Denominations and the “churches of Christ”
If you are in a denomination, you are out of luck.
People in hyperconservative churches of Christ say that denominations are not in the Bible, and you can’t be saved in a church that is not in the Bible.
But here’s the problem… the only churches that are in the Bible are churches that existed in the Middle East 2000 years ago.
Martinsville Church of Christ, Danville Church of Christ, Reidsville Church of Christ… none of these churches existed during the NT times, because none of these communities existed 2000 years ago.
Practicing Faith like the 1st Century Church
“But we’re talking about churches that follow the teachings exactly as the church of 2000 years ago did,” the hyper-conservatives might say. “We do this, and no one else does.”
Let’s look at some of the commands from Scripture. Some are direct commands, others are found using the CofC principle of CENI - such as the non-written but inferred “command” that everyone must take the Lord’s Supper each “first day of the week” or be in sin.
1. Let the woman cut her hair if her head is uncovered. (1 Cor 11:6)
2. Let the woman wear a covering if cutting and shaving the hair be a shame. (1 Cor 11:6)
3. Let the speaker in tongues pray for the interpretation. (1 Cor. 14:13)
4. Let no more than 3 messages in tongues be given in one service. (1 Cor. 14:27)
5. Forbid not tongues (1 Cor. 14:39).
6. Destroy none with non-essentials (Romans 14:15; 1 Cor. 8:13).
7. Have faith before God for things not condemned in Scripture (Romans 14:22-23).
8. “All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.” (Acts 2:44-45)
And finally, an oft-mentioned but not any less accurate for it’s inclusion example…
9. Greet one another with a holy kiss. (Romans 16.16, I Corinthians 16.20, II Corinthians 13.12, I Thessalonians 5.26, I Peter 5.14)
Do the “churches of Christ” mentioned earlier obey all of these commands?
Why do I bring this up? I’m not using this to say that the hyperconservative churches of Christ are not truly following Christ. That’s not my call. I’m bringing this up to demonstrate that they are not acting just like the NT church.
Of course using Scripture as the model for church is the best idea.
You should understand something about where I’m coming from on this issue. I am a big proponent of churches being as much like the early church as possible, I have been for a while now. Regular readers here know that I am a Christian with a Presbyterian background, but I haven’t attended a Presbyterian church regularly for years. For the past five years I have been attending a house church, and I love feeling that kinship with my first century brothers and sisters.
But I don’t find any evidence in Scripture that this is a litmus test that God uses through the ages to save people. We are not saved because of the name or the size of the church we attend - we are saved because of the grace and mercy of God the Father found in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, and our response to that work, leading to the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Ephesians 2:8-9, Galatians 3:2) It’s HIS work, not ours.
What about the others?
But what about the others who are trying to do the same thing as our friends in the “churches of Christ”? Are they up the creek without a paddle?
Remember Rick’s affirmations from a few days ago? It seems like the church he attends is trying very hard to follow the same road taken by believers in the early church. Here are a couple of other churches that I found with a cursory internet search that seem to be attempting to do the same thing, but don’t seem to be claiming to be the only ones who are saved:
New Frontiers family of churches
Would our hypercon friends consider the people in these churches to be saved? If so, why? If not, why not?
Who does the saving? (whew!)
This is one of those situations (and there are many) where I am so relieved and grateful that the decision of who is saved and who is not saved does not rest on the shoulders of our hyper-conservative friends, or any other people from any other doctrinal background.
Thankfully, the salvation issue decisions rests on the shoulders of our just and merciful God. (Exodus 34:6–7, Rom. 3:23-25)
And all God’s people said…
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://answeringchurchofchrist.wordpress.com/2008/05/10/denominations-and-the-churches-of-christ/trackback/
AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!!
Especially this…
“But I don’t find any evidence in Scripture that this is a litmus test that God uses through the ages to save people. We are not saved because of the name or the size of the church we attend - we are saved because of the grace and mercy of God the Father found in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, and our response to that work, leading to the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Ephesians 2:8-9, Galatians 3:2) It’s HIS work, not ours.”
It really is interesting to me-yet ironically sad, that those who think they have it all right and fight against denominations have in actuality become a worse denomination than those they speak out against…yet cannot see it because they have been blinded by their own denominational biases, but claim it as “the only truth”. They are actually pushing the plea of Christ for unity away and dividing even more than those they are condemning.
