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

[FreeGrace2]

No, what's very clear is that you have zero understanding of covenant and/or covenant principles.

I asked for proof that the Philippian jailer had infants in his house, because of your comment about infant baptism and citing him.

Nor do you know what the Early Fathers wrote about it.

None of them were inspired. The Bible is inspired. Not early fathers.

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.

Well, I keep asking for evidence FROM the NT and you've not produced anything more than your claims.

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.

Actually, your claim needs support. If it is so "clearly taught" in Scripture, please enlighten me on a few verses that say that infants are to be baptized.

 

[Light of the East]

I asked for proof that the Philippian jailer had infants in his house, because of your comment about infant baptism and citing him.


None of them were inspired. The Bible is inspired. Not early fathers.


Well, I keep asking for evidence FROM the NT and you've not produced anything more than your claims.


Actually, your claim needs support. If it is so "clearly taught" in Scripture, please enlighten me on a few verses that say that infants are to be baptized.

I showed it to you. You need to take off your presuppositional glasses and read what I wrote to you. Then think about it. The same principle of covenant which applied in the Old Covenant applies in the New. Babies were covenanted into the congregation of God in the Old Covenant by circumcision. Circumcision was changed to baptism, babies are still welcome into the congregation through the covenant making ceremony called baptism.

You have no Scripture to show that Paul or the Apostles ever said a thing about ceasing to have a covenant making ceremony in the New Covenant. In fact, Jesus calls what He is about to do "This is my Blood, the Blood of the New Covenant." Pretty clear to me that if we are in a covenant, then we follow the established principles.

The Early Fathers were the pastors of the first century. They learned from the Apostles. Therefore, what they taught and defended was the truth that Christ taught to the Apostles. I find your statement kind of funny in that in many assemblies I have been in, the way the pastor is talked about, his sermons and wisdom, is almost like he was a walking Word of God. it's like every word that comes from his mouth is a golden gem of pure truth and proper interpretation of the Scriptures. Yet you don't want to listen to the very first pastors of Christianity.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I showed it to you. You need to take off your presuppositional glasses and read what I wrote to you.

There is NO evidence that the jailer had infants in his house, so how could you have "showed it" to me??

Then think about it. The same principle of covenant which applied in the Old Covenant applies in the New.

Your assumption only.

Babies were covenanted into the congregation of God in the Old Covenant by circumcision. Circumcision was changed to baptism, babies are still welcome into the congregation through the covenant making ceremony called baptism.

This proves nothing. There is zero evidence of infants being baptized in the NT.

You have no Scripture to show that Paul or the Apostles ever said a thing about ceasing to have a covenant making ceremony in the New Covenant.

Where did Paul teach that we still have a "covenant making ceremony"?

In fact, Jesus calls what He is about to do "This is my Blood, the Blood of the New Covenant." Pretty clear to me that if we are in a covenant, then we follow the established principles.

Well, it's NEW. Not OLD. It seems to me that Hebrews hasn't been on your reading list. I suggest reading it and especially ch 8,9,10 for proper understanding of the superiority of the new covenant and how different it is from the old one.

 

[Albion]

You're really not an Anglican, are you?

You're not really a Roman Catholic, are you? FWIW, I have read some stuff from you that I never thought I'd hear from any Catholic, so incompatible with Catholic teaching was it.

You keep making statements that sound like Fundamentalists.

If you say so, I will accept that this is what you think. You either aren't very familiar with Anglicanism -- or else it's that you're not very familiar with Fundamentalism -- but if this is what you think, I'd be happy to set you straight. You'll have to ask a few questions, of course.

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?

On the matter of baptism, yes, the Anabaptists did have a number of forerunners, like it or not. This doesn't mean they were the norm in church history, and it doesn't mean that we agree with their teachings, but they did exist.

 

[Light of the East]

You're not really a Roman Catholic, are you? FWIW, I have read some stuff from you that I never thought I'd hear from any Catholic, so incompatible with Catholic teaching was it.

