baptism or the physical act which is necessary for salvation?

If you assert that the physical work is needed and that faith is not enough alone then you do not believe in salvation by faith.

Which is it?

 

[DHK]

It is works.
Five of them to be specific:
faith + belief + repentance + confession + baptism = salvation.

If any one of these separate "works" are missing then one is not saved. All five acts must be present. Salvation is by works. Do I have it right Mman?
DHK

 

[bmerr]

So, you are saying that, if one is not baptized into the church of Christ, they are not saved.

Amazing!

carpro,

bmerr here. If one is Scripturally baptized, he cannot help but be added to the church of Christ, for it is the one body (Eph 4) into which we are baptized (1 Cor 12:13). It is the church purchased by the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28). Whose church are you in?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

Mman,

I think you keep skirting the important question.

No one doubts that Jesus said that any who believe and are baptized will be saved. No one is going to refuse baptism - it is a sign of obedience.

But I'd like you to answer this question: You said that baptism is part of faith. Is it the faith that submits to baptism or the physical act which is necessary for salvation?

If you assert that the physical work is needed and that faith is not enough alone then you do not believe in salvation by faith.

Which is it?

Charles,

bmerr here. It is not the same thing to say one is "saved by faith", and to say one is "saved by faith only". Both mman and I would agree that we are saved by faith. The Bible is irrefutable on this point.

However, to say that one is saved by "faith only" is another matter. The Bible only pairs the words "faith" and "only" one time. It's in James 2:24, and there it is written that we are justified by works, and not by faith only. I'm sure you're familiar with it.

This is where man's interpretations get in the way of truth. If I add "only" to my understanding of passages that say I'm saved by faith, then I change the meaning of what is written. Though I may not actually add the word "only" to the text, (as Martin Luther did), my understanding is clouded by it being tagged to the verse in my mind.

What happens is that a contradiction is forced on the Bible when I come upon verses that speak of other things associated with salvation, such as confession, hope, repentance, grace, or baptism. To "fix" the seeming contradiction, the plain, written word is often twisted and turned to mean something far different from what it actually says, and debate boards such as the one we're on abound!

All of this, just to accomodate the "only" which I've added to my understanding.

Would it not be simpler to banish any "add-on" words from my understanding, and just let the text speak for itself? The contradictions vanish when we do. I do not speak hypothetically. I was once in the SBC, and believed much as you do. I just got rid of my "only".


The works condemned by Scripture are works of the Law (Rom 3:20), and works of merit (Titus 3:5). One can believe without obeying, but one cannot obey without believing. Apart from obedience, faith is dead.

In Christ,

bmerr
I

 

[El_Guero]

Without a website, I have NO IDEA WHICH CoC you are referring to. Since there are many - you could actually be referring to ICC or UCC for all I know by your generic question.

Cut and paste a link in and then the replies could be a little more specific.

Remember that the same revival era that produced the CoC also produced the Mormons . . . and just as the Mormon church splintered so did the CoC movement(s).

As a Baptist, I believe that we Baptists are the closest representation of the NT Church - IMHO, don't flame me. :thumbs:

:Fish:

Wayne

Can anyone please tell me about this church? Not to be confused with ICC or UCC. They claim to be the New Testament Christians. This is on their main website:

"We are undenominational and have no central headquarters or president. The head of the church is none other than Jesus Christ himself."

Any thoughts?

 

[bmerr]

Wayne,

bmerr here. I think she meant the group commonly known as "Campbellites", (which have 1/3 less calories than a regular Campbell), which are simply Christians as defined by the NT.

The "revival era" you refer to certainly was a period of religious activity, though the church of Christ was not "produced" then. The church of Christ began on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, as recorded in Acts 2.

I think you were referring to the Restoration Movement, in which men determined to lay aside the creeds and doctrines of men, and return to the written word as the final authority.

You said the baptist church was "...the closest representation of the NT church." Just out of curiosity, what would need to change in order to replicate the NT church?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[El_Guero]

bmerr

I think well enough and badly enough for myself. Thank you.

