Is the Church of Christ a cult because of their particular view of baptism?

[Albion]

What is the point is that the ealiest manuscripts do NOT have v.9-20. None of them. So those verses HAD to have been added at a later date.

That's far, far too simplistic. Any research into this matter shows that it's a difficult call as to the authenticity or non-authenticity of these verses, and it can't simply be said that "the oldest manuscripts didn't have them, so someone must have added them later on."

 

[Albion]

Every Church of Christ that I've encountered is independent, and no two are identical in their teachings and practices.

Hmm. While all are independent, there are few "denominations" that are as consistent in practice and belief from congregation to congregation as the Churches of Christ.

 

[abysmul]

Hmm. While all are independent, there are few "denominations" that are as consistent in practice and belief from congregation to congregation as the Churches of Christ.

I would not disagree, though differences are there... instrumental music or not being a common one around here, and at my workplace we have a few members of a couple different local congregations, and one is adamant in support of the requirement of water baptism, while the other not.

 

[Albion]

I would not disagree, though differences are there... instrumental music or not being a common one around here, and at my workplace we have a few members of a couple different local congregations, and one is adamant in support of the requirement of water baptism, while the other not.

Generally, the instrumental congregations belong to the Independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, a different association; and as for what that co-worker with the unusual view about baptism has to say, I wonder if that's also what the church itself believes. Anyway, it's not worth arguing about.

 

[FreeGrace2]

That's far, far too simplistic. Any research into this matter shows that it's a difficult call as to the authenticity or non-authenticity of these verses, and it can't simply be said that "the oldest manuscripts didn't have them, so someone must have added them later on."

Here are the facts, from scholars who have determined the age of the various manuscripts. Mark 16:9-20 does NOT appear in the oldest dated manuscripts. This isn't debatable. Those verses didn't show up until later manuscripts. This isn't debatable.

Why would a "study Bible" make this statement regarding those verses: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."

As well, this statement occurs before John 8: "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11."

And this footnote is found for Acts 8:37 - "some late manuscripts", meaning that v.37 isn't found in the earlier manuscripts.

Why would a study Bible make these statements if they weren't true?

 

[Albion]

Here are the facts, from scholars who have determined the age of the various manuscripts.

Here are some facts, you mean. A serious approach to this issue has to account for the fact that only a minority of sources and a minority of "scholars" have those verses being phony additions by later scribes.

Lay out the complete case from both sides and we'll talk.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Here are some facts, you mean. A serious approach to this issue has to account for the fact that only a minority of sources and a minority of "scholars" have those verses being phony additions by later scribes.

Is this a suggestion that the dates of all available manuscripts hasn't been determined yet?

Lay out the complete case from both sides and we'll talk.

I did lay out the complete case. Which is the earliest dated manuscripts don't include the last part of Mark 16. Period. While later dated manuscripts do. Means they were added LATER.

I guess your argument requires proving that all available manuscripts cannot be accurately dated. So, please lay out your complete case.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

I don't see much point in continuing. I am not Church of Christ. I merely pointed out that the thief on the cross is a bad example to use for refusing water baptism, which I wouldn't do anyway since it was commanded and taught by Jesus Christ and I am his. I then showed that there is legitimate reason to encourage water baptism because the Scripture... that is the common Scripture available to man shows that water baptism is connected to salvation, but is not the source of it.

How about Peter's comment, "Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you will receive the Holy Ghost [Acts 2:37]."

Follow the path of Acts 1 & 2. What was received on the Day of Pentecost Jesus called being Baptized with the Holy Ghost. The people asked what it was. Peter answered it was the promise of the Father as mentioned by Joel and was given by Christ. Peter answers, telling them how they might also receive that promise.

Baptized for the remission of sins? Is he referring to Holy Spirit baptism? How can he be since they must be baptized to receive the promise of the baptism in the Spirit?

If Peter is not referring to water baptism in his epistle how do you explain being baptized for the remission of sins? Of course Peter's explanation let's us know that it is the following of obedience, like Christ who was baptized, and a fruit of our faith. Obedience has power, disobedience brings death.

I know Paul baptized and commanded water baptism. Just read the Book of Acts, you'll find it. 1 quotation from Corinthians does not show the real nature of the man, or his doctrine.

