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

[Tom Butler]

havensdad, I apologize to you and lbaker. I was wrong to post that comment, and I ask your forgiveness. I have no excuse. Both of you have every right to resent what I wrote, and I am sorry for offending two brothers in Christ.

 

[Tom Butler]

M 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.

I have read Beasley-Murray's book on Baptism, and he does have a different slant. I don't read scholarly writings very well, but if I understood him, he held that at the moment of water baptism, a new convert also receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

That's certainly a different slant, and I don't agree with it. But Dr. Beasley-Murray's intellectual firepower should cause one not to reject his contention out of hand, but to at least examine his rationale.

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 discussion has drifted from the original poll question, which asked if you would accept a Church of Christ baptism. We have been discussing the role of baptism in salvation. That said, it's obvious that some of our posters agree with you on both counts.

 

[ajg1959]

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.

Regardless of what is correct or not when it comes to baptism, I have never, ever met even one CofC member that accepts me as a "brother in Christ" because they think that they are the only saved folks on earth. the rest of us are lost because we werent baptised for the right reason and in the right way.

We may call them "brothers in Christ" till we are blue in the face, but they will never accept us as such.

AJ

 

[exscentric]

When in college we had a theology prof that invited in men from all sorts of churches to interact with us on different topics.

The CofC man (topic of baptism got right down to business in his opening prayer mentioning that he was there to save us from Hell and he asked god to open our eyes to our false doctrine and to save us.

I can't quote the man but he was there to dunk us and get us saved very definitely.

 

[lbaker]

havensdad, I apologize to you and lbaker. I was wrong to post that comment, and I ask your forgiveness. I have no excuse. Both of you have every right to resent what I wrote, and I am sorry for offending two brothers in Christ.

Hey Bro. Tom,

No problem. We all get a little tense on here sometimes, but iron sharpens iron.

Bro. Les

 

[lbaker]

When in college we had a theology prof that invited in men from all sorts of churches to interact with us on different topics.

The CofC man (topic of baptism got right down to business in his opening prayer mentioning that he was there to save us from Hell and he asked god to open our eyes to our false doctrine and to save us.

I can't quote the man but he was there to dunk us and get us saved very definitely.

Sounds like he was tactless, yet insensitive...

 

[lbaker]

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

You are right. Excellent article!

 

[lbaker]

Regardless of what is correct or not when it comes to baptism, I have never, ever met even one CofC member that accepts me as a "brother in Christ" because they think that they are the only saved folks on earth. the rest of us are lost because we werent baptised for the right reason and in the right way.

We may call them "brothers in Christ" till we are blue in the face, but they will never accept us as such.

AJ

Well I guess that leaves it up to us to set a good example.

 

[exscentric]

"Sounds like he was tactless, yet insensitive..."

True but certainly showing his true commitment to what he believed :thumbs:

 

[Marcia]

Regardless of what is correct or not when it comes to baptism, I have never, ever met even one CofC member that accepts me as a "brother in Christ" because they think that they are the only saved folks on earth. the rest of us are lost because we werent baptised for the right reason and in the right way.

We may call them "brothers in Christ" till we are blue in the face, but they will never accept us as such.

AJ

This is the other point I was making with the links I posted that give clear evidence of the CoC cultic beliefs. They do believe they are the true restored NT church and no other church is. This is part of their history and teaching, even if some CoC ministers may not reject it, it remains part of their official teaching. And you are not saved if you have not been baptized by them.

 

[lbaker]

check these guys out:

http://www.edwardfudge.com/home.html

http://www.freedomsring.org/

http://www.unity-in-diversity.org/

http://www.leroygarrett.org/

While these folks and the people like them may not be the majority, there is a strong movement in the coC to be more accepting.

Kind of like Baptists I guess, where the majority is not as accepting as the minority. ;-)

 

[ajg1959]

Perhaps you could inform me what is different about COC baptism from Christain baptism. I honestly don't know much about their baptism.

But I will add that I would not re-baptize someone unless there was a very particular reason for it. My reasons would be:

1. They had been infant baptized.
2. They had been baptized, but were unbelievers and desired to be baptized again as a believer.

This was the case with me. I was infant baptized (unbeliever). Then I was baptized as an adult, but it was to make the preacher happy so I could date his daughter (still an unbeliever). When I was born again, I was baptized again as a believer. I was even baptized again as a believer because I was concerned I didn't fully surrender to Christ. This was done out of ignorance.

So I have been sprinkled and triple-dipped.

RB

This explains your confusion with true biblical doctrine today.

AJ

 

[ajg1959]

I think this is rather unfair. I have met many CoC that I would call brothers in Christ. I do disagree with them, but I do not see it as you do.

If you met someone who said they were a Christian, but had never "Personally accepted" Christ as their savior, but had faith in Him, would this not bother you? Let me ask a question(s)...

#1 Is some form of "sinners prayer" necessary for salvation? Something wherein we confess our sins to God, ask for forgiveness, for Him to come into our lives, etc.?

#2 If so, what is the difference in requiring a VISUAL prayer (baptism) rather than an AUDIBLE prayer? I really don't see much of a difference: in both cases, Baptists and CoC, they are saying it is the faith that brings the Prayer(Baptist) or Baptism(CoC) and that faith saves, not the act itself.