Very perceptive, grasshoppa! I am Byzantine Catholic. There are differences.


If you say so, I will accept that this is what you think. You either aren't very familiar with Anglicanism -- or else it's that you're not very familiar with Fundamentalism -- but if this is what you think, I'd be happy to set you straight. You'll have to ask a few questions, of course.

Okay, I was Bob Jones Fundamentalist for 13 years before going over to the PCA. And I spent almost 2 years in the Reformed Episcopal Church. But they don't overlap, especially on the idea that Anabaptists were anything other than rank heretics. Your post made it look like you are defending them, which is impossible for a good Anglican to do. You should know that the idea of "believer's baptism" didn't crop up until around the time of the Reformation.


On the matter of baptism, yes, the Anabaptists did have a number of forerunners, like it or not. This doesn't mean they were the norm in church history, and it doesn't mean that we agree with their teachings, but they did exist.

Okay, is that what you mean? Then I think, when you say that heresy was not the norm, that we are in agreement.

 

[Albion]

You're not really a Roman Catholic, are you? FWIW, I have read some stuff from you that I never thought I'd hear from any Catholic, so incompatible with Catholic teaching was it.

Very perceptive, grasshoppa! I am Byzantine Catholic. There are differences.

You missed the point there. I was referring to the frequency with which your posts take exception of Catholic doctrine. That isn't a question of which rite you adhere to.

If you say so, I will accept that this is what you think. You either aren't very familiar with Anglicanism -- or else it's that you're not very familiar with Fundamentalism -- but if this is what you think, I'd be happy to set you straight. You'll have to ask a few questions, of course.

Okay, I was Bob Jones Fundamentalist for 13 years before going over to the PCA. And I spent almost 2 years in the Reformed Episcopal Church. But they don't overlap, especially on the idea that Anabaptists were anything other than rank heretics. Your post made it look like you are defending them

Well, I can't account for why you should have misread my words so badly. I said nothing at all that would amount to defending them. What I said is that they had forerunners--which is undeniable.

You should know that the idea of "believer's baptism" didn't crop up until around the time of the Reformation.

I know that this was not a settled matter in the early church and that it was only after awhile that the church decided on infant baptism.

 

[Light of the East]

You missed the point there. I was referring to the frequency with which your posts take exception of Catholic doctrine. That isn't a question of which rite you adhere to.

Would you give me an example that sticks in your mind? I'm surprised to hear you say this.

Well, I can't account for why you should have misread my words so badly. I said nothing at all that would amount to defending them. What I said is that they had forerunners--which is undeniable.

And if I remember right, the forerunners were part of groups which the Church has come to identify as heretical in their beliefs and practices.

I know that this was not a settled matter in the early church and that it was only after awhile that the church decided on infant baptism.

Might you share with me the texts or other information which you have to prove this? As I posted in an earlier post, there are quotes from the early third century that supported infant baptism.

 

[Light of the East]

There is NO evidence that the jailer had infants in his house, so how could you have "showed it" to me??

Like I said - covenant principles.

Your assumption only.

Not at all. What you are saying is that last century, a car was something that ran on gasoline, transported people from point A to point B, and drove along the ground, but in this century, a car doesn't move, carries no one anywhere, and is used to shred tree branches. (HINT: We call the second thing a "wood chipper.")

The principles of a thing are what make that thing what it is - ontological certainty. Men are not dogs. Men are men and have the same principles of being that they had 2000 years ago. In like manner, covenant is covenant. The principles do not change. One of the principles of covenant making is that there is a covenant making ceremony in which vows are made and there are public witnesses. And as such, the entire family is welcome into the covenant of God. Children are not excluded. They were not excluded in the Old Covenant, and therefore, they are not excluded in the New Covenant. You have no verse in which St. Paul specifically states to the Jewish people, who were very covenantal in their approach to life - "Now things are different in the New Covenant and we are not going to bring our children into covenant until they can make a decision."

