Poll: Would You Accept A Church of Christ Immersion as a Valid NT Baptism?

[Havensdad]

"Baptismal regeneration says that the power is in the water itself,"

Can you give some references of people holding this belief. Have never heard this in relation to baptism, nor baptismal regeneration.

Baptismal Regeneration is what Catholics and Lutherans teach. They believe grace is directly bestowed upon the individual, from the water, when done by an authorized priest, etc.

I believe it originated with Tertullian, in the 2nd-3rd century...(Edit: this might be Origen. For some oddball reason I always confuse these two. I don't know why.)

CoC and some others, believe that Baptism is one step in the Ordo salutis, which is all dependant on faith, not that some ordained priest can bestow grace/salvation upon others, through Baptism.

 

[exscentric]

Yes, grace is given when the sacrament is performed, but I've never read any sort of power/grace in the water from the RC. They are specific that the grace is from God - duknow, could be, just never run across that in either RC or Luth. If you run across some references it would be appreciated.

 

[Tom Butler]

John,

Baptismal regeneration says that the power is in the water itself, when conducted by a duly authorized representative. Thus, paedo-Baptism is O.K., because no faith on the part of the individual is necessary. This stands in STARK contrast, to what all CoC's teach> faith is necessary for salvation.

If you are right, then hundreds of thousands of Church of Christ folks, including most of their preachers, are ignorant of their own soteriology, and preach opposite your view every time they meet.

I understand your effort to separate the C of C from baptismal regeneration, but the fact is that every one of them I have ever read or talked with says if your are not baptized, by one of their people, you are lost.

Faith may be necessary for salvation, but so is baptism, according to their view.

 

[John of Japan]

John,

Baptismal regeneration says that the power is in the water itself, when conducted by a duly authorized representative. Thus, paedo-Baptism is O.K., because no faith on the part of the individual is necessary. This stands in STARK contrast, to what all CoC's teach> faith is necessary for salvation.

Well, I had said in this post that I had not useed the term baptismal regeneration, but I went back and read my posts and found that I did use that term, so I have to edit the post. Sorry about that. At any rate, I'm not sure there's a whole lot of difference in the various views that baptism is necessary for salvation, whatever you call the doctrine. What I was told by CofC people is that salvation is faith plus the baptism (and one guy had a whole list of works).

And I'm not sure yet that you've had any contact with them since you seem to believe they have an official website. Is your information second hand or have you actually discussed doctrine with CofC people? Have they changed since the '70s and now are a denomination with a headquarters and everything?

 

[Josiah]

If you are right, then hundreds of thousands of Church of Christ folks, including most of their preachers, are ignorant of their own soteriology, and preach opposite your view every time they meet.

I understand your effort to separate the C of C from baptismal regeneration, but the fact is that every one of them I have ever read or talked with says if your are not baptized, by one of their people, you are lost.

Faith may be necessary for salvation, but so is baptism, according to their view.

It is as you say, Tom. I left the Baptist church for about 5 years due to a conflict w/ a local pastor (Thanks be to God He led me back now). Although they may accept, as in my case, immersion by another church for membership, they never-the-less believe immersion to be necessary to be saved. In addition, they do not believe in eternal security, so their "works mentality" is at least consistent, even if it is in error. As to my being involved with them, I was in error myself and have repented.
To your question, John, there is still no denominational heirarchy - each local body governs itself.

 

[John of Japan]

To your question, John, there is still no denominational heirarchy - each local body governs itself.

Aha! I thought so.

Welcome to the Baptist Board, Josiah! :wavey:

 

[Tom Butler]

Welcolme from me as well, Josiah.

 

[John of Japan]

John,

Baptismal regeneration says that the power is in the water itself, when conducted by a duly authorized representative. Thus, paedo-Baptism is O.K., because no faith on the part of the individual is necessary. This stands in STARK contrast, to what all CoC's teach> faith is necessary for salvation.

Did you see Marcia's quotation from CofC leaders above?