Return to NT era? I was being kind - Baptists are the NT Church and have been since John baptized the Lord . . . You had to ask . . .

Christ established His Church. Within history there have been denominations and 'don-denominations'. The CoC was 'discovered' after Campbell and what's his name during the 'restoration movement' era.

Alexander Campbell took the position that the kingdom of Godwas with the Baptists previous to the inauguration of his "New Party," which they called the "Reformation". Mr. Tant said in the Springdale debate that "If the kingdom was ever with the Baptists it is still with them." Hear Mr. Campbell: "That there are some worthy Baptists exactly accords with the viewsof some of our brethren long since expressed—that as it was with the Jews, in the times of the Messiah and his apostles, so it is now with the Baptists. *

Four tributaries are commonly understood as having formed the stream of the American Restoration movement of which churches of Christ are a major component. **

CAMBELLITES:
The Restoration Movement of the 19th century was led by several men. Thomas Campbell, an Irish-born Presbyterian who settled in Pennsylvania in 1807 (the father of Alexander Campbell) and Alexander Campbell, (also in Pennsylvania), Barton W. Stone, Baptist, in KY, and Walter Scott, Scottish immigrant in Pennsylvania were all leading proponents of this movement. However, A. Campbell became the best known. Alexander Campbell settled in the western panhandle of West Virginia and founded Bethany College in Bethany, West Virginia.

The Campbell. . . were Anabaptists emphasizing the one "sacrament" of baptism (by emersion) as being sufficient for salvation. . . . Their goal was to reject man's creeds. They advocated speaking only where the Bible speaks and being silent were the Bible is silent. The movement was intended to reform existing churches, but a belief that this was impossible led to the establishment of new groups of believers, often known only as Disciples or Christians.

Two groups eventually developed. One is the Disciples of Christ (Christian Church) which is generally organized and has a national headquarters. The other is the churches [sic] of Christ. They are not nationally organized and meet as independent congregations. Alexander Campbell is rejected as a founder and is considered only as a restorer of the first century church. . . . ***

* http://www.bible.acu.edu/crs/doc/stdcb.htm
** http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/issues/howard.html
*** http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~hornbeck/religion.htm

 

[bmerr]

Wayne,

bmerr here. Didn't mean to question your thinking ability. I would ask a couple of questions, though.

If the church of the NT is the Baptist church, why is it never referred to as such?

If the kingdom (church) began during John's ministry, why did the twelve go preaching that the kingdom of heaven is at hand in Matt 10? Should they not have preached that the kingdom of heaven was here?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Charles Meadows]

Bmerr,

If you are critiquing sola fide as it is understood by many than I will agree with you in part. The emphasis of sola fide is that salvation is a gift that cannot be earned or merited. The problem with the CoC position (as some hold it) is that the physical act of baptism becomes a one work Torah.

The "pudding proof" can be seen in the anecdote already mentioned. Consider the person who makes a sincere profession of faith and commitment on a Sunday night. He plans baptism the following Sunday but is killed in a car wreck. Is he saved? The biblical answer is without a doubt "yes". His faith, which carries with it an intent to be baptized, is saving. If you disagree - and this is the key - then you localize salvation in a ritualistic work. And that is antithetical to Jesus' teachings. There is nothing wrong with baptism - and none of us here would suggest the believer could or should forego it. But you cannot place the locus of salvation in a ritual without abandoning Jesus.

 

[El_Guero]

Did you really mean to question my thinking ability? Or, the Scriptures themselves?

 

[El_Guero]

Charles,

Nicer said than I woulda said it if I coulda that is...

Bmerr,

If you are critiquing sola fide as it is understood by many than I will agree with you in part. The emphasis of sola fide is that salvation is a gift that cannot be earned or merited. The problem with the CoC position (as some hold it) is that the physical act of baptism becomes a one work Torah.

