I need some advice please

[112358]

I don’t know where you get your synopsis of what I said from.

Tome, it is very obvious by Jesus on the cross saying that the thief on the cross next to him would be with Him that day in paradise, and could NOT have been baptized before his own death on the cross, that his not being baptized did not affect his salvation.

Of course we all are baptized as Christ tells us we must be.

However, I don’t think that lack of water baptism keeps one out of heaven, as evident by Jesus saving the thief on the cross.

The only thing I wanted to really get across with my post was how water r ritual cleansing was in the Old Testament.

Again, I feel that you made a lot of assumptions from my post.

Apologies if I made inaccurate assumptions. I was trying to understand your point about why baptism is not required for salvation under the NT, even though Jesus Christ commanded it just like He did "believe". I'm still struggling to understand it.

Regarding the thief on the cross: Both he and Jesus lived and died under the old covenant. Baptism was not a requirement for salvation under the old covenant. Not to mention that Jesus Christ exercised His authority to forgive sins during His earthly life as He so chose. This does not negate His teachings and commandments about how one would become a Christian under the new covenant, which began at the day of Pentecost.

 

[112358]

NO. But Mormonism has roots in the Stone Campbell Restoration movement that started the Church of Christ group of denominations.

So I guess the Mormons would be more of an offshoot of the CoC.

LOL, hardly!

 

[ToBeLoved]

Apologies if I made inaccurate assumptions. I was trying to understand your point about why baptism is not required for salvation under the NT, even though Jesus Christ commanded it just like He did "believe". I'm still struggling to understand it.

Regarding the thief on the cross: Both he and Jesus lived and died under the old covenant. Baptism was not a requirement for salvation under the old covenant. Not to mention that Jesus Christ exercised His authority to forgive sins during His earthly life as He so chose. This does not negate His teachings and commandments about how one would become a Christian under the new covenant, which began at the day of Pentecost.

To think Jesus who brought in the New Covenant and whose life and ministry was devoted to Jesus people, to think He was not preparing them for the New Covenant and understanding how the New Covenant is different from the Old Covenant is I think not a valid argument.

If Jesus only purpose was to push the Law and Old Covenant things, Jesus would have been on board with the Pharisees and not been crucified by them.
If you read Matthew 23, you will see that Jesus took the biggest offense with the teachers or Pharisees that represented His religion to His people, the Jews.

 

[112358]

To think Jesus who brought in the New Covenant and whose life and ministry was devoted to Jesus people, to think He was not preparing them for the New Covenant and understanding how the New Covenant is different from the Old Covenant is I think not a valid argument.

Agreed, and not an argument that I have tried to convey.

If Jesus only purpose was to push the Law and Old Covenant things, Jesus would have been on board with the Pharisees and not been crucified by them.
If you read Matthew 23, you will see that Jesus took the biggest offense with the teachers or Pharisees that represented His religion to His people, the Jews.

Also agreed. What does this have to do with His statements in Mark 16:16?

 

[A_Thinker]

Also agreed. What does this have to do with His statements in Mark 16:16?

The ending of the gospel of Mark (verses 9-20) is in dispute as it doesn't appear in the earliest existing manuscripts. It is speculated to be a replacement (by a scribe) of text that was lost at some point.

The Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20)

 

[112358]

The ending of the gospel of Mark (verses 9-20) is in dispute as it doesn't appear in the earliest existing manuscripts. It is speculated to be a replacement (by a scribe) of text that was lost at some point.

The Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20)

Fine. Toss it.

What of Matthew 28:19 and the dozens of other scriptures where baptism is associated with salvation?

 

[A_Thinker]

Fine. Toss it.

What of Matthew 28:19 and the dozens of other scriptures where baptism is associated with salvation?

Christ's followers are to be baptized ... and are.

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

What is your church's objection to the traditional Christian approach to baptism ?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Agreed, and not an argument that I have tried to convey.

Also agreed. What does this have to do with His statements in Mark 16:16?

My understanding of your point that you are saying because Jesus says that one must be baptized to be saved in the gospels that that is a New Covenant proof text.

I am saying it is not. That Jesus words were to Jewish people’s who would very soon after His death (when the New Covenant became active) would need to understand repentance and how Jesus, being the Jewish Messiah, fulfilling Old Testament prophecy, was the actual Messiah.

