The Church of Christ

Sounds like a very familiar doctrine.........

 

Actually, it sounds quite unique. I don't know of any other main line churches that teach this other than the COC. The RCC teaches that all validly baptized persons are indeed baptized. That is, in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Even in Protestant congragations.

Yeah Andy, that is a pretty big assumption.

 

Andy,

They also think they are the ONE True Church because of their NAME.

 

Andy:
I am a preacher of the gospel of Christ. There is no such group called Campbellites that are a part of the church of Christ. The church of Christ was in America several years before any Campbell arrived on her shores. The Rock Springs congregation was meeting in Celina, Tenn. in 1805. The Bridgeport congregation began meeting in 1807. This was some 5 to 7 years before any of the Campbells began preaching.

Furthermore, the Bible does not teach one must be baptized in a " church of Christ." Since the church are the saved ( Acts 2:47) one cannot be baptized into another saved person. However, one must be baptized for unto the remission of sins to be saved ( Acts 2:38), which adds him to the church (Acts 2:47).

Your premise that it is arrogant to believe one must be a part of the saved of Christ is not arrogance, but it is a new testament truth ( Eph. 1:22,23, Col. 1:18, I Cor. 3:11; 12:12,13, Mat. 16:18). I suppose it is possible to teach the truth arrogantly. However, I also am sure it is possible to teach false doctrine arrogantly. I prefer to teach the truth in Love ( Eph. 4:15).

 

3 Angels Mom,
It is not true Christians believe our name saves us. Rather, it is the name given to the saved by God ( Isaiah 56:5,6;62:1,2, Acts 11:26). The inspired designation for those saved of Christ is Christian. This is the only new name you will find in the new testament of Christ. Therefore, it is an honor to be called a Christian as it is God who declared it to be so Is.56:5,6;62:1,2, Acts 11:26,I Pet 4:19). God will not share his glory with any one else ( Is. 42:8).

Furthermore, we do not believe our name makes us the one church. God adds men to his church Acts 2:47, Mat. 16:18). The name is a description of the saved as designated by inspiration of God ( Romans 16:16, Acts 20:28, I Thes. 1:1. II Thes. 2:1). The saved submit to the will of God in all they teach and practice ( Mat. 26:18-20).

 

Charles,

I do not assume anything of a scriptural nature.
My post are referenced with scripture. It is not an assumption to see most of what others have posted is simply unsubstantiated opinion and, has no scriptural support. Perhaps, you should reconsider your statement, " yeah Andy that is a pretty big assumption."

What scriptural support did Andy provide for his position, Charles? NONE! It appears we need to look at the word assumption.

Charles, could you show me a " mainline churches" in the bible? Or perhaps you assumed it was in the Bible. I know where it is in the Bible. It is in Jude the second chapter.

 

Frank said

Good. Then are you speaking on behalf of the the Church of Christ denomination? My mother was raised Church of Christ, and my brother in law is COC. What I have heard is from her and he, and they both said the same things, that if you were not baptizesd in a COC church, then you could not go to heaven. They may have mis-understood. Are you saying on behalf of COC's that one baptized into the Baptist Church is not saved or saved?

Don't get all whacked out over the term. It is a MODERN term to describe the results of the splintering of the Reformation. Mainline haveing to do with larger numbers, vs. these one off independent groups that say any and everything.

The Church of the NT was new and unified.

 

Frank said

This is like Apostolic Succession. So then, does anyone keep track of which COC's have Cambells influence or traditions in their teachings that make them distinct from the non-Cambellites?

This seems similar to Charles Russell and JW. They now distance themselves from him but they still teach his teachings on the Bible. But as a group now, nobody at all will claim him.

 

The Church of Christ is definitely associated with Alexander Cambell.
There is an excellent history of this church given at:
History of the Church of Christ

"It is obvious that Campbell found in the New Testament a pattern by which the church of the New Testament era might conveniently be recreated."
The article says.
DHK

 

Why so many fail to understand the meaning and significance of baptism is beyond me! Baptism is a part of faith! Just as belief, confession and repentance are. Baptism is a COMMAND from our very savior the Lord Jesus Christ! And He gave an example for us to go by. It was after Jesus was baptized when the Holy Spirit descended upon Him.

Likewise Peter said:

"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"(Acts 2:38).

Here we have both repentance and baptism connected with the forgiveness of sins. Who out there plans on being saved apart from having your sins forgiven?!! Also connected to repentance and baptism was the receiving of the Holy Spirit. Who can be saved without the Holy Spirit?

The Gospel of Mark says:

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned"(Mk.16:16).

In this example we have belief and baptism connected with salvation.

Paul relates his understanding concerning baptism as such:

"Or don't you know that all of us who were baptised into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life"(Rom.6:3,4;see also Col.2:12).