And can you give me some authority for your view of baptismal regeneration? A well known theologian perhaps?

But it doesn't matter to me what you call it. Call it "salvation through baptism," I'll not be bothered. It is simply not right to add works to faith for salvation. It's wrong. It's unbiblical. It deceives people.

 

[Tom Butler]

I find it inconsistent that Baptists try to de-emphasize the spiritual significance of baptism by saying it is purely symbolic while at the same time elevating our own way (mode and theology) of baptism as the only valid way.

If you are going to say that there is no spiritual significance to baptism, then you should also be willing to say that other people who mistakenly attach spiritual significance to it also have a valid baptism.

The Baptist tradition of re-baptising was done as an opposition to infant baptism.

I voted yes. Of course I also recognize Methodist and Prebyterian baptisms of adults to be valid, my father's being one of them. He was rebaptised as a baptist because of a requirement in our church constitution that deacons be baptised by immersion, since his initial baptism was done by pouring. Like the early baptists of the 1600s and the apostles as recorded in the Didache, I personally recognize pouring as a valid mode, partly because I don't see the mode of baptism to be what makes it significant.

The majority of Baptists in no way de-emphasize the spiritual significance of baptism. What we have doubts about is any mystical nature of the act. Being baptized or watching someone being baptized is a time of great joy and spiritual uplifting. The mistake is to attach a sacramental value and wrap it in theological gobbledegook to make it more than it is.

The reason that the majority of Baptists immerse is that it is clearly taught in the scriptures. Even sprinkling and pouring groups acknowledge that. Baptists do not feel the liberty to go beyond the scriptural example. If it is not done according to scripture, it is not valid. Baptists won't sprinkle a new convert, but most sprinkling denominations will immerse you if you ask for it, because they recognize immersion's validity.

Since you recognize Methodist and Presbyterian baptisms, I ask, who is really deemphasizing baptism here?

 

[Tom Butler]

To all of my fellow Baptists who accept baptisms other than immersion from denominations not of like faith and order, who attach un-baptistic sacramental
significance to the act, a question:

Why would you not invite the nearby Mormon elder or Jehovah's Witness leader to drop by and baptize your converts? Why would you not accept their baptism as valid? Both baptize by immersion as a sign of their commitment go God.

You know what scares me about asking the questions? I fear that some of you, after reading your posts, would say it's perfectly okay.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Being baptized or watching someone being baptized is a time of great joy and spiritual uplifting.

I hope it is also spiritually significant to he person receiving baptism and publicly proclaiming Jesus as their Lord.

The mistake is to attach a sacramental value and wrap it in theological gobbledegook to make it more than it is.

I would say Baptists do just that without the word sacrament when they get all up-in-arms about the mode of baptism and denomination that performs it.

The reason that the majority of Baptists immerse is that it is clearly taught in the scriptures. Even sprinkling and pouring groups acknowledge that. Baptists do not feel the liberty to go beyond the scriptural example. If it is not done according to scripture, it is not valid. Baptists won't sprinkle a new convert, but most sprinkling denominations will immerse you if you ask for it, because they recognize immersion's validity.

Yes, even Catholics are starting to build baptisteries suitable for immersion because of increasing popularity of it. I think immersion is definitely better than pouring because of its more powerful imagery. I agree with you that immersion is the mode of baptism described in the NT but I disagree that it is an important aspect of baptism.

Since you recognize Methodist and Presbyterian baptisms, I ask, who is really deemphasizing baptism here?

I said de-emphasizing the spirituality of baptism. I'm all for de-emphasizing the mode and denominationalism of baptism.

 

[Havensdad]

To all of my fellow Baptists who accept baptisms other than immersion from denominations not of like faith and order, who attach un-baptistic sacramental
significance to the act, a question:

Why would you not invite the nearby Mormon elder or Jehovah's Witness leader to drop by and baptize your converts? Why would you not accept their baptism as valid? Both baptize by immersion as a sign of their commitment go God.

