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

[kfinks]

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

...snip...


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

I grew up in the C of C and attended a C of C college. I certainly do not purport to be an expert, but I have at least some experience.

I am unclear as to how anyone can determine "official views" or determine "offical changes". There are at least as many "flavors" of C of C as there are flavors of baptists ranging from the extreme conservative to ultra-liberal or ("anti" to "progressive" depending on your viewpoint).

From my experience and perspective, there is no single source from which anything "official" can come (even among the associated groups). Each church is unique.

 

[Havensdad]

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.

From Mac Lynn,

Certainly, there are passages that speak of the saving process without the
inclusion of baptism. For example, Paul's writings stress faith. Salvation
is by faith, not by keeping the law. The Jewish experience proved salvation
is dependent fully upon God and not on man. Man simply cannot fulfill the
law. Otherwise, man could boast of his salvation. That tends toward the
Pelagian view that Augustine battled. But if one were to say that the
mention of salvation by faith rules out baptism, one could also say it ruled
out repentance, confession of Christ, dying to the old life, etc.

And:

I have never known a member of the Churches of Christ who believed there was "magic in the water". That is Catholic doctrine. Members of the Churches of Christ hardly ever use the term sacrament with reference to anything. I have heard the term used for the Lord's supper, but not to baptism. Even
then, the user of the term did not know what it meant. It just sounded like
a good term. The idea of a sacrament is that it is the vehicle through
which God's grace flows to the believer. I will not deny that members of
Churches of Christ have been guilty of exclusivism and legalism, but I have
never known of any who would say salvation is not by faith

I posited the question "In the view of ""Churches of Christ", is baptism the equivalent to the "sinners Prayer", i.e. simply the way in which one comes to God by faith?"

You are, in my opinion, on
the right track.

 

[Marcia]

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.

But if salvation is applied at baptism, then one is not saved if not baptized.

 

[Havensdad]

But if salvation is applied at baptism, then one is not saved if not baptized.

But if salvation is applied at the sinners prayer, then one is not saved if they have not prayed...

The difference is mechanism(as clearly shown from Mac Lynns posts above)...

 

[Allan]

But if salvation is applied at the sinners prayer, then one is not saved if they have not prayed...

It seems apparent you do not understand what the sinners prayer is actually about.

The prayer itself saves no one, but the act of faith in calling out to God is that which saves, whether in the heart or verbally one sentence or a half hour.
It is here that one believes and repents. The

No man is saved apart from calling out to God for mercy/salvataion.

However 'scripture' is explictly plain that you are saved by faith alone.
CoC holds that one must believe (thus here is faith established even according to their view) and THEN be baptised - in order that one be saved. It is faith and baptism that saves. Faith alone can not save but you must believe AND...

As baptists be hold that a person is saved by faith and then they are baptised NOT for salvation but in accordance with obedience and identification.

 

[Tom Butler]

But if salvation is applied at the sinners prayer, then one is not saved if they have not prayed...

The difference is mechanism(as clearly shown from Mac Lynns posts above)...

I would be careful about making the sinner's prayer the be-all and end-all of salvation. The Ethiopian Eunuch didn't pray it, nor did the Philippian jailer, nor did Lydia, nor did the converts on Mars Hill. Nor were they instructed to.

Nor did I, because I was never asked to. I was asked if I believed. I was asked if I put my faith in the Lord Jesus for my salvation. My answer was yes.

John the Baptist's message was Repent. Jesus preached Repent. Paul, on Mars Hill, preached Repent. The response of some on Mars Hill was that "some believed."

Do I believe that God will save one who cries out for mercy in repentance and faith? Of course.

 

[Havensdad]

But if salvation is applied at the sinners prayer, then one is not saved if they have not prayed...

It seems apparent you do not understand what the sinners prayer is actually about.

The prayer itself saves no one, but the act of faith in calling out to God is that which saves, whether in the heart or verbally one sentence or a half hour.
It is here that one believes and repents. The

No man is saved apart from calling out to God for mercy/salvataion.