It seems to me they have missed the entire meaning of the church, i.e. the body of Christ-and have twisted it into a man-made institution. It cannot be limited to that-it cannot be limited to a building or a sign, because it is made up of the PEOPLE of God. Like you said, I am incredible thankful it is up to our God to save us, and not up to humans-I wish more people would leave it up to Him, and just spread the love of Christ to people!!
I meant, I am incredibly thankful…
I agree in many areas…churches of Christ certainly have split and denominated in the very sense that we denounce. I wish it were not so, and do my best as a preacher to help where I can.
But, I was hoping we could discuss this idea:
“we are saved because of the grace and mercy of God the Father found in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, and our response to that work, leading to the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Ephesians 2:8-9, Galatians 3:2) It’s HIS work, not ours.”
I agree with this…although after saying that we are saved by grace and our response to that work it seems a little contradictory to say that it is HIS work, not ours…which seems to imply that we do nothing. But, perhaps you are only saying what I believe: we cannot earn our salvation, but we are still required to do some things to be saved.
So, I also wanted some other views of a passage that relates to this whole issue, Revelation 2:4-5…
“But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.”
I have my ideas, but would like some other views…
What is going on here? What works are they supposed to be doing, and how do we know? Is this saying that God will not recognize this church as a part of the body if they don’t repent? Does that mean that an entire congregation might be lost if the way things are done does not change?
As always CT, you make some very good points and bring up some food for thought. First, we asume Jesus meant that they would lose their salvation when he said he would remove thier candlestick. I’m not so sure salvation is the issue, but I dont rule it out either. It does seem this “assmebly” of Christians were doing things not pleasing to God and needed to repent, or risk having their candlestick removed. Below is a few places about candlesticks - there are more.
“..I have looked, and behold a candlestick all of Gold…and his seven lamps thereon…” Zechariah 4:2
And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man . . . (Rev 1:13)
These candlesticks were not just seven isolated singular candles as one might suppose at first glance, but they are seven (Jewish) Menorahs - God’s idea of a lampstand. Immediately we are informed that the candlesticks represented the Judeo-Christian churches of Asia:
The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches. (Rev. 1:20).
This declaration therefore, by association, makes the candlestick a Judeo-Christian symbol and representative of a New Testament Church
The lampstand (Menorah) is conceivably the most comprehensive of all Biblical symbols. As such, it is important that believers investigate the origin, use and purpose of this symbol referenced in both Old and New Testaments. We will discover that this lampstand symbolizes many things such as the Nation of Israel, the Church, the Holy Spirit, the Word of God, the Seven Spirits of God, even the Lord Jesus Christ himself as “the light of the world.”
The first direct mention and detailed description of the candlestick (Menorah) is found in Exodus 25:31-40. Moses had just returned from Mount Sinai where he had been in communion with God. It was there that he had been instructed to make the candlestick. Not only had he received detailed instructions concerning the critical design of this instrument of light to be placed in the Tabernacle, but also of the various other implements that would be used for service in God’s divine worship system.
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a CANDLESTICK; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. ( Mt. 5:14-17)
CT, you sure invite a a good study. I always love your commnets - there is so much that could be said on this subject and many would grow tired reading it all, so I suggest that anyone willing to look at this in depth, search the bible for “lamp of God, Candlestick, Light, Menorah’s…thi is really a great study and too much to put here.
churchesofChrist.wordpress.com
Randy Craiger
That really is an interesting study-thank you CT and Randy for engaging us in a great discussion
A Condemning Doctrine on Baptism
The attempts to debunk the Gospel of Christ as heresy apart from Christ are numerous. Though great in number, such rebuttals to the Gospel cannot stand to the simple affirmation of the power of God unto salvation, which is the Gospel in Romans 1:16. One such false teaching and rebuttal of the Gospel is against baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. Take for example the position of Kirk Cameron with his mentor Ray Comfort in their affirmation that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is not “unto” and to receive the forgiveness of sins, but it is to be done “because of” the forgiveness of sins. After perusing through one of Cameron and Comfort’s books at a bookstore, I found one of the most damning false doctrines known to anyone. I was surprised since I’d already read the affirmation of Cameron and Comfort for the necessity of water baptism and its necessity “for the remission of sins” on their website livingwaters.com. The book presented clearly in one chapter the damning doctrine that Acts 2:38 teaches baptism in the name of Jesus Christ “for the remission of sins” means “because of the remission of sins” rather than “to receive the forgiveness of sins” or in an even better translation “unto forgiveness of sins”. I recently came across the blog, “Baptist College Student”, affirming that “Belief alone results in everlasting life” in which the writer is twisted regarding James 2:24, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone“. Still, many people claim that one is saved and justified by faith alone. With all of this said, there are some essential things that everyone should know about baptism and Acts 2:38.
