Not the only Christians?

Church of Christ folk can start talking about the Super Bowl and end-up talking about water baptism. If you have put your trust in your baptism you are as lost as lost can be. Christ did what you could not do for yourselves. Only Christ's finished work on the cross and your faith in that will save you. He paid a debt He did not owe and it is expressed toward us as unmerited favor - Grace.

Water baptism, communion and the like are acts of discipleship by Christians. If water baptism is needed to save then you must get out the knife and start circumcizing as you're still teaching law.

Back to the Original Post. Alexander Campbell stated in that famous Lunenburg Letter that other Christians were saved who were outside of his group. His group was once called the Christian Baptists. The Disciples split in 1901 over the use of musical instruments and formed what is now called the Church of Christ.

Luther and Calvin promoted water baptism for salvation. Catholics and Mormons practice water baptism for salvation as they believe it is places one into their one true church. The Catholics, of course, believe that they are the one universal church and Mormons think that they are God's true Israel.

Some Baptists are more insistent upon water baptism than even the Churches of Christ. They insist that a Baptist preacher do the baptism.

The only Baptizer is the Holy Spirit who supernaturally places us into the Body of Christ. Only those who have trusted in Christ whose sins are thereby blotted out and covered by His shed blood may become members of the Body. I want to be part of the Body. That is the group with which I want to most indentified.

Water baptism is necessary and practiced along with communion by Protestant Churches. I am all for it. But I refuse to lie to anyone and tell them that they are saved when they are water baptized. An unforgiven dry sinner is still a sinner when he or she comes up wet out of the water. Water baptism is not subtitutionary to the roles of Christ and the Holy Spirit in salvation any more than grape juice is an adequate subtitute for Chirst's own shed blood. Your participation in water baptism and communion is your personal testimony of having been placed under the Lordship of Christ and into the Body of Christ.

Rom 8:10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Rom 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

Rom 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.

Rom 3:24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

Rom 5:2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
Rom 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
Rom 5:19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
Rom 5:20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, abounded all the more,
Rom 5:21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Rom 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.
Rom 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.
Rom 6:7 For one who has died has been set free from sin.
Rom 6:8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.
Rom 6:9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.
Rom 6:10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
Rom 6:11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions.
Rom 6:13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness.
Rom 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.


This is a supernatural work of God that water cannot accomplish.

To my knowledge, there are at least four distinct 'baptisms' mentioned in the New Testament ~ John's Baptism, Baptism of Fire, Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and Christian baptism. Ephesians 4 tells us that God's will is for all followers of Christ to be unified (not necessarily uniform) on seven basic principles, including ONE BAPTISM.

I wouldn't have to lie to anyone that asked me, "What must I do to be saved?" I'd answer with the very WORDS OF GOD pronounced by His Apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost without apology or theological explanations. "Repent and be baptized ..." Peter goes on to say (Acts 2 is the context) the provision he just proclaimed is universal for all people for all time. Those who responded to his message were baptized THAT DAY. In fact, the biblical record only has ONE EXCEPTION of anyone waiting to be baptized immediately (3 Days for Saul of Tarsus).

Striking to a thinking mind, was the Philippian Jailor who risked his life and the lives of his family to be baptized sometime after midnight. I do not believe this was a clandestine act but rather an urgent one.

I would concede that baptism can and HAS been improperly emphasized and generally maligned by a majority of religious institutions. I also have deep convictions that it is by GRACE one is saved and not by righteous acts, including 'acts or responses' to the gospel message. I'm concerned when anyone feels compelled to minimize the importance of immediate baptism upon confession of faith in Christ. There is no logical or justifiable reason to delay baptism once someone is convicted and convinced about the Christ.

Acts 19 poses an interesting twist to this discussion. Paul arrives in Ephesus (after Apollos had been publicly teaching about Christ) and 'finds' some 'disciples' who were obviously confused concerning the Holy Spirit. He 'reimmerses' them once this confusion has been clarified, why?

The 'Great Commission' includes the command to baptize disciples. Those who come to terms with the gospel and surrender to Christ as Lord need to be baptized. Does that mean this one 'action' 'saves' the penitent, unlikely. Nevertheless, there is no credible reasoning for delaying this vital obedient response. It should be enough for us to imitate the ancient examples recorded in the inspired accounts.

There is no valid reason to 'explain away' or dilute biblical examples and instruction concerning baptism. The safe course for any 'believer' should be to follow the Holy Scripture. This is not rocket science. Only minds saturated with so called 'theology' resist the simple instruction and numerous examples provided in the New Testament.

