WHO should Pastor's Allow to Speak to their Congregations?

[JohnnyReb]

My "connections" tell me that what Johnny Reb said is not representative of their beliefs. That's why I asked him where he heard it.

Abraham Lincoln once said, "87% of facts are made up out of thin air."

My dad is a member of the CoC. I've listened to his rhetoric and rhetoric from other members all my life. It is FACT that they believe if you aren't a member of the TRUE church you are lost and marching into hell. Just because they don't bluntly tell you that doesn't mean they don't think it.

And when I'm talking about CoC I talking about the Alaxander Cambell church. The Cambellite church. Whatever you wanna call it

They believe their church is the only biblical church found in the bible. A church of any other name is not a member of the body of Christ. Now what does that tell about where they think baptist are going??

 

[Zaac]

If a mule and you got into a stubborn contest, you would win. And that's nothing to brag about.

So I'm stubborn because I don't agree with the status quo?:laugh:

 

[Mexdeaf]

So I'm stubborn because I don't agree with the status quo?:laugh:

No- you're just stubborn, period. And it's really not funny.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

OK. Give some documented proof that CoC denies this historical doctrine regionally. :thumbsup:

I can't speak for other regions. CofC in the Kansas City area varies among opinions on baptismal regeneration. It depends on the church, and areas of the metro area will have churches just a few miles apart that feud with one another over the issue.

I have talked to a CofC member who actually believed Billy Graham is not saved because he doesn't preach baptismal regeneration. She was an exception among the few I know, as most of the others think that's a ridiculous statement.

I do know some CofC members who claim Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16 and 1 Peter 3:21 teach baptismal regeneration, but are not able to adequately defend that view when pressed. I've known one CofC pastor who rejects the concept, and one who preaches it. They graduated from different seminaries, though both seminaries were UCC sponsored. Strange, huh?

So again, not all do, but there are some who do. Best I can do to answer the question.

 

[Herald]

I can't speak for other regions. CofC in the Kansas City area varies among opinions on baptismal regeneration. It depends on the church, and areas of the metro area will have churches just a few miles apart that feud with one another over the issue.

I have talked to a CofC member who actually believed Billy Graham is not saved because he doesn't preach baptismal regeneration. She was an exception among the few I know, as most of the others think that's a ridiculous statement.

I do know some CofC members who claim Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16 and 1 Peter 3:21 teach baptismal regeneration, but are not able to adequately defend that view when pressed. I've known one CofC pastor who rejects the concept, and one who preaches it. They graduated from different seminaries, though both seminaries were UCC sponsored. Strange, huh?

So again, not all do, but there are some who do. Best I can do to answer the question.

CoC is not monothilic. Similar to Baptists they can be all over the map theologically, although those true to their Cambellite roots do teach baptismal regeneration.

 

[Zenas]

CoC is not monothilic. Similar to Baptists they can be all over the map theologically, although those true to their Cambellite roots do teach baptismal regeneration.

I have pressed several of them on this topic and I am yet to have one say he believes in baptismal regeneration. However, from a transactional perspective you could say that is true. Their usual reply is that baptism is part of the plan of salvation, which includes belief, repentance, confession and baptism. From a purist point of view, baptismal regeneration includes the regeneration of nonbelieving infants. CoC only administers believer's baptism, not infant baptism.

 

[preacher4truth]

I have pressed several of them on this topic and I am yet to have one say he believes in baptismal regeneration.

Then you've asked none.

 

[Zenas]

Then you've asked none.

P4K if you were in my office or my home, I would order you off my property because you have called me a liar about this. And if you refused to leave I would call the police and have you escorted off. However, since I can't do this let me say that CoC folks pretty much agree that baptism = remission of sins based on Acts 2:38, 22:16 and maybe some other scripture. They probably universally agree that baptism is necessary for salvation. But every time I use the term "baptismal regeneration" around them, they will pause and say something like, "Well not exactly because we believe in baptism of believers only." It's probably just a matter of semantics but they don't seem to like this terminology.

And be careful what you say to or about people when you don't know what their experience has been.

 

[JohnnyReb]

P4K if you were in my office or my home, I would order you off my property because you have called me a liar about this. And if you refused to leave I would call the police and have you escorted off. However, since I can't do this let me say that CoC folks pretty much agree that baptism = remission of sins based on Acts 2:38, 22:16 and maybe some other scripture. They probably universally agree that baptism is necessary for salvation. But every time I use the term "baptismal regeneration" around them, they will pause and say something like, "Well not exactly because we believe in baptism of believers only." It's probably just a matter of semantics but they don't seem to like this terminology.

And be careful what you say to or about people when you don't know what their experience has been.

Slow to anger...slow to anger :godisgood:

 

[preacher4truth]

I can't speak for other regions. CofC in the Kansas City area varies among opinions on baptismal regeneration. It depends on the church, and areas of the metro area will have churches just a few miles apart that feud with one another over the issue.

I have talked to a CofC member who actually believed Billy Graham is not saved because he doesn't preach baptismal regeneration. She was an exception among the few I know, as most of the others think that's a ridiculous statement.