Look at the phrase in Acts 2:38, “for the forgiveness of sins”. The issue has to do with the definition of the word “for” from the Greek word “eis” meaning “unto”, which some say with no good reasoning should be translated “because of” rather than “unto”. The exact phrase in Greek, “for forgiveness of sins”, is found 3 other times in the Scriptures. Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 present that John the Baptist’s baptism was “of repentance for forgiveness of sins”. This does not resolve the issue, but the same interpretation for Acts 2:38’s baptism in Jesus’ name would most likely be the same for John’s baptism of repentance. Both would be for the forgiveness of sins in the same way. Now, the only other passage with this exact phrase is Matthew 26:28. In the context of the Lord’s Supper, Christ stated, “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.” Christians are justified and washed clean by Jesus’ blood according to Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7, 2:13; Colossians 1:20, Hebrews 9, 13:12; 1 John 1:7, and Revelation 1:5, 7:14. This verse resolves this whole controversy. Jesus’ blood was poured out not “because of” forgiveness of sins, but His blood was poured out “unto” forgiveness of sins.
In fact, there are 1695 occurrences of “eis” in the New Testament not one means “because of”. On top of this, there are some other uses of “eis” around Acts 2:38 that show that the word means “unto”. Go through the following list and see the definition of the word, and try to fill in “because of” and see that it will not work. Here is a list of occurrences of the word around Acts 2:38 from Acts 1-3:
*Acts 1:10, “And while they were looking steadfastly unto heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;”
*Acts 1:11, “who also said, You men of Galilee, why are you stand looking into heaven? this Jesus, who was received up from you unto heaven shall so come in like manner as you beheld him going unto heaven.”
*Acts 1:12, “Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near unto Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey off.”
*Acts 1:13, “And when they were come in, they went up unto the upper room, where they were abiding; both Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James.”
*Acts 1:25, “to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas fell away, that he might go unto his own place.”
*Acts 2:20, “The sun shall be turned unto darkness, And the moon unto blood, Before the day of the Lord come, That great and notable day.”
*Acts 2:22, “You men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as you yourselves know;”
*Acts 2:25, “For David said unto him, I beheld the Lord always before my face; For he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:”
*Acts 2:27, “Because you will not leave my soul unto Hades, Neither will you give your Holy One to see corruption.”
*Acts 2:31, “he foreseeing this spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was He left unto Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.”
*Acts 2:34, “For David ascended not unto the heavens: but he says himself, ‘The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit you on my right hand,’”
*Acts 2:39, “For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are unto afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call to him.”
*Acts 3:1, “Now Peter and John were going up unto the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.”
*Acts 3:2, “And a certain man that was lame from his mother’s womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the door of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered unto the temple;”
*Acts 3:3, “who seeing Peter and John about to go unto the temple, asked to receive an alms.”
*Acts 3:4, “And Peter, fastening his eyes unto him, with John, said, ‘Look on us.’”
*Acts 3:8, “And leaping up, he stood, and began to walk; and he entered with them unto the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God.”
Acts 2:38, “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’” (ESV). The command is clearly for every one, and it is also clear that this baptism is “in the name of Jesus Christ”, which is not Holy Spirit baptism since Acts 8:14-16, says, “Now when the apostles that were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: (15) who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit: (16) for as yet it was fallen upon none of them: only they had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus“. Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is water baptism according to Acts 10:47-48, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people…And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (ESV). This is the baptism of the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” for which Jesus said in Mark 16:16, “Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved”. This baptism is essential being the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5, which is a “washing of water” in Ephesians 5:26 by which Christ sanctified and cleansed the Church. This washing is that of Titus 3:5 “He saved us…by the washing of regeneration…”. This regeneration, rebirth, is to be born again of water as in John 3:3 & 5, “Jesus answered him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God’… Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God‘” (ESV). This is why the Apostle Paul was told to “Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” in Acts 22:16. When is one saved? It is when one is humbled enough to accept the grace of Christ and not his own works, and obey Christ’s command to be baptized. Obedience is essential for salvation see that Hebrews 5:9 says, “And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him” and Jesus said in Matthew 7:21, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (ESV).