We also know that Jesus baptized or rather encouraged his disciples to baptize on his behalf and in his name. If Jesus thought it was important. If the apostles believed that Jesus commanded it. If Paul practiced and commanded it. Why should it not be important to me?

If you honestly believe that you can be saved while refusing to be baptized then be my guest, but I must issue a warning, if it is the will of God and you don't do it you won't be saved according to Matthew 7:21 to 23. I don't think I'll risk it.

I do not baptize in the name of a denomination; nor do I recognize it as entrance into a church or denomination. Baptism alone won't save you because it must be coupled and preceded by faith and repentance. If you cannot be baptized in water you will not be lost, just don't refuse to obey a single command of God and of Jesus.

 

[AndOne]

Here are the facts, from scholars who have determined the age of the various manuscripts. Mark 16:9-20 does NOT appear in the oldest dated manuscripts. This isn't debatable. Those verses didn't show up until later manuscripts. This isn't debatable.

Why would a "study Bible" make this statement regarding those verses: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."

As well, this statement occurs before John 8: "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11."

And this footnote is found for Acts 8:37 - "some late manuscripts", meaning that v.37 isn't found in the earlier manuscripts.

Why would a study Bible make these statements if they weren't true?

FG2 is right on about this issue. This is such common knowledge that it's not even debatable. Every single translation out there that includes these verses makes the statement regarding early manuscripts not having them. I know of many preachers both Calvinist and Arminian who would never preach from these texts because of their exclusion from the earliest manuscripts.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

FG2 is right on about this issue. This is such common knowledge that it's not even debatable. Every single translation out there that includes these verses makes the statement regarding early manuscripts not having them. I know of many preachers both Calvinist and Arminian who would never preach from these texts because of their exclusion from the earliest manuscripts.

Whether or not they appear in the earliest manuscripts is not necessarily the issue. The issue is, are they authentic?

I'm an author, not a serious one, but an author none-the-less. Everyone knows that authors may sometimes update their information to include other information. Who is to say that Mark did not add that information in a later edition and both editions continued to be copied?

I do not think that you can de-authenticate the verses just because they did not appear in the earliest manuscripts. You must give proof for your accusation. So can you tell me exactly who added them? You may then have substance to your argument.

AndOne, I just read your George Whitefield quote and found it amusing since I totally agree with him. Too much can be made of the will of man. He has one but it is of precious little use to him if he use it wrongly because only Jesus can save. What is also true is sin is our DNA. We hear so much about how powerful our DNA is these days it is better to trust God to turn us. He turned me. Once the Holy Spirit showed me what he had already done the decision was easy. I did, however, make a decision but I would have to say it was not really my own. I simply had no argument left and never looked for one.

I don't know what an Arminian is supposed to believe, nor a Calvinist for that matter.

 

[AndOne]

Whether or not they appear in the earliest manuscripts is not necessarily the issue. The issue is, are they authentic?

I'm an author, not a serious one, but an author none-the-less. Everyone knows that authors may sometimes update their information to include other information. Who is to say that Mark did not add that information in a later edition and both editions continued to be copied?

I do not think that you can de-authenticate the verses just because they did not appear in the earliest manuscripts. You must give proof for your accusation. So can you tell me exactly who added them? You may then have substance to your argument.

AndOne, I just read your George Whitefield quote and found it amusing since I totally agree with him. Too much can be made of the will of man. He has one but it is of precious little use to him if he use it wrongly because only Jesus can save. What is also true is sin is our DNA. We hear so much about how powerful our DNA is these days it is better to trust God to turn us. He turned me. Once the Holy Spirit showed me what he had already done the decision was easy. I did, however, make a decision but I would have to say it was not really my own. I simply had no argument left and never looked for one.

I don't know what an Arminian is supposed to believe, nor a Calvinist for that matter.

All I can say is that perhaps you might want to study this issue a bit closer. There is a lot of research out there on this and those who get paid to study this stuff are pretty much in agreement that the verses were added much later than the earliest manuscripts. Quite frankly I'm really surprised to see this being debated at all here. If nothing else the sheer fact that you have myself agreeing with and defending a post made by FG2 should give anyone pause.