So my point is that they had to recognize that there was no longer a Levitical priesthood in effect as the Old Covenant passed away to atone for sin and since this is true they had to realize the teaching that all have fallen short of the Glory of God.

Repentance was needed for them to convert and John the Baptist baptized for repentance.
In Mark having little to do with the New Covenant
So to me, Jesus is telling the Jewish Hebrews, no more animal sacrifice for temporary atonement, Jesus is the amb of God, Jewish Messiah and that repentance is needed and to do that they would have sought out baptism by John the Baptist

So I see no problem with that text being Christ teaching what needed to happen for Jewish converts.

 

[danielmears]

NO. But Mormonism has roots in the Stone Campbell Restoration movement that started the Church of Christ group of denominations.

So I guess the Mormons would be more of an offshoot of the CoC.

The Disciples if Christ was started with the Stone/Campbell restoration, also called the First Christian Church. They believe saved by grace. I am unfamiliar with Church of Christ doctrine.

 

[112358]

My understanding of your point that you are saying because Jesus says that one must be baptized to be saved in the gospels that that is a New Covenant proof text.

I am saying it is not. That Jesus words were to Jewish people’s who would very soon after His death (when the New Covenant became active) would need to understand repentance and how Jesus, being the Jewish Messiah, fulfilling Old Testament prophecy, was the actual Messiah.

So my point is that they had to recognize that there was no longer a Levitical priesthood in effect as the Old Covenant passed away to atone for sin and since this is true they had to realize the teaching that all have fallen short of the Glory of God.

Repentance was needed for them to convert and John the Baptist baptized for repentance.
In Mark having little to do with the New Covenant
So to me, Jesus is telling the Jewish Hebrews, no more animal sacrifice for temporary atonement, Jesus is the amb of God, Jewish Messiah and that repentance is needed and to do that they would have sought out baptism by John the Baptist

So I see no problem with that text being Christ teaching what needed to happen for Jewish converts.

Then we are back to baptism being only for the Jews, yes? And the reference was to John's baptism of repentance, yes? And baptism for the remission of sins is not a requirement under the New Covenant, yes?

Then we still must deal with practically the entire book of Acts, which after chapter 1 is clearly under the New Covenant and which outlines thousands upon thousands of Christian conversions, Jew and Gentile alike, where baptism is administered. Then we must deal with numerous scriptures found throughout the epistles that address the topic of baptism, in every single case directly associated with conversion...with salvation...conspicuously AFTER the converts in question believed the gospel presented them, AFTER some of them received the Holy Spirit just like the apostles did at Pentecost, AFTER many of them had already been baptized by John. The evidence is simply overwhelming!

 

[112358]

Christ's followers are to be baptized ... and are.

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

What is your church's objection to the traditional Christian approach to baptism ?

If I were to condense the objection into one sentence? That baptism is not for the remission of sins, that it is not a requirement in order to receive salvation, that one is saved at the moment they "believe". The NT simply teaches otherwise.

 

[Dave-W]

The Disciples if Christ was started with the Stone/Campbell restoration, also called the First Christian Church. They believe saved by grace. I am unfamiliar with Church of Christ doctrine.

To my knowledge there are 3 denominations directly descended from the Stone-Campbell restoration movement: Church of Christ, Christian Church and the Disciples of Christ. The latter is the more liberal of the 3. The first 2 are different on only one point: instruments being used in worship service; Christian Church allows them, Church of Christ does not.

Here is a list of basic beliefs.

Church of Christ

However that list leaves a LOT unsaid; like the belief that you are not saved until you are baptized, and that if you do not take communion every week you lose salvation. And they are firmly cessationist

 

[danielmears]

The Disciples if Christ was started with the Stone/Campbell restoration, also called the First Christian Church. They believe saved by grace. I am unfamiliar with Church of Christ doctrine.

I mea

To my knowledge there are 3 denominations directly descended from the Stone-Campbell restoration movement: Church of Christ, Christian Church and the Disciples of Christ. The latter is the more liberal of the 3. The first 2 are different on only one point: instruments being used in worship service; Christian Church allows them, Church of Christ does not.

Here is a list of basic beliefs.

