The Campbellite Plan Of Redemption

Charles,

bmerr here. I'm not sure what the difference would be between being baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ", and being baptized "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost". It's the old, "six of one, half a dozen of the other".

To do something in Jesus' name is simply to do it by His authority. Jesus was given all authority by the Father, and He in turn gave authority to the apostles through the Holy Ghost. IMO, to do something by the authority of One is to do it by the authority of all Three. I've heard both phrases spoken when people were baptized. I'm not aware of anyone who insists on using only Jesus' name.

I guess that might turn out to be a non-issue. Cool.

As far as worshipping only with the church of Christ, that would be due to the numerous differences between the doctrine of Christ, and the doctrines of men. Since the subject of baptism is already in this post, I'll give a few examples of what I'm talking aobut.

The Bible gives the meaning and purpose of baptism (remission of sins, put on Christ, baptized into Christ, wash away sins, to be saved). These are the things taught by churches of Christ, as well.

On the other hand, Baptist churches, as you can likely affirm, teach that baptism is something done after one is saved, and that it has nothing to do with salvation, or the washing away of sins.

Both bodies cannot be teaching the truth, for both teach vastly different things. If one has been taught error, he cannot be made free, for only truth can make one free (John 8:32).

On top of that, there are many different doctrines taught among different denominations. Some sprinkle, some immerse, some pour. Some accept all three as valid, others only accept one. Even among Baptist groups one can find different doctrines.

So who's right? Does it matter what we believe? Is there only a small portion of the Bible we must believe to be saved, or must one believe all of it? One could reasonably conclude that all one must believe is that Jesus died, was buried, and was raised up again, since that is about the only thing that all "Christians" believe in common. It ought not be this way.

One must not agree with me, per say, but one must agree with the Bible.

I have no doubt about your belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. What I might question is how you accepted Him as Saviour. Was it in the way shown by Scripture? or was it according to man's teaching? I mean no insult or harm, these are questions everyone ought to ask themselves.

Were you baptized for the reasons the Bible commands it? or for reasons given by man?

Only you know the extent of the changes in your life. I'm sure they were for the better. Mine sure were. But one does not have to become a Christian to live a changed life. Many have religious motivation for "turning over a new leaf", many do not.

If I have seemed to "explain away" certain verses by seeing them in light of others, it was not my intention. I only intended to show that some interpretations may have been less than accurate, since they ran afoul of other very clear passages.

Let's keep working on this.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Bmerr,

I'm not aware of anyone who insists on using only Jesus' name.

OK. Good to hear. I have met some CoC members who suggest that baptism MUST be in the NAME OF JESUS.

As far as my story...

After hearing the gospel preached I realized that I was a sinner and that my previous religious experiences (raised as a catholic) did NOT constitute a personal knowledge and relationship with Christ.

I trusted Christ and made a public profession. I was then baptized. There is no doubt that I am a much changed person since my days in darkness.

As far as commands...

I agree that baptism is a command. And as I have said I don't think any Christian would refuse to be baptized.

I also agree with the importance of a faithful walk. And I do not subscribe to the Zane Hodges school of "easy believism". I would not even say that I believe in "eternal security" as much as "perseverance of the saints". That is to say I think there are some who have made professions but who never truly have a saving faith in Christ. Not coincidentally their testimonies usually bear this out.

But I believe that the NT writers are very clear to point out that there is not way we can merit our salvation. Paul says salvation is by faith and not works not because works are unimportant - but because he wants us to realize that it is not the good works that allow us to attain heaven - but rather the fact that Jesus died in our stead. While Paul would (I think) affirm the necessity of baptism for the believer he would be quick to say that it is not the actual baptism that saves but rather the faith. In Paul's mind (and definitely in the minds of Luther and Calvin) to attribute actual salvific grace to ANY action - baptism, goood works etc - is to deny that Jesus' death alone is sufficient.

You mentioned "law in the NT". I di not see any law per se. I agree that with belief comes action.

Jesus' analogy of the Pharisee and the publican praying is telling I think. Jesus mentions that the publican went home justified. Jesus showed throughout four gospels that He is interested - and He KNOWS - our hearts. As such the idea that any ritual action could be salvific is out the window.

So perhaps you and I are not quite as far apart as I had imagined.

But I cannot accept (based on my reading of all of the bible) that we can locate any true salvific merit in baptism itself such that one who confessed Jesus with true faith but died on the way to be baptized would go to hell. That is simply antithetical to everything that Jesus taught.

 

Charles,

bmerr here. I didn't know you had been raised as a Catholic. Good thing it's not how we start that's important, but how we finish, huh?

How did you determine that your relifious experience in the RCC was not what you needed? What did you compare it to? One reason for my asking is that many who are RC's from infancy remain in that corrupt body their whole lives, and never question the rightness or wrongness of it.

I certainly agree that there is no possible way for man to merit salvation, and I would fight side-by-side with you against anyone who advanced such a notion.

I just don't see how meeting God's conditions for salvation is the same as earning it. I've heard, and used the illustration of the beneficiary of a will. You may have heard it, too, but in case you haven't...

Bob's great uncle Joe died. Old Joe left Bob 2 million dollars. In order for Joe to receive the 2 million, he must show proof of employment and pass a drug screening test. Uncle Joe wanted to make sure he wouldn't leave his money to someone who would waste it. Bob is able to provide proof of employment and pass the urinalysis, and collects the 2 million dollars.

