Not the only Christians?

seekingsister said:

All Christians believe this. Where RM differs is that faith must precede baptism....

Click to expand...

Faith certainly should precede baptism. Without it the baptism is pointless. In Acts the people cried out to Peter and asked "what must we do?" Peter said repent and be baptized. They asked because they believed. Every New Testament baptism was preceded by people being told and then believing the gospel.

baptism without faith and a full understanding in RM theology first is useless.

Click to expand...

I've not heard that. I've heard that the person being baptized must have knowledge and understand of the gospel and repentance though.

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.

Click to expand...

Baptism is immersion, infants are not immersed.

Faith may not be fully developed, that's not the issue. No person can ever say their faith is fully developed, we all have room to mature. The issue is repentance and believing the gospel.

Baptism is a work ordained and sanctified by the Lord, for men to do.

Steve.Page said:

Faith certainly should precede baptism. Without it the baptism is pointless. In Acts the people cried out to Peter and asked "what must we do?" Peter said repent and be baptized. They asked because they believed. Every New Testament baptism was preceded by people being told and then believing the gospel.

Click to expand...

Yes. If all you do is get baptized just to get to baptized then all you did was get wet. It means nothing. Praying without believing gets you nowhere. Same principle.

I've not heard that. I've heard that the person being baptized must have knowledge and understand of the gospel and repentance though.

Click to expand...

I have heard something close but it was more on the line of if you don't believe the RM reasoning of baptism then it is worthless

Baptism is immersion, infants are not immersed.

Click to expand...

I know that is what the Greek says. And I agree but I think it is more about "immersing" yourself in the doctrine of Christ, taking on His full essence. But I don't know which way to lean more towards to.

PS. I only quoted you because it was the phrases that caught my attention and not based on disagreements.

Steve.Page said:

Faith certainly should precede baptism. Without it the baptism is pointless. In Acts the people cried out to Peter and asked "what must we do?" Peter said repent and be baptized. They asked because they believed. Every New Testament baptism was preceded by people being told and then believing the gospel.

I've not heard that. I've heard that the person being baptized must have knowledge and understand of the gospel and repentance though.

Baptism is immersion, infants are not immersed.

Faith may not be fully developed, that's not the issue. No person can ever say their faith is fully developed, we all have room to mature. The issue is repentance and believing the gospel.

Baptism is a work ordained and sanctified by the Lord, for men to do.

Click to expand...

1. I agree it's ideal, but I see no evidence that baptism followed by belief requires another baptism. The only second baptism that happened in the Bible was those who'd only had John's baptism.

2. That's not in the Bible though.

3. The Greek Orthodox church immerses infants

4. Again unclear as to why this must come first.

Like I said, I'm generally not for infant baptism, but if you hold RM beliefs, then the several billion Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans can never be real Christians, no matter that they publicly declare their faith and live it as adults after their infant baptism. That is legalism, straight up.

Steve.Page said:

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.

Click to expand...

True.

seekingsister said:

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

Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever heard this. I've heard you must understand that baptism is for the remission of sins (but I've also heard the opposite). But then, maybe I'm not sure what you mean by RM theology.

on the CoC, i joined our Church of Christ 50 years ago. the big dif in the split was we used musical instruments and they didn't.plus we consider ourselves nondemonational with now hierachy but aloose brotherhood. in the 1980's the CoC started making some big chamges as to what we believe as Jesus teachings, so at that time many of us who were instramental and nondemoninational changed names to Christian church so ad not to be confused with them. We do meet on Sun. use musical instraments, have small groups that meet thruout the week, try to get people in discipleship groups learning to imitate Jesus every hour of every day. if small groups want to have comunion whenever they gather in Jesus name that is ok. we do urge people to be baptized but also that they read the scriptures and come to that conclusion on their own. this summer 4 out of 12 men in one of our discipleship groups decided they needed to be baptized. we consider ourselves a reformation movement church.

heapshake said:

True.


I don't think I've ever heard this. I've heard you must understand that baptism is for the remission of sins (but I've also heard the opposite). But then, maybe I'm not sure what you mean by RM theology.

Click to expand...

Is the Church of Christ a Cult?