Church of Christ

However that list leaves a LOT unsaid; like the belief that you are not saved until you are baptized, and that if you do not take communion every week you lose salvation. And they are firmly cessationist

I did a little reading and it does seem Church of Christ believes you are saved by grace but also need works. I think fruit naturally occurs as a result of believing on Christ so I do not really understand the point of contention, other than something to debate. Let us love one another!

 

[Dave-W]

I appreciate the CoC for their emphasis on being baptized, although I disagree with them that it is salvic.

Using their own hermenutic of CENI** I can show it to be otherwise.

C = command. In Matt 28 the command to baptize is given to the apostles, not the new converts.

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”​

If you look at Acts 2, Peter obeys this command to baptize:

38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.​

This is Peter obeying Matt 28.19, NOT making a command incumbent on the new believer.

So if the command was to the apostles or evangelists, why would God hold the new believer's eternal destiny on whether the evangelist obeyed or not? Would that not be punishing someone for someone else's disobedience?


**Command, Example, Necessary Inference.

 

[Dave-W]

I did a little reading and it does seem Church of Christ believes you are saved by grace but also need works.

Correct.

 

[112358]

To my knowledge there are 3 denominations directly descended from the Stone-Campbell restoration movement: Church of Christ, Christian Church and the Disciples of Christ. The latter is the more liberal of the 3. The first 2 are different on only one point: instruments being used in worship service; Christian Church allows them, Church of Christ does not.

Here is a list of basic beliefs.

Church of Christ

However that list leaves a LOT unsaid; like the belief that you are not saved until you are baptized, and that if you do not take communion every week you lose salvation. And they are firmly cessationist

I can assure you with 100% certainty that the link above in no way represents the "basic beliefs" of the mainstream COC.

 

[112358]

I appreciate the CoC for their emphasis on being baptized, although I disagree with them that it is salvic.

Using their own hermenutic of CENI** I can show it to be otherwise.

C = command. In Matt 28 the command to baptize is given to the apostles, not the new converts.

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”​

If you look at Acts 2, Peter obeys this command to baptize:

38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.​

This is Peter obeying Matt 28.19, NOT making a command incumbent on the new believer.

So if the command was to the apostles or evangelists, why would God hold the new believer's eternal destiny on whether the evangelist obeyed or not? Would that not be punishing someone for someone else's disobedience?


**Command, Example, Necessary Inference.

At risk of sounding harsh, this doesn't even make common sense. I can accept that Peter was obeying a command, but he was an inspired apostle and Acts 2:38 is as binding on NT believers today as it was when he first spoke it.

 

[danielmears]

The Christian Church and Disciples of Christ are one and the same. Ironically, they formed dring the Stone/Campbell movement to bring the churches together because the entire church, Methodists Baptists, etc. were divided over points of contention, but they could not agree on a name. I belonged to that church growing up but it is quite liberal these days. Sorry, I wandered from the topic.

I can assure you with 100% certainty that the link above in no way represents the "basic beliefs" of the mainstream COC,

 

[A_Thinker]

I can assure you with 100% certainty that the link above in no way represents the "basic beliefs" of the mainstream COC.

What is the International Church of Christ?
by Matt Slick

The International Church of Christ (ICC) is a break-off of the Church of Christ denomination. The ICC is Christian in its basic theology but has some aberrant practices.

The ICC was influenced by the discipling movement on the 1950's. Its roots can be traced back to 1967 to the Crossroads Church of Christ, in Gainesville, Florida. The Crossroads Church had a program on discipling which became known as the Crossroads Movement. It is out of this Crossroads connection that the present leader of the ICC, Kip McKeen, received his start. He and Roger Lamb were fired from the Houston, Texas, Church of Christ. Kip McKeen then found a Church in Boston MA, was asked to come on board and began what has come to be known as the Boston movement. The Boston Church grew by leaps and bounds due to its heavy discipling program. Soon other churches were being planted in the United States and then in England.

The ICC did not become known as the "International Church of Christ" until 1993, and its headquarters moved to Los Angeles, California. The ICC considers Christian denominations to be sinful. They will cite biblical passages that speak of the apostles establishing one Church per city and claim that there should only be one Church in each city. Of course, the one Church should be an ICC Church. As of the year 2001, the ICC claims to have over 400 churches with a membership of 130,000 worldwide in over 150 countries.