Now, what or who does the saving in baptism according to Titus 3:5 and Ephesians 5:26? It is not baptism that regenerates. It is Christ who saves and “not because of works done by us in righteousness” according to Titus 3:5, but “being justified by His grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life” in Titus 3:7. There has never been someone so stupid as to believe that water washes away sins or that being dunked in water alone saves someone. It is not “works-salvation” to be saved by Christ in baptism in His name. The one baptized does not even baptize oneself, so it is not one’s own working. The water is not special though water baptism in the Lord’s name is essential. Being regenerated by Christ by baptism in His name is not the effort of any person to save oneself by works as so many would like to attach to Christ’s baptism though baptism is a work. This does not deny or reject the truth that “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; salvation is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” as presented in Ephesians 2:8-9.
“It really is interesting to me-yet ironically sad, that those who think they have it all right and fight against denominations have in actuality become a worse denomination than those they speak out against…yet cannot see it because they have been blinded by their own denominational biases, but claim it as “the only truth”. They are actually pushing the plea of Christ for unity away and dividing even more than those they are condemning.”
Was it sad when they did the same thing in the first century?
1Ti 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
(KJV)
“They are actually pushing the plea of Christ for unity away and dividing even more than those they are condemning.”
Yet I see you offering no alternative solution
I have offered an easy and Biblical solution many times…to focus on the one who prayed for our unity: Jesus Christ, His love, amazing grace, and gift of salvation.
What is being touted around here-which is to seek out and cause more division by chasing after and attacking people who believe differently but are still followers of Christ-runs the other way from what Jesus called us to do, and if you believe it is ANYthing that Christ has called us to or that you can actually justify it with anything found in the Bible-you have been incredibly misled and are mistaken.
The focus has been taken off Christ and has been placed on an agenda, so the solution is to place the focus back onto the one who saves.
Amen, Katherine. You just expressed very eloquently the hope that I had when I started this blog, even if it wasn’t in those words. To see these men come on the air each week saying that the only hope for unity is in their particular doctrinal positions was (and is) very disheartening to me.
Unity is in Christ, not in the “church of Christ” as we see it in these men (Ephesians 1: 9-10). If this blog doesn’t do anything other than to get that message out there, it will have done quite a bit.
Thanks, K.
Amen Katherine!
I recently heard from Lynn Anderson (of COC fame) that those who have Christ in common have more in common that what divides them. Taking a look at the first century there were classic denominations: Roman Gentiles, Jews, those mentored by Paul, others who weren’t. There was no New Testiment to follow, only stories passed down by desciples and other original followers of Christ. Even the three desciples and Luke tell different accounts of Christ’s life in the gospels. But was that bad? Were those independant churches divided? Traditionally, YES! Spirtually, in most cases, no. Many today turn it into a word game.
I have been away for several weeks, but I really enjoyed reading your comments on “We are the Sermon” put on by Southern Hills COC and Pioneer Drive Baptist. I was married at Southern Hills and particapated in the first “We are the Sermon”. There were many fullfilling motives behind it, but one stated one was to show the world that Satan will not win by driving a wedge between followers of Christ in the name of the word denominalationism. In stead we can have our different traditions and come together to glorify the one awesome and powerful God.
Amen to you, Dennis!
We definitely have way more in common than what divides us-and it is vital we focus on it. If not, there will never be unity. That is why I get so frustrated with what these men and others are doing-driving that wedge even farther by claiming only “their way” is unity-when the ONLY way to unity is found in Jesus.
“The focus has been taken off Christ and has been placed on an agenda, so the solution is to place the focus back onto the one who saves.”
I see this site the one being guilty of that. When I read about Jesus I see him correcting error. Is it not hypocritiacal for those here on the site to do the same thing they say is wrong?