This problem is complex. It affects the body of Christ in negative ways, especially when it comes to the unity and love we are to demonstrate to unbelievers. Our hearts must remain sensitive to cultural influences while striving to emulate the ancient disciple's practices, including baptism. If not, why not?

rexboykin said:

To my knowledge, there are at least four distinct 'baptisms' mentioned in the New Testament ~ John's Baptism, Baptism of Fire, Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and Christian baptism. Ephesians 4 tells us that God's will is for all followers of Christ to be unified (not necessarily uniform) on seven basic principles, including ONE BAPTISM.

I wouldn't have to lie to anyone that asked me, "What must I do to be saved?" I'd answer with the very WORDS OF GOD pronounced by His Apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost without apology or theological explanations. "Repent and be baptized ..." Peter goes on to say (Acts 2 is the context) the provision he just proclaimed is universal for all people for all time. Those who responded to his message were baptized THAT DAY. In fact, the biblical record only has ONE EXCEPTION of anyone waiting to be baptized immediately (3 Days for Saul of Tarsus).

Striking to a thinking mind, was the Philippian Jailor who risked his life and the lives of his family to be baptized sometime after midnight. I do not believe this was a clandestine act but rather an urgent one.

I would concede that baptism can and HAS been improperly emphasized and generally maligned by a majority of religious institutions. I also have deep convictions that it is by GRACE one is saved and not by righteous acts, including 'acts or responses' to the gospel message. I'm concerned when anyone feels compelled to minimize the importance of immediate baptism upon confession of faith in Christ. There is no logical or justifiable reason to delay baptism once someone is convicted and convinced about the Christ.

Acts 19 poses an interesting twist to this discussion. Paul arrives in Ephesus (after Apollos had been publicly teaching about Christ) and 'finds' some 'disciples' who were obviously confused concerning the Holy Spirit. He 'reimmerses' them once this confusion has been clarified, why?

The 'Great Commission' includes the command to baptize disciples. Those who come to terms with the gospel and surrender to Christ as Lord need to be baptized. Does that mean this one 'action' 'saves' the penitent, unlikely. Nevertheless, there is no credible reasoning for delaying this vital obedient response. It should be enough for us to imitate the ancient examples recorded in the inspired accounts.

There is no valid reason to 'explain away' or dilute biblical examples and instruction concerning baptism. The safe course for any 'believer' should be to follow the Holy Scripture. This is not rocket science. Only minds saturated with so called 'theology' resist the simple instruction and numerous examples provided in the New Testament.

This problem is complex. It affects the body of Christ in negative ways, especially when it comes to the unity and love we are to demonstrate to unbelievers. Our hearts must remain sensitive to cultural influences while striving to emulate the ancient disciple's practices, including baptism. If not, why not?

Click to expand...

To whom was Peter speaking? Jews and a few proselytes.

Who were the consistent opposers to the teachings of the Apostle Paul? Judaizers.

If we're going to preach and teach a Jewish style of conversion by baptism, then we must include circumcision.

When Peter said, "This promise is for you and your children, for all who are far off ..." who do you suppose that would include? Why must one insist on separating what Jesus and His Apostles taught Jewish audiences and what was taught to Gentile peoples?

Conversion is not by baptism, rather by Christ via. Holy Spirit. Baptism has several benefits listed and repeated throughout the New Testament. Anyone can reference the passages and list the specific blessings associated with baptism.

These differences are actually more subtle than we normally care to admit. Please recall the FIRST Gentile conversion, Acts 10. These people (Gentiles) were baptized JUST LIKE the Jews were on the day of Pentecost. This was an ordained, intentional act of God - this confirmation of Gentile converts - and addresses Gentile conversion as contrasted with Jewish conversion.

The one gospel of Jesus Christ applies to both Jew and Gentile alike. Circumcision was an Old Testament requirement(Jews only). Baptism was practiced by Jesus, His disciples, the churches in the first century and commanded by Christ as an integral part of the Great Commission. Jesus was baptized. How can I be like Him and not be? Why should I wait to submit to such a simple request? If I believe, I WILL be baptized.

I've been thinking about this lately, and it brought to mind an interesting dichotomy. On one hand I've seen people say that Baptism isn't a work, it's something that God does to you. On the other hand I've seen the same people say that if you don't understand it in the right way, then it doesn't save you.

So I wanted to ask the question, do any of us truly understand baptism? Do you understand baptism better now than you did when you where first baptized? I say this because if Baptism is something that God does to us through faith, then our actual understanding of it at the time probably isn't half as important as we think it is.