However 'scripture' is explictly plain that you are saved by faith alone.
CoC holds that one must believe (thus here is faith established even according to their view) and THEN be baptised - in order that one be saved. It is faith and baptism that saves. Faith alone can not save but you must believe AND...

As baptists be hold that a person is saved by faith and then they are baptised NOT for salvation but in accordance with obedience and identification.

You CANNOT just come to church day after day, and be saved. At some point, you must, in some way, personally put your faith in Christ: whether that is a verbal prayer, or an inaudible one, it is STILL a prayer.

The CoC does NOT say you are saved by faith and Baptism. Perhaps you missed the posts above by Mac. They say you are saved by faith alone, THROUGH baptism.

You are making a division where they place none: it's like saying we Baptists believe in Faith PLUS repentance and PLUS a sinners prayer (of whatever form).

I think we should attempt to understand our brothers and sisters in Christ, instead of TRYING to find ways to disagree. Although I have a Baptist view of Baptism, I must admit I may be wrong. If a CoC person comes to me and I am the Pastor, and they want to be a member of my church, and state that they put there faith and trust in Christ at the moment of their baptism, WHY would I reject that? "Are you saved by the baptism?" "no" he responds, "By faith alone".

No re-Baptism required.

Now to be a member of a Baptist Church, you already must sign off saying that you agree to the statement of faith> it's not like they are going to be passing out tracts to the CoC church down the street. And if you truly believe Baptism is strictly symbolic, you are violating your own theology by re-baptising them, and ascribing sacramental overtones to it.

 

[lbaker]

But if salvation is applied at baptism, then one is not saved if not baptized.

But wouldn't we say that someone who never confessed Christ, or prayed, or asked Him to save them, or did anything to acknowledge Jesus at all was saved? Are we really saved just by intellectual agreement with a set of facts? I don't think so.

 

[Allan]

You CANNOT just come to church day after day, and be saved. At some point, you must, in some way, personally put your faith in Christ: whether that is a verbal prayer, or an inaudible one, it is STILL a prayer.

That is just what I said.. Re-read my previous post again please.

The CoC does NOT say you are saved by faith and Baptism. Perhaps you missed the posts above by Mac. They say you are saved by faith alone, THROUGH baptism.

Yes they do, as I illistrated much earlier in this thread here.

Here is the snipet from there regarding Wiki:

[edit] Doctrine of Salvation (Soteriology)
Churches of Christ believe that humans (of accountable age) are lost in sin (but not born sinful cf Ez 18:4-22, Matthew 19:14)(Romans 3:23) and can be redeemed because Jesus Christ, the Son of God, offered Himself as the atoning sacrifice (Romans 6:23).

A main difference between Churches of Christ and other Christian churches is their doctrine of salvation. Churches of Christ believe that salvation begins when one obeys God's commands.

Here are the steps to salvation according to the Church of Christ; paraphrased:

1. One must be properly taught, and hear (Rm 10:17, Matt. 7:24),
2. One must believe or have faith (Heb 11:6, Mk 16:15-16),
3. One must repent, which means turning from one's former lifestyle and choosing God's ways (Acts 2:38, 17:30, Luke 13:3),
4. One must confess belief that Jesus is the son of God (Matthew 10:32-33; Acts 8:36-37),
5. One must be baptized (Acts 2:38; I Pet 3:20-21; Romans 6:3-5; Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16),
6. One must remain faithful unto death (Rev. 2:10).

Baptism in Churches of Christ is performed only by bodily immersion because in the New Testament the Greek term baptizo is always translated as "to immerse." Only those mentally capable of belief and repentance are baptized (i.e., infant baptism is not practiced because there is no example of such). Due to their views on the relationship of baptism to salvation, the Churches of Christ are sometimes regarded as holding to baptismal regeneration, which means that only Baptism saves the individual. However, Churches of Christ reject this criticism.

In Restoration theology, the agency of the Holy Spirit in salvation is viewed strictly in His inspiration of the scriptures which teach men what God has done and what they must do in order for salvation to occur. If one is saved, and does not continue in study of the scriptures, then the Holy Spirit's action on the individual cannot be fully effective. Therefore, baptism in the Churches of Christ is taught as obedience toward God and absolutely necessary (preceded by hearing, believing, confessing and repenting) which results in forgiveness of sins, and places the individual in a position to further obey God's commands, which if he faithfully performs till his death he will be granted entrance into Heaven and thus saved.