The difference: The CoC worship's the same Jesus. They believe in the Trinity. They confess salvation is by grace through faith. CoC was originally an offshoot (Campbell) of the Baptist faith, and it's beliefs are very similar to some early Baptist confessions.

Mormons and Jehova's witnesses are NOT brothers in Christ. They worship a different Jesus.

From a Baptist veiwpoint, that is that Baptism is Symbolic, it is absolutely SILLY not to accept immersion Baptisms from other denominations you consider Brothers in Christ.

You know what scares me about asking the questions? I fear that some of you, after reading your posts, would say it's perfectly okay.

I don't think you will find that. Baptism is to be done by immersion, performed by a Believer, on a person confessing faith in Christ> those are the ONLY requirements I can glean from scripture. Add to scripture your personal requirements if you will.

 

[ajg1959]

The difference: The CoC worship's the same Jesus. They believe in the Trinity. They confess salvation is by grace through faith. CoC was originally an offshoot (Campbell) of the Baptist faith, and it's beliefs are very similar to some early Baptist confessions.

Mormons and Jehova's witnesses are NOT brothers in Christ. They worship a different Jesus.

From a Baptist veiwpoint, that is that Baptism is Symbolic, it is absolutely SILLY not to accept immersion Baptisms from other denominations you consider Brothers in Christ.



I don't think you will find that. Baptism is to be done by immersion, performed by a Believer, on a person confessing faith in Christ> those are the ONLY requirements I can glean from scripture. Add to scripture your personal requirements if you will.

Hmmmm, I have cousins that are CofC and they say that I am not saved or going to heaven because I am not CofC and was not baptized correctly. Are folks who consider me "unsaved" really my "brothers in Christ"? They say not.

Have you ever heard the joke about the guy who goes to heaven and St Peter is showing him around?

St Peter takes him to the first building and there is a party going on, dancing and drinking, ect. St Peter says" this is where the Catholics hang out."

At the second building all the people are sitting quietly with their heads bowed while a preacher is working up a sweat yelling about hellfire and damnation. St Peter says "this is where the Baptists hang out.

At the third building St Peter tells the guy, "when we get here just duck your head down below the window level and run by real fast". He asks "Why?".

St Peter says "Because these people are Church of Christ and they think that they are the only ones up here."

AJ

 

[Havensdad]

Hmmmm, I have cousins that are CofC and they say that I am not saved or going to heaven because I am not CofC and was not baptized correctly. Are folks who consider me "unsaved" really my "brothers in Christ"? They say not.

Have you ever heard the joke about the guy who goes to heaven and St Peter is showing him around?

St Peter takes him to the first building and there is a party going on, dancing and drinking, ect. St Peter says" this is where the Catholics hang out."

At the second building all the people are sitting quietly with their heads bowed while a preacher is working up a sweat yelling about hellfire and damnation. St Peter says "this is where the Baptists hang out.

At the third building St Peter tells the guy, "when we get here just duck your head down below the window level and run by real fast". He asks "Why?".

St Peter says "Because these people are Church of Christ and they think that they are the only ones up here."

AJ

Funny. But this is not typical of Churches of Christ today. This is true of three denominational offshoots of CoC that I know of, namely:

United Church of Christ
International Church of Christ
Disciples of Christ

The majority or Churches of Christ, believe that anyone who has repented and placed their faith in Christ through Baptism by immersion, is saved. They do indeed have problems with those who teach baptismal regeneration (Lutherans, Catholics) and those who teach paedobaptism (Presbyterians, some Methodists), but generally there has been much cooperation between CoC and Baptists of various denominations, because of the agreement on the mode of Baptism (believers baptism by immersion).