This is a good response to Church of Christ views on baptism. One section that stood out:

Unfortunately, at this stage of the discussion some Church of Christ denomination members will take their pet doctrine of baptism from the extreme to the absurd. They actually will void the efficacy of someone's baptism, if the person didn't realize that their sins were remitted, at the moment of their baptism! I once asked a Church of Christ denomination preacher if he thought Billy Graham was saved, and his reply was, "Absolutely not!" When pressed for a reason for his conclusion he said, "Even though Billy Graham has been baptized, he doesn't preach baptism for the remission of sin, so he is not only not a true Christian, but he is also a false teacher!" So much for common sense.
[FONT='trebuchet ms', tahoma, sans-serif]We get e-mails daily from Church of Christ denomination members saying that unless you were "baptized for the remission of sins then your baptism won't save you." I asked a young Church of Christ denomination pastor (oops, I mean "preacher") once, "What if you didn't realize that the baptism remitted your sin...should you get rebaptized?" He said, "Yes!" I then asked him, "What if you did believe that the baptism remitted your sins, but you were thinking about something else while you were being baptized, like how cold the water was...etc. Should you get rebaptized?" He again said yes. He stated, "You must realize that at the moment of baptism, your sins are being remitted, or the baptism will be of no effect." So in other words, if your mind was not wrapped around the "remission of sin" issue like a steal trap the moment you went down into the water... you are lost and going to Hell. Now, THAT, my friend is LEGALISM!

Click to expand...

[/FONT]

seekingsister said:

1. I agree it's ideal, but I see no evidence that baptism followed by belief requires another baptism. The only second baptism that happened in the Bible was those who'd only had John's baptism.

2. That's not in the Bible though.

3. The Greek Orthodox church immerses infants

4. Again unclear as to why this must come first.

Like I said, I'm generally not for infant baptism, but if you hold RM beliefs, then the several billion Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans can never be real Christians, no matter that they publicly declare their faith and live it as adults after their infant baptism. That is legalism, straight up.

Click to expand...

Obedience to Jesus is not legalism at all. It was Jesus who commanded immersion and it was Jesus who said if you love me you will obey me.

Why must faith come before baptism?

Well first let's look at Hebrews (these verses also address the legalism issue). Hebrews 5:8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him... Infants can neither obey or disobey the Lord, they have no need of baptism.

If you believe infants must be baptized because man is born a sinner then you must necessarily believe the all aborted babies, still born babies and babies who die prior to baptism are burning in hell. That's just not possible. Our Lord is just and he has said that each person will only be held responsible for their own sin. Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. (there a few other places where this is repeated)

Babies can not believe the gospel or repent so they can not be candidates for immersion. Jesus said that those who believe and are baptized will be saved. He did not say those who are only baptized will be saved. In the New Testament faith always came before baptism.

Peter said, to those who believed his message, repent and be baptized. Belief, repentance and baptism are the biblical order that's given.

Baptism is how we enter the Body of Christ, it's how we are reborn into Christ. You are suggesting we can be in Christ without faith.

Those who are old enough to read and understand scripture for themselves should be taught the gospel, to repent and to be baptized.

I'm not going to address the "several billion Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans" comment except to say that a Bible is available to every person to read and understand. Scripture says what it does and I pray the Lord will have mercy on the false teachers of the world and those they misled. I pray he'll forgive and be merciful toward those who chose not to study scripture on their own.

seekingsister said:

Is the Church of Christ a Cult?[/url]

This is a good response to Church of Christ views on baptism. One section that stood out:

[/SIZE]
[/COLOR][/FONT]

Click to expand...

What you quoted just shows that men can be wrong. You can find those in every denomination who think they are the only ones who are saved. It doesn't matter what people with extreme views say. Scripture is what matters. Every person in scripture understood Jesus died for their sins, that they needed redemption, and they needed to repent, all before they were baptized. That's our example from scripture.

seekingsister said:

Is the Church of Christ a Cult?

This is a good response to Church of Christ views on baptism. One section that stood out:

[/SIZE]
[/COLOR][/FONT]

Click to expand...

So by RM theology you are just talking about baptism for the forgiveness of sins? In that case, I have heard that. I thought you meant one must know stuff like you can fall from grace or instrumental music is wrong before they can be baptized. I do think it is a minority view in CoC's that one must understand that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins in order for it to be a "valid" baptism.

seekingsister said:

Like I said, I'm generally not for infant baptism, but if you hold RM beliefs, then the several billion Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans can never be real Christians, no matter that they publicly declare their faith and live it as adults after their infant baptism. That is legalism, straight up.

