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

[exscentric]

It has nothing to do with them being good people or anything else but why they were baptized. If they felt it was needed to gain salvation then it is a false baptism, if they did it out of obedience to the Lord's desire then it is valid.

It is not about washing away of sin, it is done for the remission of sin - see them for the difference as I think you will find it is different.

I was raised in the cambelite tradition and was dunked for the remission of sin and when I accepted the Lord I knew that I needed to be properly baptized for the proper reason.

---
""The work of the cross is God’s offer of life…"

But to gain it you have to be baptized.

"Baptism is our acceptance""

Yep, and if you don't you are not saved.

""their is no power in the water itself""

Nope there isn't.

"They believe baptism is the "Official acceptance" of God's offer of eternal life."

Yep, without baptism you are not accepting it and cannot be saved.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This last is what I have run into.

 

[Havensdad]

It has nothing to do with them being good people or anything else but why they were baptized. If they felt it was needed to gain salvation then it is a false baptism, if they did it out of obedience to the Lord's desire then it is valid.

While I believe traditional Baptist beliefs regarding Baptism, where does scripture say that if one has Faith in Christ, repents, and is dunked, His baptism is not acceptable unless He understands the theological implications of it??

So, if I have an 8 year old, who puts their faith in Christ, and then gets baptized, but misunderstands the purpose for Baptism, we should RE baptize them the next week, after explaining it to them again??

The reason why I compare this to Catholics, is because it is like some kind of Baptistic sacramental system: as if the Baptism is NOT a symbolic public profession of faith, but indeed has some sort of "mystical" magical qualities in and of itself.

Listen, folks, y'all are in effect AGREEING with the CoC! That their is power in the Baptism itself. If it is, as every Baptist confession I know of states explicitly, a public profession of faith in Christ, symbolizing Christ's death, burial and resurrection, then we should have no problem accepting CoC baptism, UNLESS you think that the person was not saved at the time, OR the mode is different (non immersion).

CoC is closer to our doctrine than any other denomination that I know of. So IMHO, by saying you won't accept a symbolic baptism from one of our closest cousins, you are in effect saying that if one is not Baptist, they are not saved.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

While I believe traditional Baptist beliefs regarding Baptism, where does scripture say that if one has Faith in Christ, repents, and is dunked, His baptism is not acceptable unless He understands the theological implications of it??

I'm pretty sure it is in Hezekiah 12:15 :laugh:

 

[exscentric]

Not sure why you included my quote as you don't seem to speak to it.


"While I believe traditional Baptist beliefs regarding Baptism, where does scripture say that if one has Faith in Christ, repents, and is dunked, His baptism is not acceptable unless He understands the theological implications of it??"

Where did I say that??????

"So, if I have an 8 year old, who puts their faith in Christ, and then gets baptized, but misunderstands the purpose for Baptism, we should RE baptize them the next week, after explaining it to them again??"

Where did I say that????????

The reason why I compare this to Catholics, is because it is like some kind of Baptistic sacramental system: as if the Baptism is NOT a symbolic public profession of faith, but indeed has some sort of "mystical" magical qualities in and of itself.

??????????

"Listen, folks, y'all are in effect AGREEING with the CoC! That their is power in the Baptism itself. If it is, as every Baptist confession I know of states explicitly, a public profession of faith in Christ, symbolizing Christ's death, burial and resurrection, then we should have no problem accepting CoC baptism, UNLESS you think that the person was not saved at the time, OR the mode is different (non immersion). "

In your own mind maybe.

"CoC is closer to our doctrine than any other denomination that I know of. So IMHO, by saying you won't accept a symbolic baptism from one of our closest cousins, you are in effect saying that if one is not Baptist, they are not saved."

You missed the point I made, it is not symbolic for them, it is part of salvation. Get wet or burn. Close is great but not good enough - it is Christ's work that we look to for salvation not getting wet.

 

[tinytim]

Yep, as long as the person understands what Salvation is...

 

[lbaker]

it is Christ's work that we look to for salvation not getting wet.