I am afraid that we may be denying that it is a work, but in truth treating it as if it where one.

I'm sure that some have overemphasized baptism as much as others have under-emphasized baptism. It seems reasonable that baptism is a component of the conversion process, given the examples and instructions in the New Testament. Some feel compelled to 'strain out gnats' in terms of when one is saved and if one is saved with the sterile precision of the Pharisees and Scribes of Jesus' day. How much did the first century disciples really 'know' about baptism prior to their conversions? If we are going to be technical we should note Acts 19:1-ff. This is a valid biblical example of the Apostle Paul evaluating disciples who had been baptized. These disciples were 're-baptized' after this interaction. The text raises many issues for serious students of the Bible. This same apostle admonishes all 'believers' to examine THEMSELVES not to obsess with examining OTHERS. Should we be so judgmental of another's servant? I don't believe it would be prudent to ignore misunderstandings about biblical teachings but wisdom dictates a certain degree of tact and timing. Paul's instruction to Timothy should echo in our hearts, "Reflect on what I am saying, and the Lord will give you insight into all of this." If one reads the Scriptures as frequently as one feeds his physical body that one will eventually come to understand many things. How we represent the gospel, Christianity and God will be evidenced in behavior AND attitude.

notreligus,

Does partaking in making a covenant through a wedding make you married?

In normal circumstances the answer is clearly in the affirmative. Yes there are exceptions like if your just doing it as part of a play or tv show. However everyone understands that the wedding is part of the things that creates the covenant. True it is a loving commitment that initiates it and sustains it. But just because the formal initiation act can be in some circumstances divorced from the underlying truth of a loving covenental union doesn't mean we should abandon the initiation ceremony.

If a couple turns up at your church and says they are married but have not had a wedding. If they refuse to be publicly wed because it is there love that binds them into a spiritual union not some silly piece of paper or public commitment to covenant together. Would you agree that the initiation ceremony should be ignored?

Weddings marry, baptisms save but not the washing of water but the pledge of whole person (including their mind, soul and body) before God.

Was not one of the main premises of Alexander Campbell is that there is only one church (God's church) Isn't it man who needs to split it up into nuce little titles or denominations? I think ALL folowers of Christ are Christians, whether they go to a DoC church, a Baptist, Luthern, Roman Catholic, Methodist,etc. We all are children of the One true God.

RefrusRevlis said:

I was thinking about the statement: "There is a very small percentage of RM believers who believe that only RM believers are true Christians, but this is not a popular view." and wondered to what extent this represents the belief of the users.

Refrus

Click to expand...

I would say the statement represents my view. I can't think of any RM believers that I know who think only RM believers are true Christians. I know some CoC people who think only those who attend a CoC are true Christians, but none of them think that DoC members or those in the independent Christian Churches are true Christians.

Personally, I believe that Christ's church is much larger then the restoration movement

SuzanneM52 said:

Mind if I complicate this subject a little bit? What if we HAVE no one to baptise us? Please dont answer and say there are churches on every corner because altho that is true, I do not want to have to make an appointment, nor do I want to be baptised infront of a bunch of people.

Click to expand...

Not trying to make light of it. Baptise yourself then. If there is seriously no one to help you then in the eyes of the Lord and with the right conscience and heart then by all means go to the water, pool, bathtub and do it.

heapshake said:

I would say the statement represents my view. I can't think of any RM believers that I know who think only RM believers are true Christians. I know some CoC people who think only those who attend a CoC are true Christians, but none of them think that DoC members or those in the independent Christian Churches are true Christians.

Personally, I believe that Christ's church is much larger then the restoration movement

Click to expand...

I would suppose it to not be proper to direct others to another discussion forum but I spent 6 years with a bunch of Churches of Christ folk at another web site and they insisted that they were the only true Christians. They base this on their following the five step plan, their having Sunday morning assembly and "worship," giving offerings on Sunday morning, and having communion each Sunday morning. In other words, make sure you punch God's time clock every Sunday morning and that will prove that you are of the Churches of Christ and you are of the group who are the only ones who do this.

This is not true, of course, but I was surprised to learn that there are as many hard-line Church of Christ folk than I had ever imagined who believe that they are the only true Christians. Some will even condemn other Church of Christ people as on their way to Hell for having a kitchen in their building or using more than one communion cup. I've had some Church of Christ folk tell me that this is not true, but I know from first-hand experience that these things are all true. (I know that they prefer "churches of Christ" but since it is a denomination I spell it appropriately as Churches of Christ.)

notreligus said:

I would suppose it to not be proper to direct others to another discussion forum but I spent 6 years with a bunch of Churches of Christ folk at another web site and they insisted that they were the only true Christians.