“We definitely have way more in common than what divides us-and it is vital we focus on it. If not, there will never be unity. That is why I get so frustrated with what these men and others are doing-driving that wedge even farther by claiming only “their way” is unity-when the ONLY way to unity is found in Jesus.”
So just because the denominational churches say the name Jesus it’s not important that they teach a different plan of salvation then the churches in the bible? We should focus on things that are the same and ignore the fact they teach a different plan?
“I have offered an easy and Biblical solution many times…to focus on the one who prayed for our unity: Jesus Christ, His love, amazing grace, and gift of salvation.”
And how has that worked out ?
Why don’t you actually TRY it and tell me how it works out?
After all, it is what Jesus prayed for. You are somehow completely missing that point.
Let me put it this way faithful, Jo, Johnny, etc…
You are coming at this backwards. You think your goal should be to “fight” the denominations for whatever reason and are only seeing everything you do not think they are doing “right” because you somehow believe you are the only ones who are “right”-so you are coming at it from that angle, and that is where you have gotten off track. If that is your measurement, then you will hardly ever accept anyone-and you are only pushing away brothers and sisters whom God has already accepted. Whether you accept them or not does not have any influence on whether God does-so what are you really trying to accomplish?
Therefore, you have lost the main focus that we have in common-the fact that we are found and saved by the same God. You may not like that-but there is nothing you can do about it (thank goodness)-so why not recognize the UNITY found in Christ and go from there? That never means you have to compromise beliefs-it is only answering the prayer Jesus prayed before He died by uniting with His body. Which, that is part of the other problem-recognizing what and who the body of Christ really is-which can not be limited to AN institutional church, A denomination, or A building-it is made up of His people-those GOD has saved. Once you come to realize that-I doubt you will be coming at it backwards anymore and will be able to embrace your brothers and sisters. I pray for that day.
I will say it again-what you are attempting to do is only running FAR AWAY from the plea and idea for unity. It is you who cannot-or refuses to-see that. Only God can be the one to open your eyes, and I pray He does.
Amen again! How can we really call ourselves Christians if we in our own closed mindedness will not seek unity through Christ with all of our brothers and sisters. Christ is unity, he is our brother and because of Him we are joint heirs with him and can call God Abba Father (Daddy). Romans 8:14-17.
When you say your way is the only right way, the only standard God will accept, you are embracing the very thing about denominalionism you say is wrong. You are seperating yourself from many children of God. Satan wins one. Another thing…it’s probably basphamous to decide for God who He will and will not accept. All through the bible we (generally speaking) are His and He wants a relationship with all of us. Shouldn’t we want the same relationship with all of His children?
faithful,
I have had a great deal of experience working shoulder to shoulder with men and women of different denominational backgrounds. Everything from Promise Keepers to multi-church community projects (like the one mentioned earlier). And would you like to know why we can fellowship together? Because we recognize exactly what Katherine and Dennis have been discussing here. That it’s not about the church building or tradition - it’s about Jesus.
Now inevitably, when someone brings up something like this to a hypercon, they’ll take it to the extreme and mention the JWs or the Mormons. But this is an erroneous place to take the conversation. Why? The difference is that the JWs and the Mormon traditions have taken the Word and added to it. They are the ones actually doing the thing that you wrongly condemn the other historically orthodox Christian traditions for doing. This is a very serious issue, because of John’s warning at the end of the book of Revelations 22:18:
Most of the denominations I know have issues of different interpretations, but they are interpreting the same Scripture. But, we find unity in Christ.
As has been said before, “unity” doesn’t mean “uniformity”.
Yes, most definitely Dennis-thank you for your additional thoughts, and I will Amen you again, too
Wow things have been hoping on here since I’ve been gone!!
“When I read about Jesus I see him correcting error”
..and how is that working out for you? You believe in sola scriptura, you are fallible and sinful, how can you even remotely know that your interpretations are correct. How could you have SO much confidence that your opinions are correct enough to judge others. There is a reason why there so many denominations (yours included) claiming truth, yet hold opposite doctrines on important issues like the Lord’s Supper, baptism and the sacraments.
JP does raise some points - he ask the very questions that Jason, my friend has ask me, who use to preach in the church of Christ ( doesnt go to church now ). I look forward to hearing this answered.