If you like the Whitfield quote I highly recommend you read Luther's "Bondage of The Will." A. w. Pink's "The Soveriegnty Of God" is pretty mind blowing as well. Hit me up in PM if you want to discuss further....

 

[FreeGrace2]

All I can say is that perhaps you might want to study this issue a bit closer. There is a lot of research out there on this and those who get paid to study this stuff are pretty much in agreement that the verses were added much later than the earliest manuscripts. Quite frankly I'm really surprised to see this being debated at all here. If nothing else the sheer fact that you have myself agreeing with and defending a post made by FG2 should give anyone pause.

If you like the Whitfield quote I highly recommend you read Luther's "Bondage of The Will." A. w. Pink's "The Soveriegnty Of God" is pretty mind blowing as well. Hit me up in PM if you want to discuss further....

Or PM me for a balanced view of theology.

 

[Light of the East]

If we add anything to the gospel, we make another gospel, some add Sabbaths, circumcision, water baptism, the law of Moses, etc. If we add anything for salvation to the gospel 1 Cor 15, we make another gospel.

So the Church got it wrong for 1500 years until the Anabaptists came along?

 

[Albion]

So the Church got it wrong for 1500 years until the Anabaptists came along?

While LoveofTruth was mistaken, this comment (above) shows a considerable lack of information concerning the history of Baptism, too.

Christian Baptism was debated and changed over the course of centuries until the church finally settled on the particular mode of administration and the meaning that you think always was the rule. Even if we were to focus more narrowly on the Anabaptists' view of the matter, they had plenty of forerunners.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

All I can say is that perhaps you might want to study this issue a bit closer. There is a lot of research out there on this and those who get paid to study this stuff are pretty much in agreement that the verses were added much later than the earliest manuscripts. Quite frankly I'm really surprised to see this being debated at all here. If nothing else the sheer fact that you have myself agreeing with and defending a post made by FG2 should give anyone pause.

If you like the Whitfield quote I highly recommend you read Luther's "Bondage of The Will." A. w. Pink's "The Soveriegnty Of God" is pretty mind blowing as well. Hit me up in PM if you want to discuss further....

Thanks for the offer but since the subject of "which manuscripts" doesn't bother me I don't really see the point. As for discussing Calvinism versus Arminianism I'm really quite happy to leave that debate in the past. It didn't help them then and I don't see it helping us now, all it does is create division. I have many friends who are Calvinist and I must have many in the other camp too because I always get dragged into the debate. My stance is, you have to make a decision anyhow. Whether God causes you to make it or you make it yourself be sure to make it in favour of Jesus and eternal life and don't end up in hell.

I like DL's prayer, "Lord save the elect and then elect some more."

That's my kind of prayer, Father, no more souls to populate hell.

I reckon the Devil's got too many already.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

The point of my original argument to the OP is this... the use of the thief on the cross to deny the need for water baptism is not logical since he was not in the position to be baptized.

The argument using Paul's mention to the Corinthians that he only baptized a few does not prove that Paul believed water baptism was unnecessary since he obviously baptized with water in the context and a look at the Book of Acts reveals that Paul taught and encouraged water baptism at conversion.

To say that Paul taught and believed that water baptism was not a part of our salvation experience is erroneous. Read the Book of Acts and see for yourself. Unless of course you feel there are more errors in the manuscripts.

Through Church history God has confirmed the promises of Mark 16 and not in cultic practices. If you can find a copy read Willie Burton's biography "With signs following" as an example. Of course much of the text has support from other parts of Scripture. My own testimony supports the claims of the challenged text. I was healed through the laying on of hands and I have spoken in unlearned languages as the Spirit gave me utterance. I have not been bitten by poisonous snakes and, if I have had something deadly to drink I wouldn't know because it didn't harm me, so let's say it never happened. I'm happy with that, but why should I disbelieve another's testimony?

God has witnessed to me that it is his word, that's all I need.

I preach salvation by faith with water baptism as an outworking of our faith: a confession if you will but I do not teach that baptism has no significance because that would be contrary to the command of Jesus and the apostles, including Paul.

 

[LoveofTruth]

So the Church got it wrong for 1500 years until the Anabaptists came along?