Click to expand...

Well, I know what you are saying but legalism and baptism can be separate issues. And on the same note a lot of things then could be considered legalism. If it is commanded by God to do then it not legalism. God told us to forgive. If we do not forgive then we will be judged in a negative way which could mean loss of salvation. Forgiving is an action as well as a mind set. Would that be considered legalism? Hopefully not. We are told to pray. Can praying save us? By praying alone in itself, no. But praying for salvation can. Is that legalism? Hopefully not. There is a strong argument that baptism is a command or at least highly suggested .

I would never say that a person who confesses, repents, professes Christ as their own is not going to heaven because that is between them and God. But a complete denial of what the Scripture says may jeopardize anyone's soul. I know there has to be "others" outside the C of C that WILL go toheaven just like I am sure unfortunately many inside will not. For not all who call me Lord will enter...

We all have our little quirks:

Catholics pray the rosary.
Baptists say once saved always saved.
Some say KJV only.
Some don't use instruments.
Pentacostals say you have to speak in tongues.

Most say these are needed for a salvation or should I say if you do not do them then you are not living the way you should, border line sinning. So yes the C of C may have strict interpretation and may not fully accept other practices. But to me if you stick to these practices of thr C of C then you won't go wrong.

"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."

Over on the CARM forum, it's the "Us 4 and NO MORE" folks that keep the forum going. I've dubbed 'em the HLNICofC (Hard line Non Instrumental Church of Christ) to distinguish 'em from the more "Liberal Majority" of the CofC, and they've dubbed me a "FOIST" (Faith OnlyIST).

They regularly tell me that my Baptism was worthless - since it was done 4 days AFTER I became a Christian, and NOT with the belief that it was my "Point of Salvation" (since it wasn't).

Consequently, I'm NOT A Christian at all, and never have been one, my 50 year walk with the Lord (mostly in the Assemblies of God) has all been a worthless sham, and I'm gonna BURN IN HELL when I die!!!

(Of course the "Oneness Pentecostals" tell me that my baptism was worthless because it was done in THREE names, and not Jesus ONLY - and I'm gonna BURN IN HELL when I die!!!)

Religion - you GOTTA love it!!!!

I play Banjo in a bluegrass band in which ALL the other members are fairly hard-line Non-Instrumental Church of Christ members (song leaders in their congregation South of Dallas). They Know I'm a Pentecostal, and I don't know if they think I'm A Christian or not - we don't generally talk about church (a "let sleeping dogs lie" sort of thing). I'll have to ask 'em sometime. But HEY - they still need a Banjo picker.

What's odd is that when we play fellowships in local NICOfC halls - we're NOT PERMITTED to do anything that would be considered a "Hymn" or "Spiritual Song" unless we do it acapella - to avoid "Offending" the older members. But since we can't sing harmony, ans have it sound good, we just don't do any acapella numbers.

Bob,

I would most definitely say you are part of Christ!!! My question to you is: since I have never spoken in tongues, am I saved? This is not to be disrepectful. I just know many charismatic/pentecostal brothers and sisters say that speaking in tongues in THEE sign of a believer. I believe in tongue as a gift but not thee gift. Like I said in my last post here, we all have some "legalism" in our doctrines.

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...

Howdy. It's interesting to note that many religionists of various denominations adhere to the idea that folks aren't "true Christians" if they don't follow their particular brand of Christianity. I've noticed that this phenomenon is especially prevalent within the Roman Catholic and Messianic Judaism communities. I'm not saying that every member of these groups portend to judge others in such a manner but I have personally come across a number of individuals who do. Some Catholics believe that one must follow the traditions of the Catholic church in order to be "Christian" and some Messianics (Hebrew Roots members) believe that one must keep the Mosaic feasts; abstain from pork; keep a Saturday sabbath; and wear tzitzits in order to find favor in God's eyes.

Personally, I believe that the thief who died on a cross near Jesus Christ was saved based on His faith in Jesus Christ. It was/is a faith issue rather than a works issue.

Bob Carabbio 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."