"for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ"(Gal.3:27).

In these examples we have baptism associated with being buried with Christ in his death, then coming up out of the water and being raised to a new life. This is when we are told we receive our clothing. I don't think you will go a very long way being recognized by God without this clothing, do you?!

With the account of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch we are told that Philip told him of the good news about Jesus Christ(Acts 8:35), and it was the eunuch that asked and knew that he must be baptized(Acts 8:36). Thus, you can infer from this that when Philip told him of the gospel he must have mentioned baptism, otherwise the eunuch would not have known to ask to be baptized. So many people completely miss this important point.

Peter likewise stresses the importance of baptism when he said:

"and this water symbolizes baptism that saves you now-- not the removal of dirt from the body but a pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ"(1Pet.3:21).

Without the resurrection of Jesus Christ baptism would have no important meaning whatsoever. It was Christ's resurrection(in which we take part in by our baptism[Rom.6:3,4]) that gave baptism its validity as a part of our faith.

I can find several passages in the Bible where the forgiveness of sins are connected to belief, repentance, confession, and yes-- baptism.

How many believe you can be saved without believing?

How many believe you can be saved without repenting?

How many believe you can be saved without confessing you sins to God?

So likewise baptism is also connected with salvation, yet many do not make this connection. Many people insist on neglecting or removing this connection of baptism with the forgiveness of sins-- salvation! They believe all the others are a necessity.

The Bible said you are saved by your faith. I believe belief, repentance, confession, and baptism are all a part of faith. If you have a pie cut into four sections and remove a piece, do you still have a whole? So likewise removing baptism from the salvation equation leaves faith incomplete.

 

Just what part of faith is baptism a part of? Your statement is both illogical, and does not make sense. What is faith? Can you define it? Have you ever thought about it? Faith is not simply acts of obedience such as baptism. Baptism is a work. We are not saved by works. If you include baptism in your salvation then you are saved by works. The Bible clearly says that we are not saved by works.

"We walk by faith and not by sight."
What part of baptism do you not see?

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
--Again, what part of baptism do you not see?
Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Is baptism not seen. Are you baptized blind-folded?
DHK

 

DHK said

Baptism is a work. A work of the Holy Spirit just as the Bible says it is. We are saved by the work of the Triune Godhead. The Bible clearly states that we are saved not by our works, but by His works.

DHK, we have been over this so many times. You should at least agree that it is reasonable for a person to read what the Bible says about Baptism, and see it as a sacramental work of the Holy Spirit. I know you see it as symbolic, but in this case, you are the one having to take the literal Scriptures and make them metaphors. And not only that, but this symbolic interpretation is flat out new in veiw of Christian history.

All I am saying is that is not illogical to believe the literal words of the bible on baptism, and see the Church followed that same understanding for 1534 years before symbolic exegisis was attached to this subject. If anything, the symbolic position is the illogical of the two given all factors surounding the topic.

 

Esca....gist said

Yes, so totally true! I really like this story in Acts. You have to deduce some things since they leave out the actual dialoge Phillips explanations. But what can we deduce from the first question the excited Eunuch had? Phillip must have really stressed baptism as being the rite of passage into Christ's body during the explanation. Because that is exactly what the Eunuch keyed on. That was the first thing out of his mouth!

Now imagine if an Evangelical today was sharing the 'Gospel' today with this same Eunuch. Do you think the Eunuch would even have heard the word baptism used once in during the exposition of the Gospel? Of course not. All he would know is that you confess your sins, and ask Jesus into your heart? He would ask, "and now what prevents me from receiving this Jesus into my heart?" And the Evangelical would say..."nothing!"

How different the New Testament would read if Evangelicals were around while it was being penned. Especially all the verses on Baptism.

 

And where does the Bible say this about water baptism? I see no example in Scripture where the Holy Spirit of God comes down from heaven and actually baptizes the one being baptized. Baptism is an act of man. Man does the baptizing. Man is the one getting baptized. It is done in obedience to God's command, but it is an act or work of man, nevertheless. The Holy Spirt baptizes no one. Show me an instance where he does.
DHK

 

While the RCC will let other Christians go to purgatory and then heaven - they claim that only Catholics can be saved under the "New Covenant".

The RCC position is that the the New Covenant "IS the Catholic Mass" and only Catholics qualify as participants.

So while they are not as restrictive as the Church of Christ - they have something "close" in terms of the New Covenant. Especially when you consider that "most Christians" know that if you are not saved under the New Covenant - you are not saved.


Abridged version, by Dave Armstrong, of "The Church Necessary for Salvation," chapter 10, pp.169-186 of The Spirit of Catholicism, by Karl Adam (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1924, translated by Dom Justin McCann).