I do know some CofC members who claim Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16 and 1 Peter 3:21 teach baptismal regeneration, but are not able to adequately defend that view when pressed. I've known one CofC pastor who rejects the concept, and one who preaches it. They graduated from different seminaries, though both seminaries were UCC sponsored. Strange, huh?

So again, not all do, but there are some who do. Best I can do to answer the question.

So your argumentation and proof is purely subjective, yet you rate it as empirical evidence.

 

[preacher4truth]

P4K if you were in my office or my home, I would order you off my property because you have called me a liar about this. And if you refused to leave I would call the police and have you escorted off. However, since I can't do this let me say that CoC folks pretty much agree that baptism = remission of sins based on Acts 2:38, 22:16 and maybe some other scripture. They probably universally agree that baptism is necessary for salvation. But every time I use the term "baptismal regeneration" around them, they will pause and say something like, "Well not exactly because we believe in baptism of believers only." It's probably just a matter of semantics but they don't seem to like this terminology.

And be careful what you say to or about people when you don't know what their experience has been.

OK. I've called you on it and your conclusions are accurate. We've had the same dance in the past wherein I've called you on your conclusions only to hear from you on how dare 'I' call 'you', a public blogger and 'prolific writer', on the carpet.

You're clearly STILL in error.

Fact.

The CoC still, and always has believed in baptismal regeneration. If you haven't yet met one, you should climb out of 'whomevers' basement you are occupying and look at historical facts and dismiss at the same time your comic book theological perspectives and erroneous conclusions.

You deny a well known historical fact. Doing so is a commentary on your credibility.

 

[preacher4truth]

And be careful what you say to or about people when you don't know what their experience has been.

In addition to your false conclusion, I do know what their 'experience' has been, as they were my family and were also my experience in ministry and have also been enjoined to historical fact. You and others deny this historical well known fact.

Go ahead. 'Call the police'. I won't refuse being escorted off of your premises for calling you on your error -- but this is all hypothesis on your part and is simply you pulling your emotional card all the while exposing your anger for being in error.

To be arrested for such an one as you calling the police on me would frankly be an honor.

 

[A Penny Saved]

Well, in a certain sense, aren't they right about baptism saving?

In another post here, someone described salvation in three parts, past, present, and future.

I WAS saved, from the penalty of sin
I'm still BEING saved from it's power and bondage, and
I WILL BE saved, when He comes back, from the effects of sin, delivered to eternal life in heaven.

Three parts, right?

If I am to be saved from the PRESENT power of sin, that's learning to obey. And since He commands us to be baptized, surely that simple act of obedience is a "part" of that "middle part," the PRESENT part, of salvation. Right?

A Penny, perplexed

 

[Zenas]

OK. I've called you on it and your conclusions are accurate.

You bet they are!

We've had the same dance in the past wherein I've called you on your conclusions only to hear from you on how dare 'I' call 'you', a public blogger and 'prolific writer', on the carpet.

I think we've clashed before but you do seem to be confusing me with someone else. In no way, shape or form have I ever implied that I am a public blogger. I have published a few articles (nonreligious) but I certainly am not a prolific writer.

You're clearly STILL in error.

So which is it? Accurate like you said in our first sentence or in error? You need to do more proof reading and less pompous bloviating when you post.

Fact.

The CoC still, and always has believed in baptismal regeneration. If you haven't yet met one, you should climb out of 'whomevers' basement you are occupying and look at historical facts and dismiss at the same time your comic book theological perspectives and erroneous conclusions.

You deny a well known historical fact. Doing so is a commentary on your credibility.

I agree they do believe in baptismal regeneration, they just don't say so. They don't seem to like this phraseology. Since you let go with your insults a few hours ago, I have done quite a bit of reading on baptism in the CoC and I have not found any of their writers who use this term. The nearest they seem to come is to quote Titus 3:5. So yes, they believe in it but they seldom if ever call it that. If you can find one who uses "baptismal regeneration" to describe what happens in baptism, I will stand corrected.

 

[Yeshua1]

You bet they are!

I think we've clashed before but you do seem to be confusing me with someone else. In no way, shape or form have I ever implied that I am a public blogger. I have published a few articles (nonreligious) but I certainly am not a prolific writer. So which is it? Accurate like you said in our first sentence or in error? You need to do more proof reading and less pompous bloviating when you post. I agree they do believe in baptismal regeneration, they just don't say so. They don't seem to like this phraseology. Since you let go with your insults a few hours ago, I have done quite a bit of reading on baptism in the CoC and I have not found any of their writers who use this term. The nearest they seem to come is to quote Titus 3:5. So yes, they believe in it but they seldom if ever call it that. If you can find one who uses "baptismal regeneration" to describe what happens in baptism, I will stand corrected.

Point is that IF they add the act of water Baptism as required in addition to faith in jesus to save, they hold to another Gospel!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

So your argumentation and proof is purely subjective, yet you rate it as empirical evidence.

Definition of "empirical" ...

em·pir·i·cal
emˈpirikəl/
adjective
adjective: empirical

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
"they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument"​

Thank you very much.