Also, history is against you. The testimony of the Early Church was that infants were baptized. There are instructions on how to do it, given by the first pastors of the Church to the laity.

This proves nothing. There is zero evidence of infants being baptized in the NT.

Where did Paul teach that we still have a "covenant making ceremony"?

You cannot have a covenant without a ceremony of "cutting covenant." It is impossible. There are vows to be made in public, there are symbolic acts, such as the exchange of wedding rings (marriage is the second greatest covenant we enter into), and other public actions.

Do yourself a favor and read RAY SUTTON's book on covenant, THAT YOU MAY PROSPER. He's a Protestant, so you won't get papist cooties by reading it. His principles are very sound and scriptural, even if his application is skewed.

Well, it's NEW. Not OLD. It seems to me that Hebrews hasn't been on your reading list. I suggest reading it and especially ch 8,9,10 for proper understanding of the superiority of the new covenant and how different it is from the old one.

If anything, Hebrews shows exactly how the principles of the Old Covenant transfer into the New. For instance, there is a Great High Priest spoken of, which shows how that covenant position transferred into the New Covenant. The Passover, which was the covenant meal, became the Eucharist. Circumcision became baptism (Col. 2:11-12). The priesthood continues (John 20:23).

 

[thecolorsblend]

Speaking as a former member, I can think of a few reasons why the Churches of Christ as a denomination might be considered a cult. Oddly enough though, their view of baptism isn't one of them.

 

[Albion]

Speaking as a former member, I can think of a few reasons why the Churches of Christ as a denomination might be considered a cult. Oddly enough though, their view of baptism isn't one of them.

I think that's right. I disagree with their several points of emphasis regarding Baptism, but this does not make the CsOFC a "cult" by any accepted definition.

 

[LoveofTruth]

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?

And how do you know what the Sacred Scriptures are saying unless they are interpreted.

the simple answer is this

"27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." ( 1 John 2:27)

and

"
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." ( 1 Cor. 2:12,13)

and

'
John 16:13
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."

so now you must repent and come out of the confusion and Babylon

 

[Light of the East]

the simple answer is this

"27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." ( 1 John 2:27)

When John wrote this, there was one Church, not several thousand. There was one truth, not several hundred. The people of that time did not have to figure out which Protestant denomination had the truth because there was only one Church with one leadership. John is saying that the Holy Spirit is verifying to them that what the Church is teaching through the Apostles is indeed the truth. There is no similarity between this and the chaos of modern Protestantism.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." ( 1 Cor. 2:12,13)

Same thing

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."

so now you must repent and come out of the confusion and Babylon

Every Protestant who rejects the truth of the Church runs to this verse as their "proof" that God is leading them in their personal interpretation of the Bible. The only problem is that when Jesus is speaking, He is addressing a certain group of men and not the whole world. The "you" in this verse is the Apostles and not you.

So you call the Church which Jesus established upon St. Peter "Babylon." Charming. You have been drinking the Jack Chick Kool-Aid for way too long.

 

[Gary the Kid]

It's not how, it rather from whom. There are 2 kids in Luke..........Both give Water. You get to choose one. Earth Water (stream-River) or from the water flowing from the spear thrust...........Everyone takes the Earth Water................Have fun on the New Earth............

 

[Isaiah55:6]

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

Yes this and many other areas that deny the essentials of the Christian Faith.

 

[Albion]

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

Yes this and many other areas that deny the essentials of the Christian Faith.

What would those "essentials" that the CsofC supposedly deny happen to be??

 

[Isaiah55:6]

What would those "essentials" that the CsofC supposedly deny happen to be??

I sincerely apologize. The first thing that came to mind was ' the church of Jesus Christ' of Latter Day Saints. My bad, again I apologize.

 

[Albion]

I sincerely apologize. The first thing that came to mind was ' the church of Jesus Christ' of Latter Day Saints. My bad, again I apologize.

Whoops. Well THAT explains a lot. The important thing is that we're on track now.