This book (in the editor's opinion, anyway) is one of the very best expositions of Catholicism ever written: very eloquent, biblical, imaginative, appealing, and orthodox.

In it is found the following excellent treatment of the complex and multi-faceted question of how non-Catholic Christians are regarded by the Catholic Church

In Christ,

Bob

 

Charles:
I am not all whacked out about your " mainline churches " statement. I simply pointed out, scripturally, it is at odds with the new testament. I posted the scriptures to prove this position. If you disagree, you can prove it( I Thes. 5:21).

Furthermore, the reformation was a product of uninspired men who caused more division. We have reaped a harvest of division as a result of Luther, Calvin, etc. Although their intentions were seemingly sincere, they were sincerely wrong on many issues. This has caused the formation of Lutherans, Calvinists, and some 32,000 other ists and isms.

I am not a part of any denomination. My stock in trade is to make every effort, with the good mind God gave me, to represent the Gospel of Christ, no more no less. My guide is the authority of the new testament of Christ ( Mat. 28:18-20).

As for your contention about being baptized by or into a church of Christ, the scriptures teach one is to baptized for the remission of sins ( Acts 2:38). This is what was stated in my previous post. Perhaps, the problem is with semantics or terms. The Bible teaches the saved are the church ( Acts 2:47). The saved are added to the church ( Acts 2:47). This is what I have affirmed. The Bible also teaches there is no salvation outside the church ( II Tim. 2:10, Eph. 1:3, Col. 1:14, Gal. 3: 26,27). This would have to be the case, as the saved are the church ( Acts 2:47). Again, this is what the scriptures teach. This is what I affirm.

As for your family members, I have no way of making a judgment about your claims, as I have no evidence, context, by which to make one, nor would I do so publicly. Since they are my brother or sister in the Lord, I am required to go to them privately to discuss matters of faith. By the way, I am not questioning the veracity of your statement. I am simply saying it would be in appropriate for me to respond in a public forum about them.

I have made no statement about Baptist beliefs and salvation as it pertaisn to this matter. Your statement is a conclusion emanating from your mind. Perhaps, uyou should explaoin how you cam eto that conclusion. I may be able to respond once I know the facts or the basis for your statement.

 

Dhk:
You can search the internet from now to eternity and you will not be able to prove your contention. The historical documentation of the congregations of the church in Celina Tenn. and Bridgeport,Al. are without question reliable and accurate. They are taken from county archives. I challenge you to prove them wrong.

Furthermore, Barton Stone, Walter Scott, John Smith were all gospel preachers who left denominationalism to restore new testament Christianity, not be reformers. Those who are denominationalists have trouble realizing the difference in reformation and restoration. There is a difference.

Since you are so interested in Alexander Campbell, why not read a book about him written by one of his contemporaries. The book is entitled Aleaxander Campbell as a Preacher by Archibald McLean published in 1908. By the way, Mclean was from Canada. Then, get back with me on your claims!!!

 

For DHK

You say baptism is a work. Well, since believing, repenting, and confessing you probably consider not a work, or in other words something YOU do not do, I would love to see this shoe horn or pry bar God uses to make us do these things. For one I had to decide to believe. I had to repent, and this took some effort on my part, and I confess my sins to God, whether orally or in my mind. All of these things require some effort on our side, unless you are one of those who believe God is going to shove it down your throat whether you want it or not! Although God will consistently open door after door before you, it is utimately left up to you to walk in.


I am so sorry you have such little understanding of both faith and baptism, and rather perfer to recite the definition. Like you I know the Bible definition of faith. But using your same logic I say this to you. When the woman exibited such great FAITH in the presence of Jesus and His followers by what see did, for which Jesus said "your faith has saved you," would it have made much sense if He said "The evidence of things unseen has saved you?" Jesus was specifically pointing out that what see did showed her faith, just as the examples Paul used when describing the faith of Abraham and the others. You apparently have missed the spiritual significance and connotations of baptism as its relation to faith, as seen in Romans 6:3f and other passages, because you are so caught up in a definition and in works. From a spiritual significance baptism is no more of a work than believing, repenting, or confessing. Your understanding is just literally drown in the baptismal waters by misunderstanding what the literal physical water means spiritually! To put it quite simply-- your are caught up in the physical and not the spiritual. Apart from believing this water means absolutely nothing, other than you will get quite wet.

Jesus gave us baptism as an example and command for us to follow. Yet you have managed to WATER it down by just converting it into a work of merit! Shame Shame Shame!!! For your sake I hope you have not done this with other meaningful and important soteriological truths.

 

Charles33

Excellent post!!! You are correct in saying that if enlightening someone today about the Gospel would they even know there was a baptism at all! Surely Philip stressed its need with regard to obeying the Gospel.