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

[Marcia]

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).

It seems nobody is reading what I posted here or on the other thread. The CoC claims it does not believe in baptismal regeneration because they acknowledge there is no power in the water to save; however, they believe that salvation is applied at the moment of water baptism.

So basically, what they believe vs. baptismal regeneration is a difference without a distinction. They also believe they are the one and only restored NT church and unless you are baptized their way, by them, you are not in the church.

You can have all the opinions you want, but the facts give the truth!

Here is what I posted on the other thread. Please watch this video if you are able to and hear CoC pastors and leaders speak for themselves. They do believe you must be baptized (in their churches) to be saved!!

The other video is by a man who was studying to be a pastor in a CoC church and left.
---------------------

Research the history and teachings of the Campbellite movement, which has disturbing teachings other than just the one on baptism, and see for yourself.

Watch this John Ankerberg video (9 min.) where a CoC leader explains that salvation "is applied at the moment of salvation."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-b0XOyrAPA

There are other CoC leaders on this video who say that one must be immersed in water in order to be saved, but they deny that this is baptismal regeneration.

The CoC believes that they restored the NT church. In other words, the true church did not exist before them since the early church - this is also the view of other cultic groups like the JWs, the Mormons, the 12 Tribes, etc.

Also, see this video by a man who once trained to be a preacher in the CoC (8 1/2 min.):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRXNJ...eature=related

He states that the CoC teaches that unless you are baptized, you are not saved. He also says that they claim to be the only ones who are "the one true church."

 

[lbaker]

Yes, there are some extremists out there in the coC, just like in the SBC. But, that is not what the movement was all about originally, nor is it what it is all about now, among its more thoughtful and intelligent leaders.

 

[lbaker]

I only know this about some of the CoC and that is My daughter went there for a while until they asked her to present proof of her income. I guess they didn't think she placed enough in the offering plate. She called me and asked what I thought she should do. I just told her about a thing called trust. If they couldn't trust her how could she trust them.
MB

That is a terrible thing for a church to do, regardless of the sign on the door. She did well to get out of there ASAP.

 

[lbaker]

What they do believe in is that baptism is necessary for salvation.

I will agree that quite a few, maybe even most, do believe that. But, that is a long way from baptismal regeneration.

Don't we also believe that some sort of response to God's offer of Grace through Faith is required for it to be effective? We do believe that something more than just mental assent to a set of facts is needed, correct? At least James says that mental assent doesn't save the demons.

 

[Marcia]

I will agree that quite a few, maybe even most, do believe that. But, that is a long way from baptismal regeneration.

Don't we also believe that some sort of response to God's offer of Grace through Faith is required for it to be effective? We do believe that something more than just mental assent to a set of facts is needed, correct? At least James says that mental assent doesn't save the demons.

Here is part of what I posted above:

The CoC claims it does not believe in baptismal regeneration because they acknowledge there is no power in the water to save; however, they believe that salvation is applied at the moment of water baptism.

So basically, what they believe vs. baptismal regeneration is a difference without a distinction. They also believe they are the one and only restored NT church and unless you are baptized their way, by them, you are not in the church.

So salvation is applied at the moment of water baptism. That is when you are saved, according to the CoC.

No, that is what Baptists believe! You are saved - justified in God's eyes - his wrath is removed -- at the moment of faith.

Water baptism is done out of obedience and as a display of your faith to other believers or whoever. But no salvation is given for this.

 

[Marcia]

Yes, there are some extremists out there in the coC, just like in the SBC. But, that is not what the movement was all about originally, nor is it what it is all about now, among its more thoughtful and intelligent leaders.

These are not extremists. Why do you want to think they are something they are not?

It is about what the movement was originally. They believed they were restoring the original NT church, and they still believe they are the one true church.

The CoC people who do not accept this are the exception, not the rule.

 

[exscentric]

"The majority or Churches of Christ, believe that anyone who has repented and placed their faith in Christ through Baptism by immersion, is saved."

If that is what they are saying it seems they are saying what some of us have been saying, they say, that baptism is a requirement for salvation :thumbs:

 

[Havensdad]

They also believe they are the one and only restored NT church and unless you are baptized their way, by them, you are not in the church.

As do some Baptists, apparently> it is funny you are criticizing them for the same thing you are doing.

Water baptism is done out of obedience and as a display of your faith to other believers or whoever. But no salvation is given for this.

Then why would you not accept the CoC baptism again? Are you scared they "didn't get wet" quite right??