And it is the same with the coC, they don't really believe that water is going to save them, or that doing some action is going to save them, it is simply that they see baptism as the TIME when God normally bestows salvation, not the CAUSE of the salvation. There is a big difference. Of course they have faith in Jesus, else they wouldn't be immersed in His name - duh.

You are making the exact same argument that SOME, very reactionary, very traditional, coC members make - that one must understand what baptism is all about in order for it to be valid.

Ultimately, coCs are immersed for the same reason we are - Jesus commands it. IF (please note the IF) they misunderstand the purpose of baptism, that is between them and Jesus, not them and us. Do we really believe in ourselves so much that we think that we could never be wrong about something? If we are, I trust God's Grace to cover us, just as I trust that it will cover any areas the coC might be mistaken about. If it is truly faith that saves, as we believe, then that salvation is going to cover things like not getting baptism just right.

I think we are still fighting the old "baptismal regeneration" battle that we had with paedobaptists. A battle in which the coC is solidly on OUR side.

 

[Marcia]

Religions such as Roman Catholicism, Seveth-day Adventism, Mormonism, United Pentecostalism (and other Oneness churches), most Churches of Christ and Eastern Orthodoxy teach that final salvation is dependent on one being made righteous through a cooperative effort of one's own obedience. The instrumental causes of that obedience (infused righteousness) are water baptism and the additional issue of obedience that effects salvation.....
Most of the Churches of Christ (Campbellites) teach:

The blood of Christ isn't efficacious until one is baptized. Well known past church of Christ leaders David Lipscomb and E.G. Sewell wrote "Baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit puts them into the enjoyment of all the blessings to be received in Christ, the blood of Christ, the remission of sins, the fellowship of God.... baptism is essential to entrance unto Christ. Water is the medium through which in baptism, we pass from a state of sin and condemnation into a state of acceptance and favor with God."

Source:
http://www.wfial.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=artGeneral.article_3

(Emphasis added)

 

[exscentric]

"And it is the same with the coC, they don't really believe that water is going to save them, or that doing some action is going to save them, it is simply that they see baptism as the TIME when God normally bestows salvation, not the CAUSE of the salvation.

Some may be in line with your thinking, but the ones I've run into are baptismal regenerists and proudly so and would argue you into the ground with your take on their belief."

"There is a big difference. Of course they have faith in Jesus, else they wouldn't be immersed in His name - duh.""

They have faith but have no salvation until dunked - duh, how can it be plainer?

"Ultimately, coCs are immersed for the same reason we are - Jesus commands it."

No they are baptized seeking salvation. They do not follow our thinking!

"IF (please note the IF) they misunderstand the purpose of baptism, that is between them and Jesus, not them and us."

Agreed. However their understanding/misunderstanding whatever you want to call it is misrepresented here - they preach baptism for the remission of sin like it or not, I've heard it for years and discussed it on forums with them.

"Do we really believe in ourselves so much that we think that we could never be wrong about something?"

Of course :thumbs:

NOT! But we are discussing what we and they believe and I am not convinced some of the posters here really understand the teaching of baptismal regeneration.

"If we are, I trust God's Grace to cover us, just as I trust that it will cover any areas the coC might be mistaken about. If it is truly faith that saves, as we believe, then that salvation is going to cover things like not getting baptism just right."

In essence that seems to say that anyone can be saved by faith in Christ no matter what that means, for example to most Catholics that means faith in the Christ they receive in the eucharist. Their "receiving Christ" is drastically different than ours.

"I think we are still fighting the old "baptismal regeneration" battle that we had with paedobaptists. A battle in which the coC is solidly on OUR side."

Yes, that is the battle but I don't think most CofCC are on our side. I would hope that they are but they weren't in my younger years and none I have run into online have been as yet. I've never discussed this with paedobaptists but have with CofCers.

I really not attempting to change anyones mind, just bring to light what many of these folks believe.

 

[lbaker]

Maybe we have different understandings of baptismal regeneration. I see it as trusting baptism to work separate and apart from faith, as in infant baptism.

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"?