The Jews also got so many things wrong for a long time before Christ came, there have been many errors in the church for centuries, the whole false clergy laity error has dominated Christendom for a long time. We cannot base our views on mans traditions but rather the holy scriptures and the revelation of God in them. Many reformers must have heard similar things when they came out of Romans Catholicism. They must have heard others say "so you think your right and all the catholic church wrong?, " have we been wrong for so long??
etc

and yes they were wrong for so long

 

[Light of the East]

The Jews also got so many things wrong for a long time before Christ came, there have been many errors in the church for centuries, the whole false clergy laity error has dominated Christendom for a long time. We cannot base our views on mans traditions but rather the holy scriptures and the revelation of God in them. Many reformers must have heard similar things when they came out of Romans Catholicism. They must have heard others say "so you think your right and all the catholic church wrong?, " have we been wrong for so long??
etc

and yes they were wrong for so long

Hogwash!

And that is much more polite than my real feelings about such a statement. You have just called Jesus a liar. He said that the Church would not be overcome by the gates of hell. You have just opened a can of worms, for if there is no distinct place where the truth can be found, then where among the 30,000+ Protestant churches do you find the truth and how do you know it?

I'm sure you think that your little assembly has the 100% truly truth, doncha? Well, how do you know? What authority do you have to say that a Lutheran is wrong, or a Presbyterian. A Pentecostal or a Mormon? All of them will happily use the KJV to show you their religion and they will swear they are led by the Holy Spirit (that "burning fire" in the bosom of the Mormon, for instance).

There were errors in the Church, but they were exposed and thrown out. That is what the Church councils were about. Arianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, the Iconoclast Heresy -- all of these were decided by the Church which is called Catholic. Now if you say that the Church had errors and therefore She is unreliable, then which doctrine is an error? Do you then go with the modern Arians (the JW's) and say that Jesus isn't God, even though the Catholic Church proclaimed Him as such at the Council of Nicea? Or is it that you only throw out those doctrines which make no sense to you.

And how do you know what the Sacred Scriptures are saying unless they are interpreted. And who gets to do that? Why? What authority do you or any Protestant have to interpret the Scriptures in a manner which is pleasing to your understanding? The Church is called "the pillar and foundation of truth." Funny, I don't see your name there. Nor the name of any Protestant denomination.

The Church. You would do well to stop and listen to Her before it's too late!

 

[Light of the East]

While LoveofTruth was mistaken, this comment (above) shows a considerable lack of information concerning the history of Baptism, too.

Christian Baptism was debated and changed over the course of centuries until the church finally settled on the particular mode of administration and the meaning that you think always was the rule. Even if we were to focus more narrowly on the Anabaptists' view of the matter, they had plenty of forerunners.

You're really not an Anglican, are you?

You keep making statements that sound like Fundamentalists.

You apparently haven't read the Early Fathers either, have you?

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Early third century. Where do you suppose such an idea came from?

You saying that the Anabaptists had plenty of forerunners almost made me spit my coffee on my monitor. You've been reading that stupid TRAIL OF BLOOD, haven't you?

Sheeeesh!

 

[Light of the East]

Oh, I see. When one ASSUMES a bunch, it's easy to defend anything. I suppose there is proof that this jailer had infants in his house?

What is very clear is that people were baptized AFTER they believed. Your proof text wasn't all that much proof.

[/QUOTE]

No, what's very clear is that you have zero understanding of covenant and/or covenant principles. Nor do you know what the Early Fathers wrote about it.

God set up the standard and principle in the Old Covenant. Male babies were baptized into the covenant. They were not held back from being members of the congregation of God until they could "make a decision for Jehovah." This same covenant principle continues into the New Covenant. Since we have the principle clearly taught in Scripture, it is up to you to prove that the Apostles dumped this covenant principle and changed everything. And I see zero proof that this happened. What I do see, in fact, is overwhelming evidence that a great deal of the Old Covenant practices were "pulled through" into the New Covenant and continued, some in a new form.

For instance, the Passover continued as the Eucharist, which the Covenant Supper.

The high priesthood continued in the final Great High Priest, Jesus of Nazareth.

The priesthood and the ability to offer sacrifice for sins continued in John 20:23 when Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to hear and remit sins.

And the ritual of covenant entrance, circumcision, continued in the new form of baptism.

You don't have to guess or imagine this stuff if you simply know how a covenant works.