Click to expand...

That was pretty much my point. In the RM you have Independent Christian Churches, Disciples of Christ, and Churches of Christ. As far as I know, the only ones who claim they are the only true Christians belong to the Church of Christ group and they would deny that those in the other 2 groups of the RM (or even others in the CoC) are true Christians. I don't know anyone who would make the claim that the only true Christians are those who belong to any RM congregation.

I think it also has to deal with how long the church has been around. I have seen older C of Cs be more "denominational" while the newer or those with younger members be more open. I was raised in the C of C and now belong to a "christian" church. I have seen both of what you all are talking about. I believe the C of C is the "purest" of churches based on teaching what scriptures say but not the only church. I do believe that is what most of the RM would say today. I like what the definitions of the RM on this site say. I would totally agree with it. The one thing I would disagree with the RM on is the availability of the gifts. I believe in all of them. Most in my local congregation do not or don't even know about them.

There is a thread in the non-denominational forum that claims the C of Cs are cults and won't let anyone leave. I left. My dad left. My sister left. My church changed into the modern Christian churches, so I do not think they (we) are a cult, but I do see a very strict legalistic system in play. But, in a way, if it sticks to scripture, then so what. If it means nothing, then the wya I see it is don't argue to the death about it. But some, especially from the more traditional setting will.

And if you notice those who post here in this forum usually use the "christian" ICON and not the "non-denominational" ICON, which is what I think is more appropriate and helps unify the Church.

Gozreht said:

I think it also has to deal with how long the church has been around. I have seen older C of Cs be more "denominational" while the newer or those with younger members be more open. I was raised in the C of C and now belong to a "christian" church. I have seen both of what you all are talking about. I believe the C of C is the "purest" of churches based on teaching what scriptures say but not the only church. I do believe that is what most of the RM would say today. I like what the definitions of the RM on this site say. I would totally agree with it. The one thing I would disagree with the RM on is the availability of the gifts. I believe in all of them. Most in my local congregation do not or don't even know about them.

There is a thread in the non-denominational forum that claims the C of Cs are cults and won't let anyone leave. I left. My dad left. My sister left. My church changed into the modern Christian churches, so I do not think they (we) are a cult, but I do see a very strict legalistic system in play. But, in a way, if it sticks to scripture, then so what. If it means nothing, then the wya I see it is don't argue to the death about it. But some, especially from the more traditional setting will.

And if you notice those who post here in this forum usually use the "christian" ICON and not the "non-denominational" ICON, which is what I think is more appropriate and helps unify the Church.

Click to expand...

Good post.

As far as gifts of the Holy Spirit are concerned, I was glad to read your comments. I was in a C of C congregation about 30 years ago where the senior minister was also non-cessational, and he was dispensational on top of it. He was a fine man and was well-respected even though his beliefs were not totally shared by some elders. This was a rare C of C, according to my personal experiences.

I agree with you that many C of C congregations are becoming more like the Independent Christian churches. They are essentially Christian Churches without any use of musical instruments.

I find it sad how Max Lucado is viewed in some C of C circles. I've heard and read comments by C of C folk who say he is backslidden, at best, and some just say he's lost.

notreligus said:

Church of Christ folk can start talking about the Super Bowl and end-up talking about water baptism. If you have put your trust in your baptism you are as lost as lost can be.

Click to expand...

We do not trust in baptism, we trust in Jesus who commanded baptism. We have faith our sin will be washed away, just as scripture says, when we are baptized. We trust Jesus, we believe in his resurrection, we know baptism without faith in Jesus is useless.

Faith without works is dead, and baptism (if you want to call it a work) is a work sanctified by Christ.

We believe all of scripture. We believe the verses that say faith saves us, confessing Jesus is Lord saves, baptism saves and we will be saved if we faithfully endure in the faith. Those verses don't oppose each other, they complete each other.

heapshake said:

That was pretty much my point. In the RM you have Independent Christian Churches, Disciples of Christ, and Churches of Christ. As far as I know, the only ones who claim they are the only true Christians belong to the Church of Christ group and they would deny that those in the other 2 groups of the RM (or even others in the CoC) are true Christians. I don't know anyone who would make the claim that the only true Christians are those who belong to any RM congregation.

Click to expand...