AGAIN> WHERE in the NT, does it state a Baptism is invalid if the underlying meaning of it is skewed? In other words, why do you NEED to re baptize them? How can you mess up a SYMBOLIC act??

 

[Marcia]

As do some Baptists, apparently> it is funny you are criticizing them for the same thing you are doing.

Baptists were never part of the Church Restoration Movement.

Then why would you not accept the CoC baptism again? Are you scared they "didn't get wet" quite right??

This sounds like an ad hominem. I'm not "scared."

AGAIN> WHERE in the NT, does it state a Baptism is invalid if the underlying meaning of it is skewed? In other words, why do you NEED to re baptize them? How can you mess up a SYMBOLIC act?

If the teaching behind baptism is skewed, then the baptism is not according to God's word and the person might be messed up on his/her understanding of it and of salvation. I would want to talk to the person and find out first, if they were a believer and understood that salvation is by faith alone; then, I would want to make sure they understood what water baptism is acc. to the Bible and why it's done.

 

[Havensdad]

Baptists were never part of the Church Restoration Movement.

You would think so, though, from reading these threads..

This sounds like an ad hominem. I'm not "scared."

It's not ad hominem. It's common sense. If one is saved apart from Baptism, and Baptism is merely a symbolic act, someone misunderstanding it is simply unimportant. You should be consistent with your theology.

If the teaching behind baptism is skewed, then the baptism is not according to God's word and the person might be messed up on his/her understanding of it and of salvation. I would want to talk to the person and find out first, if they were a believer and understood that salvation is by faith alone; then, I would want to make sure they understood what water baptism is acc. to the Bible and why it's done.

Really. So, could you please show me in scripture the verse that explains what happens when one is baptized? Cause the only ones I find, are ones like this...

Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.


Could you please show me in the NT, where a Baptism is a symbolic act?

BTW, I AGREE that it is symbolic: however it is for theological reasons, not scriptural ones. The specific statements of scripture, all seem to point to it being for the forgiveness of sins/salvation.

 

[Marcia]

My comments in this post are marked with ***


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcia
Baptists were never part of the Church Restoration Movement.



You would think so, though, from reading these threads..




***I don't think so. And the fact remains that Baptists are not part of this movement, a movement that was also known as the Campbellite movement. This is a specific historical movement that had nothing to do with Baptists.



Quote:
This sounds like an ad hominem. I'm not "scared."

It's not ad hominem. It's common sense. If one is saved apart from Baptism, and Baptism is merely a symbolic act, someone misunderstanding it is simply unimportant. You should be consistent with your theology.



***But one cannot know they are saved if they think they must do something to be saved.



So, could you please show me in scripture the verse that explains what happens when one is baptized? Cause the only ones I find, are ones like this...

Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.




***The argument you use above is an argument that those who believe in baptismal regeneration use (and the CoC uses). I can say this about the above verse: the "for the forgiveness of your sins" does not mean that one is forgiven by being baptized, but means that you are baptized because you've been forgiven.




BTW, I AGREE that it is symbolic: however it is for theological reasons, not scriptural ones. The specific statements of scripture, all seem to point to it being for the forgiveness of sins/salvation.


***Then you need to read the refutations of this. There are plenty out there that refute the claim that scripture teaches baptismal regneration.

 

[Tom Butler]

I will agree that quite a few, maybe even most, do believe that [baptism necessary for salvation]. But, that is a long way from baptismal regeneration.

Don't we also believe that some sort of response to God's offer of Grace through Faith is required for it to be effective? We do believe that something more than just mental assent to a set of facts is needed, correct? At least James says that mental assent doesn't save the demons.

I'm curious why you keep arguing over baptismal regeneration when you've won the argument.

You now agree with my view (and that of a lot of others here) that the Church of Christ believes that baptism is necessary for salvation. So we agree. Can we quit debating subjects that we agree about?

If you're implying that saving faith is a "work" of some kind, it cannot be so, since even the faith by which we are saved is a gift from God.

 

[Marcia]

More on Acts 2:38:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The problem is that Acts 2:38 isn't the only verse in the Bible which deals with salvation. While many claim to "speak where the scriptures speak and remain silent where the scriptures are silent," they practically ignore most of the New Testament teaching on salvation. The only verses that such false teachers quote and reference are the ones they feel they can use to promote their "water gospel." The fact is that most of what the New Testament says about salvation doesn't include baptism at all! (John 5:24, John 11:25-26, John 14:6, Romans 4:5, Romans 10:9-13, Eph. 2:8-9, etc.), and the few places that do mention water baptism do not include it as part of one's salvation. Water baptism follows salvation as one of the first steps of obedience for the new believer.[/FONT]

....Another error that many make with Acts 2:38 is the error of assumption. It is assumed that the word "for" must mean "in order to get." That is, being baptized "for" the remission of sins supposedly means to be baptized "in order to get" remission of sins. However, a closer look at the scriptures will reveal that this isn't the case at all.