Perhaps I am just unable to understand the difference. I mean, we are not shamans...we do not just "feel" saved and become that way. We Place our faith and trust in Christ, and whether that is through a prayer, or through a Baptism, I just cannot comprehend the problem here...

I think sometimes Christians look for reasons to be divided.

No matter how many CofC you consider to be "brothers in Christ"....I have never, ever met even one that would consider any person outside the CofC as a "brother in Christ".

If they dont consider me a brother, then are they really my brother?

AJ

 

[ajg1959]

In all the churches I pastored, a candidate for either baptism or membership was thoroughly interviewed before any action. This included a letter of recommendation from another Baptist church.

They were not required to be a theologian, but they must understand conversion, the only prerequisite for baptism.

Some churches have a person "saved" one Sunday and immersed the following Sunday. I wonder how many unsaved people have been immersed over the years in Baptist churches and are yet to experience conversion!

Hence, regardless of former church membership, or actions, if they can't answer the question of conversion experience, they can hardly qualify for church membership.

Cheers,

Jim

I believe this to be the most biblically accurate post I have seen in this thread.:thumbs:

AJ

 

[ajg1959]

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.

Sorry to argue with you, but every single one of the CofC that I have ever met (including some family members) state that baptism is required for salvation and that they are the only true church, and I am going to hell because I am not one of them.

AJ

 

[Havensdad]

No matter how many CofC you consider to be "brothers in Christ"....I have never, ever met even one that would consider any person outside the CofC as a "brother in Christ".

If they dont consider me a brother, then are they really my brother?

AJ

I wrote Mac Lynn, pretty much one of the most well respected CoC theologians in the world. He actually wrote me back. We talked about other things, besides Baptism, but here are the snippets...

As Christians, we have gotten ourselves into a mess through historic
interpretations. I think the only right thing to do is to revisit the New
Testament and become more acquainted with Paul. As with Luther, I believe
Romans is a superb place to settle. Meanwhile, we should search and not
fight; love and not hate; unite our efforts against the larger battle that
ranges in our society

And....

To insist that every
candidate for salvation has to have full and correct knowledge on every
point pushes one back to legalism. We know that is not right. So, I try to
be faithful to the teaching as I understand it and allow God to judge all
cases--including me

And...

Let me hasten to add that during the 1900s, many members of
Churches of Christ tended to become legalistic. This situation was brought
on through the internal battles to discover what was approved by God and
what was not. The hermeneutic chosen to read scripture was not from
scripture itself. It was of late development. Consequently, Churches of
Christ became more isolated and exclusive. This is beginning to change.

Not exactly "We are the only way"...

 

[Tom Butler]

Havensdad, What did Mack Lyon have to say about the role of baptism in salvation? It's not mentioned in the quotes you have from him.

 

[Marcia]

check these guys out:

http://www.edwardfudge.com/home.html

http://www.freedomsring.org/

http://www.unity-in-diversity.org/

http://www.leroygarrett.org/

While these folks and the people like them may not be the majority, there is a strong movement in the coC to be more accepting.

Kind of like Baptists I guess, where the majority is not as accepting as the minority. ;-)

What we are discussing here, I thought, was the historical and official views of the CoC, not some who may disagree.

It could be that some want to depart from some of the CoC teachings, and I do believe this is true, but that does not change what the CoC officially teaches.

This happens all the time with groups likek, for example, the Mormons. You can find BYU professors who disagree or don't believe some of the official Mormon teachings, but that does not change what the Mormon church teaches officially. Of course, these professors can't go outright against the Mormon church, but they disagree in subtle or minor ways.

Same with the SDA church. You can always find some SDA pastors or teachers who, for example, do not hold Ellen White as a prophet or who do not focus on her teachings, but that is not the official teaching or view of the SDA church.

Until the CoC makes official changes in their doctrine and teachings, it remains that salvation is applied at the moment of water baptism.

 

[Ed Franklin]

As far as the original question, I voted "no".......and wanted to relate this particularly sad (to me) story about such a situation.

In my previous church I worked closely with the pastor in visitation and so forth since he was a one-man staff. We had a couple move to town, visit regularly and express interest in joining the congregation.

One evening in their home, the man of the family related the story of his baptism. It was at the hands of a Church of Christ minister who was a personal friend. Our prospect did not actively become a member of that minister's congregation or any other. He was simply baptized and went on about his business.

Now he had a convincing testimony of conversion; I have no reason to question that. But he was insistent that he would not be baptized again. He saw no need for it. He stated emphatically that if baptism was required, he would never join our congregation.

My pastor, driven by the urgency to "grow the church' relented, actually side-stepped the issue when presenting the prospects to the deacons and again when introducing the couple to the congregation.

I thought it was an outrage. Not just theologically unsound, because of the Church of Christ theology tying water baptism to salvation, but because of the disingenuous behavior of the pastor who thought more of increased numbers than Biblical doctrine.

 

[lbaker]

I really don't see the problem, as long as they see faith as the active agent in conversion and not some kind of magic in the water. We are talking about a difference in the timing of salvation not the "cause" of it. Seems like that wouldn't invalidate the baptism.