Randy
I wouldn’t say that there aren’t difficult passages in the scriptures. I would admit that some things are even impossible to understand as the ways of God are not the ways of man. However, when it comes to how we are to worship and live as Christians, I think it is arrogant to say that we can’t understand most of the Bible. When we say that things are simply a “matter of personal interpretation” what we’re really saying is that the Holy Spirit was unable to properly inspire the apostles of God when they wrote. If there is no “right” interpretation then Paul was a liar when he wrote:
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 1 Corinthians 14:33
To simply say what the Bible says is not interpretation. I truly believe that most of the confusion among those professing to be Christians could be avoided when we remove the teachings of men that have been held up as equal to the word of God.
“..and how is that working out for you? You believe in sola scriptura, you are fallible and sinful, how can you even remotely know that your interpretations are correct. How could you have SO much confidence that your opinions are correct enough to judge others. There is a reason why there so many denominations (yours included) claiming truth, yet hold opposite doctrines on important issues like the Lord’s Supper, baptism and the sacraments.
How am I sinful? I’ve been forgiven . I don’t continue to wallow in it . The bible says judge rightous judgement. That means judge by the bible. I know there is a reason they do what they do. The same reason people of the world do anything. “It feels good” . I see complaining about the method the Lords church goes about trying to bring the unity that Jesus prayed forbut I don’t see any one else really offering another solution. Chuck is right about the fact that you alls plan is simular to the atheist in that respect. If these preachers are in error then why don’t the denominational preachers or people from this site come straighten them out in front of the whole community? Would not real truth prevail? I thought the truth and the true gospel were powerful?
Actually faithful, I think they are (in a way) offering a solution, but it isn’t a Biblical solution.
What most people here seem to prefer is that everyone says, “you believe in Christ and so do I and that is all that really matters.” Then we would leave one another alone, worship in differing manners, believing different things, calling that “unity”. If you and I believe the Biblical teaching that baptism is for the remission of sins then we should meet with others who believe the same. If others believe that baptism is just something we should do after they’re already saved, then they can meet with others who believe the same. No one should ever claim to be right, and more importantly, no one should ever claim that anyone else could be wrong.
I guess that is the essence of “unity in diversity”.
“Now inevitably, when someone brings up something like this to a hypercon, they’ll take it to the extreme and mention the JWs or the Mormons. But this is an erroneous place to take the conversation. Why? The difference is that the JWs and the Mormon traditions have taken the Word and added to it. They are the ones actually doing the thing that you wrongly condemn the other historically orthodox Christian traditions for doing. This is a very serious issue, because of John’s warning at the end of the book of Revelations 22:18:
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.”
Most of the denominations I know have issues of different interpretations, but they are interpreting the same Scripture. But, we find unity in Christ.
As has been said before, “unity” doesn’t mean “uniformity”.”
Well let’s narrow it down then. The methodist have added sprinckling to the new testament . The presyterians have added sprinckling to children, the baptist have added born in sin and once saved always saved , the SDA have added a baptismal vow , . What’s the difference in them and the JW and mormon? None. Let’s not the forget the fact they all add instruments of music to the NT. Where do we draw the line. They have also taken away something. They took way the “not ” and made it faith only.
I think you all missed JP’s point. Everyone of us disagre on things and all claim to understand things to such a degree that we can refute others ( myself included ) How do we really know who is right and who is wrong - seeing we all think we are right. I know you keep pointing back to God not being the author of confusion, but be honest enough to admit that we all lack perfection and we all lack the ability to understand the entire bible PERFECTLY the same. Maybe this alone should be reason enough to find true unity and not be so divided.
Randy - how do we find unity when people teach so many different things? If the Bible alone can’t be our standard then what can be? My feelings? Your feelings?
Look at the world of politics. Obama says he wants to unite Americans. No he doesn’t. He wants all Americans to change to his way of doing things. How can I, as a staunch opponent of abortion find unity with a man who supports the heinous process in virtually every circumstance? I cannot.
The same is true in religion. When we say we want unity, what most of us mean is that we want everyone else to believe like we do and then we’ll be unified. The difference is that some us want that unity based solely upon a standard - the word of God. I’ll admit that I’m not perfect, but I believe God’s word to be so. If my beliefs conflict with that word then I will admit that it is ME that is in error, not God.