 

[Bob Alkire]

I believe this comes from the CofC's side on this.
http://www.housetohouse.com/HTH/biblequestions/archive/question0149.htm

 

[Tom Butler]

Funny. But this is not typical of Churches of Christ today. This is true of three denominational offshoots of CoC that I know of, namely:

United Church of Christ
International Church of Christ
Disciples of Christ

The majority or Churches of Christ, believe that anyone who has repented and placed their faith in Christ through Baptism by immersion, is saved. They do indeed have problems with those who teach baptismal regeneration (Lutherans, Catholics) and those who teach paedobaptism (Presbyterians, some Methodists), but generally there has been much cooperation between CoC and Baptists of various denominations, because of the agreement on the mode of Baptism (believers baptism by immersion).

Don't think the United Church of Christ came out of the Campbellite Church of Christ. It came about through a merger of the Congregationalists and the Evangelical and Reformed Churches.

I suppose that I have led an extremely sheltered Southern Baptist Life. Nowhere in my Baptist life (now 61 years) have I ever--ever--seen Baptists and Churches of Christ cooperate. Nor have I seen any Churches of Christ cooperate in any venture involving other denominations.

I suppose there are Churches of Christ in my part of the country who might say to me, "well, you've repented of sin, believed in Jesus as your Savior, and been baptized--so you are surely saved," but I have never met one. Around here, they will consider me as having been dunked by a heretic, and a lost one at that.

I no longer wish to quibble over the term baptismal regeneration. I will concede that the CofC denies holding this doctrine. What they do believe in is that baptism is necessary for salvation.

 

[Karen]

Funny. But this is not typical of Churches of Christ today. This is true of three denominational offshoots of CoC that I know of, namely:

United Church of Christ
International Church of Christ
Disciples of Christ

.............

I disagree with your analysis. My town and area has a number of traditional Churches of Christ that do believe and teach I am not going to Heaven because of faulty baptism, even though by immersion.
(It is true that there can be great variation among individual COC congregations.)

Also, you list the UCC and Disciples of Christ. Both are relatively theologically liberal denominations that simply do not believe what you suggest. They both routinely have joint initiatives with the PCUSA, the most theologically liberal Presbyterian denomination in this country.
There is a Disciples seminary not far from me. My relative graduated from it, and they just don't teach what you suggest.

 

[ajg1959]

I disagree with your analysis. My town and area has a number of traditional Churches of Christ that do believe and teach I am not going to Heaven because of faulty baptism, even though by immersion.
(It is true that there can be great variation among individual COC congregations.)

Also, you list the UCC and Disciples of Christ. Both are relatively theologically liberal denominations that simply do not believe what you suggest. They both routinely have joint initiatives with the PCUSA, the most theologically liberal Presbyterian denomination in this country.
There is a Disciples seminary not far from me. My relative graduated from it, and they just don't teach what you suggest.

I have to agree with Karen, every CofC that I have ever met, and discussed this with,has told me the same thing, that I wasnt baptised correctly and therefore not going to heaven.

 

[StefanM]

I suppose that I have led an extremely sheltered Southern Baptist Life. Nowhere in my Baptist life (now 61 years) have I ever--ever--seen Baptists and Churches of Christ cooperate. Nor have I seen any Churches of Christ cooperate in any venture involving other denominations.

That's all I've seen, too. I once lived in a town where almost all of the denominations came together to have a revival service for the whole town. One church protested at the site...the church of Christ.

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

Tom, I doubt you'll find anyone here who thinks being baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins includes either Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses with their heterodox views about Christ and the Trinity. This is a red herring argument.

I can only speak for myself, but I believe one is Baptized into Christ (cf. Rom 6) not a Baptist church, so I accept believer baptisms from other denominations as valid. Like I said before, the sticking point is believer baptism, not whether other denominations have valid NT baptisms, whatever that's supposed to be. The NT, in my opinion, gives good evidence that baptism is more important than many Baptists make it and part of the process of being saved. Like I said before I think it is normative, but I recognize that people can confess Christ and be joined to his body without being baptized. You can call it gobbledygook or whatever you want to, but the biblical argument that leads people to put more stock in it than you is certainly reasonable.