Read the rest here
http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/acts2.html

For a brief response, see
http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Acts-2-38.html

One example of how this preposition is used in other Scriptures is seen in Matthew 12:41 where the word eis communicates the “result” of an action. In this case it is said that the people of Nineveh “repented at the preaching of Jonah” (the word translated “at” is the same Greek word eis). Clearly, the meaning of this passage is that they repented “because of’” or “as the result of” Jonah’s preaching. In the same way, it would be possible that Acts 2:38 is indeed communicating the fact that they were to be baptized “as the result of” or “because” they already had believed and in doing so had already received forgiveness of their sins (John 1:12; John 3:14-18; John 5:24; John 11:25-26; Acts 10:43; Acts 13:39; Acts 16:31; Acts 26:18; Romans 10:9; Ephesians 1:12-14). This interpretation of the passage is also consistent with the message recorded in Peter’s next two sermons to unbelievers where he associates the forgiveness of sins with the act of repentance and faith in Christ without even mentioning baptism (Acts 3:17-26; Acts 4:8-12)___end excerpt

For a very thorough discussion, see "Does Water Baptism Save? A Biblical Refutation of Baptismal Regeneration" at
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/salvatio/bapsav06.htm

In short, the NT does not teach that one must be baptized in wate to be saved, especially in light of all the passages that teach salvation by faith with no mention of water baptism. Every passage must be examined in light of other passages on the same topic.[/FONT]

 

[Tom Butler]

The unyielding defense of the Church of Christ and its baptism by havensdad and lbaker have raised a couple of questions in my mind.

I'm wondering if both are posting under false colors and are not really Baptists at all. I make no accusations here, but my curiosity has been aroused. I have never seen two Baptists argue for Church of Christ baptism, at the same time misrepresenting their doctrine.

The other possibility is that both are running a strong campaign for trolldom. I doubt if they are since their posts have been mostly civil and free of ad hominem remarks. Mostly.

But there has to be an explanation for their claim to be Baptists while at the same time expressing opinions diametrically opposed to mainstream Baptist thought. It's actually more than that: they are defending heresy.

They have worn me down. I give up. Let them post to their hearts content. I invite you to join me in simply declining to respond any more. This thread has run its course.

 

[Havensdad]

The unyielding defense of the Church of Christ and its baptism by havensdad and lbaker have raised a couple of questions in my mind.

I'm wondering if both are posting under false colors and are not really Baptists at all. I make no accusations here, but my curiosity has been aroused. I have never seen two Baptists argue for Church of Christ baptism, at the same time misrepresenting their doctrine.

I resent this greatly. I am a licensed Southern Baptist preacher, and evangelist. Just because I do not agree with YOU, does not make me some kind of trouble maker. I would also note, that although the poll is currently in your favor, it is not exactly a landslide. It is not like we are arguing alone.

The other possibility is that both are running a strong campaign for trolldom. I doubt if they are since their posts have been mostly civil and free of ad hominem remarks. Mostly.

Again, "They don't agree with my me, there must be something amiss".

But there has to be an explanation for their claim to be Baptists while at the same time expressing opinions diametrically opposed to mainstream Baptist thought. It's actually more than that: they are defending heresy.

Funny. YOU are adding to baptist distinctives, and going against early baptist confessions, and it is we who are the oddballs.

I have yet to see in any Baptist Church constitution, a requirement for theologically perfect agreement on Baptism. My home church, Brazosport Baptist Temple, has in it's consitution only that Baptisms must be done as full immersion on believers, with a Trinitarian formula. There is nothing further, claiming strict agreement on the underlying theological doctrines.

There is also not anything in any Baptist confession of faith that I have found anywhere, that demands such, or makes any claim to the lack of validity concerning baptism, based on anything but:

#1 Immersion
#2 Subject is a believer
#3 Trinitarian formula

I see nothing in any confession that states one with a sacramental view of adult believers baptism must be re-baptized. Please, demonstrate this.

They have worn me down. I give up. Let them post to their hearts content. I invite you to join me in simply declining to respond any more. This thread has run its course.