Unless we see faith as nothing more than intellectual assent to the fact of who Jesus is, with no commitment or response on our part, then we shouldn't argue with folks who have a different response, and one for which there is a pretty good biblical argument, by the way.

 

[Marcia]

Maybe we have different understandings of baptismal regeneration. I see it as trusting baptism to work separate and apart from faith, as in infant baptism.

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"?

Did you see what I posted above about the CoC view?

 

[MB]

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

 

[MB]

I'm not qujite sure how to format a poll, so I'll pose the question and you answer yes or not, and add any comments.

In another thread, one poster said the majority of the SBC churches he is familiar with would accept into membership one who had been baptized in the Church of Christ.

My question is, would your church consider vaild such baptism?

Or, would you require rebaptism?

Our church would want to know the reason for the baptism no matter where they were baptized. Asking simply "Could you tell us why were you baptized?" The reason is all we really need to know isn't it?.
MB

 

[Marcia]

It is absolutely a crying out for mercy.

Also, I know of one coC in our area with an elder who was/is Baptist. He was never rebaptized or required to repent of being Baptist. He was just accepted "as is" and eventually was selected to serve as one of that congregation's shepherds.

I am just amazed at some of the opinions here. I had no idea...

It's not opinions. 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=BRXNJZIwWSM&feature=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."

(I am assuming you can watch YouTube).

 

[exscentric]

"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"?"

Baptism is equivalent to accepting Christ? Not in my mind, if that were true getting dunked would be sufficient and I don't know anyone that believes that not even them I don't think.

Bap. regeneration has always been dependent on both in my mind, even baby dunkers depend on coming faith sometime future - reformers anyway, not sure about the Romans.

 

[Gold Dragon]

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.

 

[John of Japan]

John, I don't know about all CoC, but the official Churches of Christ stance, is NOT Baptismal regeneration.

From the website I was directed to, from the CoC...

"The work of the cross is God’s offer of life…

Baptism is our acceptance"

and another says...

"their is no power in the water itself"

and...

"The water itself had no saving power in the flood, nor does it have any saving power today. The saving power for Noah was his obedience to God's Word. Today people
in water baptism, and God likewise saves them through water.

They believe baptism is the "Official acceptance" of God's offer of eternal life. You have confused "CoC" with the "International Church of Christ", which DOES teach Baptismal regeneration.

I'm basing what I say on many, many conversations with CofC people in Tennessee back in the 1970's. I met many of them out on door-to-door visitation, and often visited their bookstore in Murfreesboro, which shipped CofC books all around the country, and talked theology with the manager--who did believe baptism was necessary for salvation. I did talk to one or two who didn't believe baptism was necessary for salvation, but the vast majority believed if you weren't baptized, you weren't saved.

In those days at least there was no "official CofC position." Every Tennessee CofC was independent, and they heartily opposed denominationalism. If you are right and there is an official CofC website and organization, things have really changed since I came to the mission field. (I'm not doubting your word, just your understanding.)

 

[Havensdad]

I'm basing what I say on many, many conversations with CofC people in Tennessee back in the 1970's. I met many of them out on door-to-door visitation, and often visited their bookstore in Murfreesboro, which shipped CofC books all around the country, and talked theology with the manager--who did believe baptism was necessary for salvation. I did talk to one or two who didn't believe baptism was necessary for salvation, but the vast majority believed if you weren't baptized, you weren't saved.

In those days at least there was no "official CofC position." Every Tennessee CofC was independent, and they heartily opposed denominationalism. If you are right and there is an official CofC website and organization, things have really changed since I came to the mission field. (I'm not doubting your word, just your understanding.)

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.

 

[exscentric]

"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.

 

[Amy.G]

"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.

My great grandmother was CoC. I never met her, but my mother told me that someone once asked her if a person were to be saved in the morning service, but got hit by a car and killed before they got back for baptism, would they go to heaven? She said absolutely not. They would go to hell.

A friend of ours at church used to be Lutheran and he also believed in baptismal regeneration. He said he was taught that you had to be baptized to receive the Holy Spirit.

A lot of folks believe this.