Question: Did Bob earn 2 million dollars by having a job and being drug free?

Obviously not. he simply met the conditions to receive it.

I believe the Bible teaches the same thing. For one to hear and believe the gospel, be willing to repent of his sins, confess Christ before men, and be baptized for the remission of sins does not cause God to be indebted to him and give him salvation. He does not earn salvation by obeying these commands from God.

Quite the contrary, one's obedience to these commands is simply the manifestation of his faith. Obedience is the outworking of faith, which would not be known of apart from it. Obedience makes faith complete, and thus (I'll borrow the word), "salvific".

Now you have said, and I would agree, that God knows our hearts. But how is the heart to be known but by the things which proceed from it (Matt 12:34-37; 15:16-20)?

Even Abraham, who James tells us perfected his faith with his works, when he offered Isaac heard the LORD say, "...for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen 22:12).

Charles, if nothing else, I think we're coming to a better understanding of one another's views. That can't help but be a good thing. I've got to get going for now.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Bmerr,

Yes it is a good thing to have better understanding of others' belief systems.

And I don't have a problem with seeing obedience as a proper manifestation of true.

Perhaps some of my understanding of conservative CoC doctrine is a little skewed.

I have understood that many CoC members believe that in order to be saved one must:

1. confess Christ.
2. be baptized in the name of Jesus.
3. become a member of the "Church of Christ" (not any denominational church).

The first is obviously necessary.

The second we have discussed. I agree with the importance of obedience. But I think we must be careful NOT to locate salvation in baptism but rather in the faith that one professes. In my mind one of Paul's reasons for stating "sola fide" (which is a bit of a "reductio ad absurdum") is that he does not want anyone to think that any work or ritual (such as baptism) actually is anything more than symbolic of the faith which actually allows salvation.

Regarding denominations...

Obviously we all have our opinions on what is "biblical". As our discussions have born out there is large scale agreement (a divine Jesus who died for the forgiveness of sins and rose bodily) but disagreement on some small but important details.

In my church we assemble to sing, pray and hear gospel preaching. Our "baptist" sign on the church door signifies that we find that the "baptist" distinctives represent the most biblical attempt to return to NT era worship.

If you assert (which perhaps you do not) that one must forsake "denominations" in order to be saved then you are flirting dangerously close to circumcision. Denominations are a recognition and admission that we are all humans trying humanly to emulate Christ and His church. Baptists are Christians first and "baptists" second. Our church fufills the criteria for a "new testament church" as best as can be attempted. To say that one cannot be saved because he/she uses a "denomination" to signify what his/her particular opinions regarding polity and doctrine (which is helpful for those seeking a new church) are is to insist on being circumcised.

If you would assert that this is simply a command that we must follow ("be added to the church of Christ") then I will assert that you have misunderstood the command.

As I said I understand "commands" and "obedience". And I think I agree with you more than we might have initially expected.

But if you end up seeing a list of "commandments" as necessary for salvation (similar to the mosaic law but given by Christ and not Moses) then I think you have misread what God really commands and why He has commanded it.

As a summation of my position...

I recognize that we all try our best to be biblical. As such there will be little differences. I do think that the NT is clear that salvation comes from faith alone, which then manifests itself in obedience. I understand the scriptural arguments for inclusion of works as necessary for salvation - but I think they are flawed.

My main (perceived) problem with the CoC would be the tendency to locate salvation not just in appropriate works (which would be expected to follow faith) but in ritual, circumcision-like works such as baptism and denominational church naming.

 

Charles,

bmerr here. sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

I think we're getting closer. The thing that makes me want to keep baptism as essential for salvation is it's given purpose in the NT. Salvation is a spiritual blessing. One's obedience to the gospel may or may not affect their temporal situation. It may even make earthly things worse. I know you know this, but please bear with me.

Eph 1:3 tells us that all spiritual blessings are "in Christ". Salvation is one of these blessings. So in order for me to have the salvation that God provides by His grace through my faith in Christ, I have to be (spiritually) "in Christ".

To be in Christ, I have to get "into Christ". There has to be a means of entry. I am only aware of two verses that contain the phrase, "into Christ", and they are Rom 6:3, and Gal 3:27, as you likely know.

Both of these verses speak of being "baptized into Christ". It's part of the new birth (John 3:5), without which one cannot enter the kingdom of God. I just don't know of any other way in.

Of course, there is always the question of "what if one really believes, and dies on his way to be baptized"? Well, I wish I knew what to do with that guy.

Both of us acknowledge the importance of obedience, I think it's getting down to a question of whether obedience is what is produced by saving faith, or if it is what makes saving faith.

I think of Noah, preaching to those pre-flood people for 120 years or so, while the ark was being built. I wonder what they thought while the animals were being loaded onto it? And then Noah and his family got in, and the door was shut, and the rain started falling. I'd imagine lots of folks suddenly became fervent believers of what Noah had been preaching, but it was too late.

I'd say the guy dying on his way to be baptized might be like that. He would have waited too long.

As you said in an earlier post, either salvation is by faith, or it is not. Likewise, 1 Pet 3:21 tells us that "baptism doth also now save you". Either it does, or it does not. Peter and Paul were both right. I'm not aware of Paul ever saying the we are saved "sola fide", or "by faith only", just that we are saved by faith. I guess it's a matter of determining what the Bible counts as "faith".

We can discuss the church and it's significance later.

In Christ,

bmerr