Thus one 'must' have faith, repent, and confess Christ - in order to be baptized. However, if one is not baptised that person who placed their faith in Christ, repented, and confessed Him as their own 'will not' enter heaven as it is a 'requirement' to enter as shown below.

CHURCH OF CHRIST DOCTRINE
(taken from the pamphlet "The Churches of Christ...Who Are These People?" by Joe R. Barnett)
Baptism is extremely important because the New Testament sets forth the following purposes for it:

It is to enter the kingdom (John 3:5).
It is to contact Christ's blood (Romans 6:3,4).
It is to get into Christ (Galatians 3:27).
It is for salvation (Mark 16:16; 1st Peter 3:21).
It is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).
It is to wash away sins (Acts 22:16).
It is to get into the church (1st Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 1:23).

Do you agree with the tenants set forth by the Churches of Christ regarding baptism and it's relation to salvation??

You are making a division where they place none: it's like saying we Baptists believe in Faith PLUS repentance and PLUS a sinners prayer (of whatever form).

No, I am making a division where scripture establishes it - we are saved by grace through faith. Not a works based salvation that takes faith plus additional merits such as faith and baptism saves. It is no different than Paul rebuking of the legalists in Galations for adding to it.

I think we should attempt to understand our brothers and sisters in Christ, instead of TRYING to find ways to disagree.

I agree and therefore think you need to start by doing that with others on here. I HAVE spent a great deal of time getting to know the many demoninations and their views/theologies as well as the cults and occultists. Most of these on here have dealt with, spoken to not only memebers of the CoC, but laymen, even their pastors. Like I said before I have friends who ARE CoC pastors so I can say with confindence what many or most of the CoC believe.

Although I have a Baptist view of Baptism, I must admit I may be wrong. If a CoC person comes to me and I am the Pastor, and they want to be a member of my church, and state that they put there faith and trust in Christ at the moment of their baptism, WHY would I reject that? "Are you saved by the baptism?" "no" he responds, "By faith alone".

But that is not the answer you will typically get. That is what you presume is their view. However, is it faith alone if one must be baptised in order to be saved? No it is not. The large majority of Catholics will tell you that faith alone saves, but there is a great deal of things they place their faith in in order to be saved. The CoC people can state 'faith saves' but my question is - In what or whom did you place your faith? Christ or Christ and your baptism?

And if you truly believe Baptism is strictly symbolic, you are violating your own theology by re-baptising them, and ascribing sacramental overtones to it.

This is just silly. You typically baptise them who have become saved. I know of no SBC churches (though that is not to say there aren't some) who would baptise a CoC person unless they came to know the Lord. thus They are typically 'baptised' because they realized they were under a false gospel and needed salvation. faith + anything to be saved is a false gospel of works.

 

[Allan]

I would also say to check out this website with is a reaching out to all Churches Of Christ to unite the world wide community of the CoC.

Scroll down to the botton to get a good understanding and up to date information on many of their views which in fact state one must believe, repent, and confess Christ - and THEN be baptised "for the remission of sins" in order to be saved. "The Churches of Christ... Who are these people?" (at the bottom)



Let me make one thing absolutely clear here though. Just because a person is CoC does not automatically equate them as unsaved any more than being Catholic automatically does - my problem comes into play regarding their typical (mis)understanding of salvation.

 

[Tom Butler]

From Allan's post #129 quoting Wikipedia:

Therefore, baptism in the Churches of Christ is taught as obedience toward God and absolutely necessary (preceded by hearing, believing, confessing and repenting) which results in forgiveness of sins, and places the individual in a position to further obey God's commands, which if he faithfully performs till his death he will be granted entrance into Heaven and thus saved.

Notice the last part: ".....if he faithfully performs till his death he will be granted entrance into Heaven and thus saved...."

So, this apparently means that, neither 'hearing, believing, confessing, repenting or being baptized' actually saves you. It is holding out faithful.