Let's not forget that some Baptists think the same thing, Catholics do as well and certainly Calvinists think they are the one who are foreordained to saved. King James onlyists are at times guilty also.

I just want to point out that there are many denomination that have those member that think they are the only ones being saved.

Steve.Page said:

We trust Jesus, we believe in his resurrection, we know baptism without faith in Jesus is useless.

Click to expand...

All Christians believe this. Where RM differs is that faith must precede baptism, and that baptism without faith and a full understanding in RM theology first is useless.

I was raised in RM and it's taken me a long time to change my attitude on baptism. But I cannot accept that an infant baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who comes to faith and makes their own declaration as an adult, is not a valid Christian.

Baptism is not a work by man, it is a work by God. God can do anything for those to call on His name, and that includes welcoming those whose baptisms occurred before their faith developed into His arms.

Most people talk about Abraham at this point and say that he was not righteous because of his action but because of his faith. So faith is what saves you and not baptism. I have thought about this a lot lately and Abraham. Yes, he was considered righteous by his faith. But I started to think about what faith really is. Is it just your belief that God will intervene and take care of you? Is it that God will hear your prayers and save you? After some deep consideration and looking at some passages I feel God was telling me that no, it is not either of these things.

Faith not just belief, but it also is doing what God tells you to do. Abraham believed and had faith. When God told him to sacrifice Isaac Abraham was going to do it and would have done it if it wasn' for God sending an angel stopping him. Abraham knew that God would still fulfill his promise but Abraham still had to act upon it.

Most people in our brotherhood say we can not earn salvation, and I believe that but that doesn't mean that we are not supposed to have any action. On the contrary we are supposed to do many things, such as help each other, love each other, and other wide vague actions that encompass many things. But God also told us to do many things such as fasting, take communion, and witness. Without these our "faith" means nothing. Some of these actions actually build our faith.

Maybe this is where baptism comes in. Maybe baptism is one of those things that build our faith and without it our faith is less valid, thereby making baptism an important concept of our Christian lives. So to deny it would be like saying we don't have to pray or worship or teach. Sure, it is an action and will not earn us salvation but it is an integral part of our walk with Christ.

The reason Christians should get baptized is that Jesus was baptized and commanded the Apostles to baptize in his name.

But the RM position on baptism makes it a work of man because it says that if you didn't choose the baptism or you didn't understand it, then it doesn't count in God's eyes. That reduces God to something very small and weak if you think about it. In Judaism boys are circumcized at birth but then they give their own testimony at 13 which means they are full members of the Jewish faith. Isn't that the same God who gave us baptism? So if the covenant was in place for Jewish children, why wouldn't it be valid for Christian children?

The RM I grew up in even used to baptize fall-aways who returned after a few years. I don't know if this is common in other CoCs but this is a major indication of a wrong doctrine as the Bible is clear that there is one baptism.

Personally I am not a huge advocate of infant baptism because I think it should be a choice and you should get to remember and experience it. However I have been convicted that infant baptism is valid and that anyone who declares Jesus is Lord and has been baptized already is a member of the church. Promises were made for that person in God's name and I believe God is faithful and blesses those promises.

Gozreht said:

Most people talk about Abraham at this point and say that he was not righteous because of his action but because of his faith. So faith is what saves you and not baptism. I have thought about this a lot lately and Abraham. Yes, he was considered righteous by his faith. But I started to think about what faith really is. Is it just your belief that God will intervene and take care of you? Is it that God will hear your prayers and save you? After some deep consideration and looking at some passages I feel God was telling me that no, it is not either of these things.

Faith not just belief, but it also is doing what God tells you to do. Abraham believed and had faith. When God told him to sacrifice Isaac Abraham was going to do it and would have done it if it wasn' for God sending an angel stopping him. Abraham knew that God would still fulfill his promise but Abraham still had to act upon it.

Most people in our brotherhood say we can not earn salvation, and I believe that but that doesn't mean that we are not supposed to have any action. On the contrary we are supposed to do many things, such as help each other, love each other, and other wide vague actions that encompass many things. But God also told us to do many things such as fasting, take communion, and witness. Without these our "faith" means nothing. Some of these actions actually build our faith.

Maybe this is where baptism comes in. Maybe baptism is one of those things that build our faith and without it our faith is less valid, thereby making baptism an important concept of our Christian lives. So to deny it would be like saying we don't have to pray or worship or teach. Sure, it is an action and will not earn us salvation but it is an integral part of our walk with Christ.

Click to expand...

I agree, it's about faithfulness. That word encompasses faith and obedience.