The "pudding proof" can be seen in the anecdote already mentioned. Consider the person who makes a sincere profession of faith and commitment on a Sunday night. He plans baptism the following Sunday but is killed in a car wreck. Is he saved? The biblical answer is without a doubt "yes". His faith, which carries with it an intent to be baptized, is saving. If you disagree - and this is the key - then you localize salvation in a ritualistic work. And that is antithetical to Jesus' teachings. There is nothing wrong with baptism - and none of us here would suggest the believer could or should forego it. But you cannot place the locus of salvation in a ritual without abandoning Jesus.

 

[mactx]

I have read nearly this whole thread, very interesting.
Now I have a question. Where is the verse that says, baptism is no longer needed? I see several that say Faith saves us, which is fine, they do NOT say baptism is done away with though.
So where is that verse?
This is a serious question, I have wondered it for years and have never found this verse or any that indicate what was called for once was forgotten or no longer needed later.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Baptism is still necessary for obedience, just as it always was. But, not for being saved.

 

[DHK]

I have read nearly this whole thread, very interesting.
Now I have a question. Where is the verse that says, baptism is no longer needed? I see several that say Faith saves us, which is fine, they do NOT say baptism is done away with though.
So where is that verse?
This is a serious question, I have wondered it for years and have never found this verse or any that indicate what was called for once was forgotten or no longer needed later.

Where is the verse says baptism is done away with?
Rather, where is the verse that says baptism is necessary to salvation? There isn't any. That is the on-going heresy of the COC--baptismal regeneration.
DHK

 

[mactx]

Where is the verse says baptism is done away with?
Rather, where is the verse that says baptism is necessary to salvation? There isn't any. That is the on-going heresy of the COC--baptismal regeneration.
DHK

Fair enough. I always wondered . For me personally i figure since Jesus said it, and it has been shown He did several times already it is needed.
I think what convinced me most though was this:

Matthew 3:13-17 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

I figure if Jesus said it was needed for Him to fulfill righteousness, then it is more so for me, if i am as is commanded to follow His example. I don't think He would have wasted His time doing something we could leave aside as we chose or change the idea behind. He just doesn't seem that sort, He told the apostles what they bound on earth would be bound in heaven. Now I figure just as with my kids, i give them the steps for something i want them to do, later i might say, just do the dishes, i dont give them the step by step again, but the step by step still applies.
I know i am not a theologian (i figure they study so much andeventually begin to read into things) I am, just as the fishermen, a simple woman, small, unimportant and not hugely smart, but I know that i want to follow Jesus, and do as He did to the best of my ability. Being baptized is a simple thing, the Bible tells you when, and how, and why. In general i find if i just read the Bible, and leave the "intellectual" stuff alone, i understand and appreciate it so much more.
But thst is me being simple and unimportant. I am learning much here truly, thank you for that.

 

[DHK]

Fair enough. I always wondered . For me personally i figure since Jesus said it, and it has been shown He did several times already it is needed.
I think what convinced me most though was this:

Matthew 3:13-17 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.

But thst is me being simple and unimportant. I am learning much here truly, thank you for that.

Welcome to BB mactx. I hope that you find your stay here profitable and a blessing to you.
Jesus was baptized "to fulfill all righteousness." One could say that He also set an example for us to do the same. But consider: Did Jesus need to be saved? Was baptism a part of Christ's salvation? Isn't that a ludicrous question even to ask? Baptism always takes place after salvation. John the Baptist would not baptize anyone until he saw "the fruit of repentance" in the lives of those that he was about to be baptized. Salvation always preceded baptism. The Philippian jailor was first saved and then baptized. The same was true for the Ethiopian eunuch. It was only after he confessed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God that he was baptized. Likewise Paul: He had his salvation experience on the way to Damascus where he called upon the name of the Lord, and then afterward was baptized. Baptism always followed salvation as the first step of obedience in the Christian life of the believer.
DHK

 

[mactx]