Actually, the Wikipedia statement is consistent. That is, all who teach that baptism is necessary for salvation also teach that one must hold out faithful to the end in order to be saved, and thus failing to do so means you will not be granted entrance into Heaven. In other words, even with all the preliminaries, including baptism, one may lose his salvation.

Am I reading this wrong? Doesn't this statement say that salvation is necessary for salvation, but doesn't guarantee it? That's what it looks like to me, and what I have understood as the C of C position all along.

 

[Marcia]

But wouldn't we say that someone who never confessed Christ, or prayed, or asked Him to save them, or did anything to acknowledge Jesus at all was saved? Are we really saved just by intellectual agreement with a set of facts? I don't think so.

This is a response to Havensdad as well.

I do not see the analogy between confessing Christ with baptism. One is saved by faith; the confession may be the vocal announcement of this salvation but one is not saved by this. Someone could confess Christ falsely - this does not make them saved.

No one here is saying that we are saved by an "intellectual agreement with a set of facts." This is irrelevant to the discussion.

One is saved by faith, or one is saved by faith plus something else. The latter is contrary to the Bible.

The CoC will not accept that one is saved if one is not baptized, making baptism part of the equation of faith. This is not biblical. Additionally, as I understand the CoC position, one must be baptized in their church.

 

[Havensdad]

This is a response to Havensdad as well.

I do not see the analogy between confessing Christ with baptism. One is saved by faith; the confession may be the vocal announcement of this salvation but one is not saved by this. Someone could confess Christ falsely - this does not make them saved.

No one here is saying that we are saved by an "intellectual agreement with a set of facts." This is irrelevant to the discussion.

One is saved by faith, or one is saved by faith plus something else. The latter is contrary to the Bible.

The CoC will not accept that one is saved if one is not baptized, making baptism part of the equation of faith. This is not biblical. Additionally, as I understand the CoC position, one must be baptized in their church.

Sis,

There are different CoC opinions out there. However, I have posted an extremely well known (famous, in the CoC world, in fact), theologian, who is CoC, and disagrees with what you have stated. There is NO CoC source you can bring up, that is more authoritative> ESPECIALLY not "Wikipidia"> I have an account...would you like me to get on there and change it?

The point is, it is a case by case basis. Certainly someone from such a Church as I have described, at least, should be accepted without rebaptism.

 

[Marcia]

Sis,

There are different CoC opinions out there. However, I have posted an extremely well known (famous, in the CoC world, in fact), theologian, who is CoC, and disagrees with what you have stated. There is NO CoC source you can bring up, that is more authoritative> ESPECIALLY not "Wikipidia"> I have an account...would you like me to get on there and change it?

The point is, it is a case by case basis. Certainly someone from such a Church as I have described, at least, should be accepted without rebaptism.

Havensdad, I saw the quotes but they do not go against what I've been saying, unless I read them wrong.

I did not refer to Wikipedia.

I have heard that there are some CoC churches that may not go along with this, but they are the exception not the rule, and the historical position of the CoC is as I have said and as those CoC leaders state on the video with John Ankerberg. One does not go by the exceptions. In fact, they would not be an exception unless the predominant view was opposed to their view.

The video link I posted has CoC church leaders giving their positions, which is as I have stated. Salvation is applied at baptism. There is no salvation without baptism.

I spoke with a Baptist pastor several years ago who lived in the KY-Ohio area where there were gobs of CoC churches. He was from that area, too. He said the CoC churches would have nothing to do with any other churches because they believed they were the only true Christians. This is in line with their historical position and how many are today.

 

[Salamander]

In most CoC , a Southern Baptist would have to be rebaptized to become members of their local churches.

A member of the CoC baptism would not be considered symbolic but regenerative. So we are looking at two different reasons for baptism here.

But what if the CoC person believes Jesus saves but also believes that such salvation is completed in water baptism, Wouldn't the fact that Jesus saves take care of the person's salvation even if they're wrong about baptism?

You answered correctly then negate your same answer by a following question!

The baptism should hold authoritive as to whether they are baptised for the right reason. If it is to add to salvation they need to be Scripturally baptised.