Over on the CARM forum, it's the "Us 4 and NO MORE" folks that keep the forum going. I've dubbed 'em the HLNICofC (Hard line Non Instrumental Church of Christ) to distinguish 'em from the more "Liberal Majority" of the CofC, and they've dubbed me a "FOIST" (Faith OnlyIST).
.

Click to expand...

I actually got banned from CARM for a week or so because of my use and defense of the KJV. They dubbed me a KJV-OnlyIST as a result. LOL

I've never claimed to be a KJV-Onlyist but earned the title nonetheless. I actually enjoy any version of the family of Textus Receptus including the Geneva and the Hebrew/Greek Interlinear versions. Oh well ... another topic for another day.

ActionJ said:

Howdy. It's interesting to note that many religionists of various denominations adhere to the idea that folks aren't "true Christians" if they don't follow their particular brand of Christianity.

Click to expand...

That is what I said too. All denominations do that but some will not admit it or they don't care because they know they are right...

Personally, I believe that the thief who died on a cross near Jesus Christ was saved based on His faith in Jesus Christ. It was/is a faith issue rather than a works issue.

I actually got banned from CARM for a week or so because of my use and defense of the KJV. They dubbed me a KJV-OnlyIST as a result. LOL

I've never claimed to be a KJV-Onlyist but earned the title nonetheless. I actually enjoy any version of the family of Textus Receptus including the Geneva and the Hebrew/Greek Interlinear versions. Oh well ... another topic for another day.

Click to expand...

I have never heard of this CARM. Where is it?

But yes the Cof C does have a hard time with what they call faith onlies. But many themsevles were KJV onlies. In my opinion the theif was saved and is with Jesus today but he was in a particular predicament. Who knows how long he is in prison. Did anyone really give him the gospel? Did he know about what some of the commandments were? Probably not. His faith was enough more than likely because his opportunities were not there. He did not deny Jesus in his time of need. Faith is more than just believing it is action. Not for earning points or favor but because we are called to do it. I could post a long repsonse but I will give you two links:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7424119-4/#post62132499
The Bible Lessons: Baptism

I am posting a more detailed version this week at the same website above. It will be post #64 when finished.

KJV? I like it but it is outdated. Too many words have changed meaning and it needs to be revised. I guess the New KJV or 21st KJV is doable. But tio say it is the only version that should be used is wrong to do. Those who say that do not remember who gave the authority to write it and why he did it. King James I of England...the reason for civil war. Some need to look him up and see the making of "his version". But as you said, another topic for another day.

Gozreht said:

That is what I said too. All denominations do that but some will not admit it or they don't care because they know they are right...

I have never heard of this CARM. Where is it?

But yes the Cof C does have a hard time with what they call faith onlies. But many themsevles were KJV onlies. In my opinion the theif was saved and is with Jesus today but he was in a particular predicament. Who knows how long he is in prison. Did anyone really give him the gospel? Did he know about what some of the commandments were? Probably not. His faith was enough more than likely because his opportunities were not there. He did not deny Jesus in his time of need. Faith is more than just believing it is action. Not for earning points or favor but because we are called to do it. I could post a long repsonse but I will give you two links:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7424119-4/#post62132499
The Bible Lessons: Baptism

I am posting a more detailed version this week at the same website above. It will be post #64 when finished.

KJV? I like it but it is outdated. Too many words have changed meaning and it needs to be revised. I guess the New KJV or 21st KJV is doable. But tio say it is the only version that should be used is wrong to do. Those who say that do not remember who gave the authority to write it and why he did it. King James I of England...the reason for civil war. Some need to look him up and see the making of "his version". But as you said, another topic for another day.

Click to expand...

The problem with using the thief on the cross as a New Testament example of salvation is that he died in the Old Covenant. The New Covenant began with the death and the resurrection of the Lord.

The New Covenant never says only faith is required. Jesus said to believe, be baptized, he said to repent, love others, forgive others, be obedient, etc. We must all of what Jesus said to be saved. Disobedience is unbelief, faith without works is dead. Praise God for his grace and forgiveness if we fall short and then repent.