The International Church of Christ considers itself to be "a family of Christian churches whose members are committed to living their lives in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ as found in the Bible." This commitment to biblical living includes a very strong emphasis on discipling. In fact, it is this overly-strong emphasis on discipling that has drawn as much criticism from outside the church as inside - from those who were once members.

The ICC is Orthodox, affirms the Trinity, salvation by grace, Jesus' virgin birth, and physical resurrection, His deity, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, heaven and hell, and much more. But, it deviates from orthodoxy in both its requirement of baptism as a necessary element for salvation and its heavy requirement of discipleship.

According to the ICC, baptism must be done in their church with the person being baptized having an understanding that baptism saves. Combined with this, the ICC method of discipleship includes strong accountability to other members of the church as a necessary element to be considered a Christian. According to the ICC, one cannot be a Christian if he is not a true disciple, and being a disciple must precede baptism. Therefore, the International Church of Christ tends to be very legalistic and controlling. Many of its former members attest to requirements that they confess their sins to their disciple leaders, that they submit to the decisions of their disciple "leaders" regarding dating, frequency of sexual relations for married couples, jobs to take, places to move, and so on.

This discipling operation within the ICC has drawn much criticism for its intrusive practices and has been labeled as a form of brainwashing and psychological and emotional manipulation. There are numerous websites on the Internet devoted to ex-members of the International Church of Christ who warn people not to be involved with the movement. There are also support groups to help those who have left to find healing and, hopefully, true Grace in Christ instead of legalism and bondage.

 

[danielmears]

What is the International Church of Christ?
by Matt Slick

The International Church of Christ (ICC) is a break-off of the Church of Christ denomination. The ICC is Christian in its basic theology but has some aberrant practices.

The ICC was influenced by the discipling movement on the 1950's. Its roots can be traced back to 1967 to the Crossroads Church of Christ, in Gainesville, Florida. The Crossroads Church had a program on discipling which became known as the Crossroads Movement. It is out of this Crossroads connection that the present leader of the ICC, Kip McKeen, received his start. He and Roger Lamb were fired from the Houston, Texas, Church of Christ. Kip McKeen then found a Church in Boston MA, was asked to come on board and began what has come to be known as the Boston movement. The Boston Church grew by leaps and bounds due to its heavy discipling program. Soon other churches were being planted in the United States and then in England.

The ICC did not become known as the "International Church of Christ" until 1993, and its headquarters moved to Los Angeles, California. The ICC considers Christian denominations to be sinful. They will cite biblical passages that speak of the apostles establishing one Church per city and claim that there should only be one Church in each city. Of course, the one Church should be an ICC Church. As of the year 2001, the ICC claims to have over 400 churches with a membership of 130,000 worldwide in over 150 countries.

The International Church of Christ considers itself to be "a family of Christian churches whose members are committed to living their lives in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ as found in the Bible." This commitment to biblical living includes a very strong emphasis on discipling. In fact, it is this overly-strong emphasis on discipling that has drawn as much criticism from outside the church as inside - from those who were once members.

The ICC is Orthodox, affirms the Trinity, salvation by grace, Jesus' virgin birth, and physical resurrection, His deity, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, heaven and hell, and much more. But, it deviates from orthodoxy in both its requirement of baptism as a necessary element for salvation and its heavy requirement of discipleship.

According to the ICC, baptism must be done in their church with the person being baptized having an understanding that baptism saves. Combined with this, the ICC method of discipleship includes strong accountability to other members of the church as a necessary element to be considered a Christian. According to the ICC, one cannot be a Christian if he is not a true disciple, and being a disciple must precede baptism. Therefore, the International Church of Christ tends to be very legalistic and controlling. Many of its former members attest to requirements that they confess their sins to their disciple leaders, that they submit to the decisions of their disciple "leaders" regarding dating, frequency of sexual relations for married couples, jobs to take, places to move, and so on.

This discipling operation within the ICC has drawn much criticism for its intrusive practices and has been labeled as a form of brainwashing and psychological and emotional manipulation. There are numerous websites on the Internet devoted to ex-members of the International Church of Christ who warn people not to be involved with the movement. There are also support groups to help those who have left to find healing and, hopefully, true Grace in Christ instead of legalism and bondage.

Wow, thank you. Quite controlling.