 

[Allan]

Sis,

There are different CoC opinions out there. However, I have posted an extremely well known (famous, in the CoC world, in fact), theologian, who is CoC, and disagrees with what you have stated. There is NO CoC source you can bring up, that is more authoritative> ESPECIALLY not "Wikipidia"> I have an account...would you like me to get on there and change it?

The point is, it is a case by case basis. Certainly someone from such a Church as I have described, at least, should be accepted without rebaptism.

This is the most ridiculous statement made thus far on this thread.

The most authoritive, huh? So you are willing to back that up with proof? Fine, I'll bite.. How many CoC use him and books as their test of theology? Do they use him as their main source for information in their schools.. of course they would use others but he would HAVE TO BE consistantly their reference since he is the "most authoritive". :laugh:

Do me a favor.. Go to as many Church of Christ cites as you can and look at their statements of faith. ALL of them I have seen ALL state that unless you are baptised you are not saved. I listed an internet cite which speaks to and for the core beliefs of the Churches of Christ and gave you quotes from them. I also gave the 'Wiki' citation because it was written FROM the sourses of those IN the Churches of Christ and it is the same as those from the Internet site of the Churches of Christ.

In the Mac Lynn quotes you gave, you didn't give us his full view on baptism though. You showed where he stated that baptism is about faith and that in the "OT" (that is important not to miss) you did not need to be baptised. But you didn't quote his view on the 'NT' view of salvation and baptism. He even states that in the NT you won't find a person who is saved that was not immediately baptised. They DO (and even he does) believe that without baptism there is NO remission of sins.. period.

That is the crux of their problem.. baptism is for the remission of sins. They claim not to hold to baptismal regeneration but they dance so close to it's meaning that it can be 'easily' applied to their view if one didn't know better. Because in their view (across the board) one is not saved nor their sins removed without baptism.

And they ALL state that one must already have faith and repented and confessed CHrist as Lord BEFORE they are baptised. But it is not till they are baptised that their sins are removed and thus saved.

 

[Tom Butler]

And they ALL state that one must already have faith and repented and confessed CHrist as Lord BEFORE they are baptised. But it is not till they are baptised that their sins are removed and thus saved.

And to repeat myself from an earlier post, even then they can lose their salvation. So, to the C of C, all the repentance, faith, confession and baptism in the world won't keep you saved. They must "obey God's commands" and do it faithfully until they die "in order to be granted entrance into Heaven." (From Wikipedia).

It must be hard, not knowing which sin (act of disobedience) is the one that does you in. Or does it take just one? (James 2:10--For whosoever shall keep the whole law, yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.")

 

[Havensdad]

And to repeat myself from an earlier post, even then they can lose their salvation. So, to the C of C, all the repentance, faith, confession and baptism in the world won't keep you saved. They must "obey God's commands" and do it faithfully until they die "in order to be granted entrance into Heaven." (From Wikipedia).

It must be hard, not knowing which sin (act of disobedience) is the one that does you in. Or does it take just one? (James 2:10--For whosoever shall keep the whole law, yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.")

There are Free Will Baptist Churches that believe one can lose their salvation, as well. Should we reject their Baptisms?

 

[Marcia]

There are Free Will Baptist Churches that believe one can lose their salvation, as well. Should we reject their Baptisms?

It depends on if you think that belief in losing salvation is heretical enough to reject.

I think believing that baptism and salvation are tied together (however it may be expressed) is worse and is a salvation by works. So to me, that is more serious than believing one can lose one's salvation.

But it seems this would be another thread in order to discuss this topic. Maybe you should start a thread on accepting baptism of one who believes they can lose their salvation?

 

[Havensdad]

It depends on if you think that belief in losing salvation is heretical enough to reject.

I think believing that baptism and salvation are tied together (however it may be expressed) is worse and is a salvation by works. So to me, that is more serious than believing one can lose one's salvation.

But it seems this would be another thread in order to discuss this topic. Maybe you should start a thread on accepting baptism of one who believes they can lose their salvation?

Being able to lose your salvation because of a lack of works, is kind of the definition of salvation by works, is it not?