Thank ya kindly for the welcome DHK.
i suppose the way i thought of it was more, there was something Christ needed to do to fulfill His perfection, and so He set the example. He lived as a man with all the hurts and needs and temptations a man has, and He said He needed to be baptized.
Now no matter what i will never be perfect and i need all the help i can get so i follow His example, and leave away the useless arguing over the bits and pieces.
i figure it is not up to me to read a verse, like Acts 2:38 when folks asked what to do to be saved, and one of the steps is be baptized, it is not my place to contradict scripture, and from my own study, it doesn't matter what version is used they all say in answer to the question, repent and be baptized every one of you. So i leave it at that, seeing as i have yet to find a place that says, oh yeah you do not need to be baptized even though Peter and the 11 said so on Pentecost.
i am enjoying the visiting here, it is giving me much to chew on and more to study.

 

[bmerr]

mactx,

bmerr here. Your approach to the Scriptures is more honest than most. Just let it say what it says: what a concept! If only more would take the same approach...

DHK makes a valid point in saying that Jesus was not baptized to be saved. Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. The Bible defines righteousness as all of God's commands (Ps 119:172). God had commanded through John a baptism unto repentance. Those who refused John's baptism "...rejected the council of God against themselves, being not baptized of him" (Luke 7:29-30).

DHK also does well in pointing out that John refused to baptize the impenitent. His baptism was ineffective for those who were not of a contrite heart. Their minds had to change about their sins, which would affect a change in their lives. Repentance is the Bible word for it.

It is important to understand, though, that when the apostles preached in Acts 2, the baptism of John was no longer in effect. From Acts 2 on, repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins has been the commanded response to the gospel.

Now, as you stated in an earlier post, the Bible tells us the when, how, and why of baptism. This is where many leave off going by what the Bible says, but that does not change what the Bible says.

When to be baptized is shown, in all cases except for one, to be at the time of one's belief in the gospel message. There are the 3000 on Pentecost (Acts 2), baptized the same hour. The Samaritans believing, were baptized (Acts 8:12-13). The Ethiopian eunuch requested baptism at the first opportunity, and was baptized as soon as he made the good confession (Acts 8:36-38). Cornelius and household were baptized after Peter preached the word to them (Acts 10:44-48). Lydia was baptized when Paul preached to her by the river (Acts 16:14-15). The Phillipian jailer was baptized in the middle of the night, the same hour he heard the word of the Lord (Acts 16:30-33). The twelve disciples at Ephesus were baptized when Paul told them of Christ (Acts 19:1-5).

How we are to be baptized is by immersion. The Bible describes baptism as a burial and a raising (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12) in the likeness of Christs' burial and resurrection. Only immersion achieves this. Sprinkling cannot, and pouring cannot. Pretty simple.

Why we are to be baptized is a common point of contention on these boards. Again, the Bible tells us why, but many are not satisfied with what the Bible says, thus the contention. The Bible says we are to be baptized:

for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)
to be saved (Mark 16:16; 1 Pet 3:21)
to wash away our sins (Acts 22:16)
to get into Christ (Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27)
to put on Christ (Gal 3:27)
to enter the body, or church of Christ (1 Cor 12:13)

You may have noticed I did not mention Saul of Tarsus (Paul) earlier. He is the only one who was not baptized immediately upon his belief, repentance, and confession of Christ. I don't know if he was referring to this fact, or not, but in 1 Cor 15:8, Paul refers to himself as "one born out of due time".

Paul was baptized three days after he saw the resurrected Christ, and repented of his sins. Now, many will tell you that Paul was already saved at this point, but I don't agree. If Paul were saved, he would not still be in his sins, would he? Yet, when Ananias came to him, he told Paul, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16).

Like you, I'm not highly educated, but it seems to me that if Paul's sins were washed away by the blood of Christ the very moment he believed, (as many contend), then what Ananias said makes no sense whatsoever.

There you have it. The when, how, and why of baptism according to the Bible. Others may tell you differently, but, as with all things, check it out for yourself.

Nice to have you here with us.

In Christ,

bmerr