This is very well and good. However, someone else may have something to add to the conversation. I have written several CoC pastors/theologians, as well as a few respected Baptists as well. Perhaps we will get there input.

 

[Havensdad]

If you're implying that saving faith is a "work" of some kind, it cannot be so, since even the faith by which we are saved is a gift from God.

I am glad we agree on that much.

 

[exscentric]

Reference to those that hold to your position have been requested twice, with nothing forthcoming.

Some quotes might strengthen your position on what you say they say.

Resource on your definition of baptismal regeneration would be of interest.

 

[lbaker]

My point has always been that even though the coC may believe that salvation (by faith) is received at the time of immersion, that doesn't change the fact that they still believe in salvation by faith. The main disagreement seems to be about the timing, not the nature of salvation, something the NT is at best vague about. Now, if someone believes that baptism without faith in Christ brings salvation I would have serious questions about that person's salvation. Also, whether we agree with it or not, given the many verses that certainly seem to indicate that Paul, Peter, Luke, even Jesus percieved baptism as part of conversion, the coC position isn't really that unreasonable and certainly not worth refusing to accept their baptism as valid. We don't accuse persons who think they must say a sinners prayer, or really really repent, or make a public confession of some kind before they are saved of thinking salvation is by works, do we? To assume that misunderstanding the purpose of baptism, given what a gray area it could be, somehow invalidates the baptism, is really being nitpicky and missing the whole idea that it is faith that saves us and not our performance. By the way, some really good baptist scholars like Beasley-Murray and Stanley Fowler more or less think we've got it wrong about baptism, at least as far as what the normal thought and practice was in NT times.

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

You can add at least one SBC theologian to your list lbaker, Robert H. Stein, who has a helpful article on baptism and becoming a Christian in the NT from 1998 available in .pdf format at SBTS's website here: http://www.sbts.edu/Resources/Publications/Journal/Spring_1998.aspx

 

[exscentric]

Just some review:

Some comments that have been made. Would you like to consider them on your own. One was included in a post that no one responded to - understandable as lengthy as this thread has gotten.

"The majority or Churches of Christ, believe that anyone who has repented and placed their faith in Christ through Baptism by immersion, is saved."

Sounds like you are even saying that baptism is part of salvation.

The second is that it was said that they include baptism as part of their Ordus salutis.

"CoC and some others, believe that Baptism is one step in the Ordo salutis"

From: http://www.theopedia.com/Ordo_salutis -- not quoted because of any thinking that this site is more valid than others, just the first in google's list.
---

Ordo Salutis is Latin for "the order of salvation" which deals with the logical sequence of steps or stages involved in the salvation of a believer

(e.g. election, foreknowledge, predestination, redemption, regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification - see especially Romans

8:29-30). There is disagreement within the Church concerning this order, and about the causal connections between them. Discussion of the ordo salutis necessarily involves specific terms which are listed below with brief definitions:

Foreknowledge: God's knowing (in this sense) prior to salvation those who would be saved.
Predestination: God's choosing before time all who would be saved.
Election: God's choosing of all who would be saved.
Regeneration: God's renewing of one's life (not physically - but as opposed to the spiritual death caused by sin).
Evangelism: The communication of the Gospel by which one can be saved.
Faith: Belief and trust in the message of the Gospel.
Conversion: One's turning to God based on the Gospel.
Perseverance: One's continued true belief - remaining in the state of salvation.
Repentance: One's turning from sin to God.
Justification: God's freeing of one form the penalty of sin - the pronouncement of "not guilty" on a sinner.
Sanctification: God's separation of one from the lure of sin.
Glorification: God's final removal of all sin from the life and presence of one (in the eternal state).

---
Note the author's comment "Discussion of the ordo salutis necessarily involves specific terms which are listed below with brief definitions: " Note also that baptism is not listed in this list, nor any listing I've ever seen. Since the ordus salutis is a listing in order of how one thinks salvation is completed around faith (The rest being God's part) why would one put baptism in their ordus salutis if it were not a required step between faith and salvation?

Posting one of these folks listing might be enlightening to us.

One final, it was said, "From my experience, this is totally different than the coC practice where baptism is more like faith in action, or the equivalent of "accepting Christ" or "receiving Christ". Do we believe someone is saved without the "accepting" or "receiving"?"

It seems it is being said that accepting or receiving Christ is equivalent to baptism. Would there not then be one entry in their ordus mentioning faith and baptism together?