Beware of CARM, there is an ugly, nasty spirit there. I've seen many friendly people start posting there only to end up losing their good witness because of the many mean spirited posters there. (am guilty myself)

BTW Bob C. must be confused. It was never said his baptism was faulty for either reason he gave. It was said he should not have waited at all, waiting 4 days is not a New Testament principle. According to the hardliners he would not have been saved if he had died before baptism. (Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, Acts 22:16)

The argument of the hardliners is that baptism is the point of salvation, however I never heard any CoC member say that you must believe that to be saved.

i know a couple who came forward when the call was put out if you wanted to be baptized and have Jesus as their savior. they didn't know much about who Jesus was, oruch about our culture. they came forwatd and were dressed in other clothes to be baptized. they had no clue as to what was happening. they were asked if they would accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior. replied yes, and were baptized in the name of the Father,Son, and Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sin and gift of the Holy Spirit. they had almost no faith in our God before this. today they are to of the strongest , Holy Spirit filled christians i know. living by faith.

Steve.Page said:

The problem with using the thief on the cross as a New Testament example of salvation is that he died in the Old Covenant. The New Covenant began with the death and the resurrection of the Lord.

Click to expand...

Well, that actually causes a few problems. I know what you mean but if this is the case then why did all of the people before the crucifixion get baptised? Were they under the new covenant or the old one? If the new covenant was not established until the crucifixion or the resurrection then all of the baptisms before this were unnecessary. If they were under the new then why would the theif be different? I think once Christ started His ministry and people heard Him speak and new what was needed then they would fall under this new covenant. The thief knew who Jesus was. He accepted who Jesus was. He was under the new in my opinion. But as I said before who knew what his prison life was like. Was he afforded the opportunity to follow his faith? I would say no. Jesus knew that and thereby allowed him into the kingdom.

The New Covenant never says only faith is required. Jesus said to believe, be baptized, he said to repent, love others, forgive others, be obedient, etc. We must all of what Jesus said to be saved. Disobedience is unbelief, faith without works is dead. Praise God for his grace and forgiveness if we fall short and then repent.

Click to expand...

Praise most definitely. Faith requires action. Part of our faith is communion. Part of our faith calls us to repent, teach, pray, worship. If baptism is part of our faith then not doing it is being unfaithful.

Beware of CARM, there is an ugly, nasty spirit there. I've seen many friendly people start posting there only to end up losing their good witness because of the many mean spirited posters there. (am guilty myself)

Click to expand...

What is CARM? WHere is it? I don't want to get involved I just have no idea what it is.

The argument of the hardliners is that baptism is the point of salvation, however I never heard any CoC member say that you must believe that to be saved.

Click to expand...

I know way too many that say both (under their breath). But if you don't believe or know anything about Christ then what is the point of baptism? What faith are you showing? I think they go hand in hand but I have no idea when actual salvation is "achieved".

=Steve.Page;62332112]The problem with using the thief on the cross as a New Testament example of salvation is that he died in the Old Covenant. The New Covenant began with the death and the resurrection of the Lord.

Click to expand...

I guess that would depend on who died first -- Jesus or the thief? If Christ died before the thief then the New Covenant had taken the place of the Old. Nevertheless, Christ did say that the thief would be with Him in paradise on that very day.

The New Covenant never says only faith is required. Jesus said to believe, be baptized, he said to repent, love others, forgive others, be obedient, etc. We must all of what Jesus said to be saved. Disobedience is unbelief, faith without works is dead. Praise God for his grace and forgiveness if we fall short and then repent.

Click to expand...

I have to consider folks who accepted Christ and then died prior to baptism and the other things you mentioned. What about babies who die at birth or children who die prematurely? I can't help but believe that Christ's mercy extends to folks who may not have completed the works of the New Covenant.

Beware of CARM, there is an ugly, nasty spirit there. I've seen many friendly people start posting there only to end up losing their good witness because of the many mean spirited posters there. (am guilty myself)

Click to expand...

True! I'm done there once and for all.

BTW Bob C. must be confused. It was never said his baptism was faulty for either reason he gave. It was said he should not have waited at all, waiting 4 days is not a New Testament principle. According to the hardliners he would not have been saved if he had died before baptism. (Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, Acts 22:16)

Click to expand...

I'm a firm believer in full immersion baptism and believe that it should be performed as soon as possible after converting to Christ and His Gospel but I'm not too sure I'm ready to say that a person can't find salvation if he or she died before being baptized. I believe that baptism of the Spirit supersedes water baptism. I used to be more hardline than I am now.