Faithful, please explain every verse in the bible to us that you THINK we should follow. I suppose your view of the Lords supper is law and if we differ from your view, we are lost?
“The methodist have added sprinckling to the new testament . The presyterians have added sprinckling to children, the baptist have added born in sin and once saved always saved , the SDA have added a baptismal vow , . What’s the difference in them and the JW and mormon? None. Let’s not the forget the fact they all add instruments of music to the NT. Where do we draw the line. They have also taken away something. They took way the “not ” and made it faith only.”
I stand by my COC faith, but there are some things we’ve added too. Despite Jesus’ lack of excluding even Judas from the first Lord’s supper and commanding all to partake, we (COC) only allow those baptized in the COC tradition to be included. Yet we and other denominations rationalize what we can to satisfy ourselves.
You’re calling the kettle “black” with that argument.
Dennis - that simply isn’t true. I have never been to a congregation of the Lord’s church (and I have been to many) where anyone was refused the Lord’s Supper. I have been to a Catholic church and was refused communion.
If your congregation, or one you have been to, refuses communion then that is wrong. To say all (or even many or most) churches of Christ do the same is completely wrong.
Dude - here is one who was told flatly by Johnny that my not understanding that the Lords Supper MUST be taken each Sunday was enough to refuse me. I asked him and he said yes, I would be refused, even if I toof the Lords Supper each Sunday, I must too, understand it as they teach.
Well, ol’ Johnny is the exception, not the rule.
Do you think even he personally questions every person in attendance before they take of the Lord’s Supper?
Actually, I shouldn’t ask that. He and Diotrephes seem to be close brethren.
I grew up with the “unwritten rule” all my life. In every COC I’ve attended, some were hyper-con, but some were more progressive. Its accepted because its unwritten. But if you don’t believe it to be true, try it. The next time you visit a church as an unknown, give it a try. You’ll be disappointed.
The whole issue of someone refusing the Lord’s Supper seems insane to me.
At my congregation we have two people who are Baptists, but because of their spouses they usually attend worship with us. I think they’ve come to love taking the Lord’s Supper each Sunday.
If they weren’t there on Sunday morning they will take it on Sunday night, even if they’re the only person to take it! They are never refused communion. In fact, I see it as a small sign of progress that they are willing to follow the instructions to partake of the Lord’s Supper, even if they still cling to some denominational beliefs.
If you, me or someone else is taking the Lord’s Supper in the wrong manner then we are eating and drinking damnation unto OURSELVES. It is between the individual and God to sort out whether it was done in an unworthy manner, not Johnny Robertson.
Dennis - I have taken the Lord’s Supper as an “unknown” all over Kentucky and once in Florida. Never did anyone question me about it or even mention it.
You’re a lucky one. As sad it sounds I’ve seen people refused in the COC. I even read on this blog last month where the process appeared to be justified
faithful wrote:
“Well let’s narrow it down then. The methodist have added sprinckling to the new testament . The presyterians have added sprinckling to children, the baptist have added born in sin and once saved always saved , the SDA have added a baptismal vow , . What’s the difference in them and the JW and mormon? None. Let’s not the forget the fact they all add instruments of music to the NT. Where do we draw the line. They have also taken away something. They took way the “not ” and made it faith only.”
No, faithful, there is a huge difference between the Christians you mentioned, and the JWs and the Mormons.
The difference between JWs and Christians:
http://www.godandscience.org/cults/jwdiff.html
The difference between Mormons and Christians, from a Mormon website:
http://www.mormoninfo.org/
There’s no comparison, faithful. That’s why I brought it up, because it’s a hyperconservative strawman argument.
And as soon as you show me the BCV where our Old Testament permission for using instruments in worship is taken away, I’ll declare that you are right about that subject. Until then, it is purely your opinion. While I respect that you have that opinion, it has no Biblical bearing on anyone else, unless they, too, share that opinion and interpretation.
Notice John also mentions taking away, not just adding…
Nathan,
Do you have alters and burn incense? Do you use only the instruments God authorized through David and Moses or do you use things like organs, pianos, electric guitars and synthesizers?
Again I’ll ask you, did God need to go back and give a checklist of the elements of worship that were rendered obsolete by Christ fulfilling the law of Moses?
wonder if the elements were Welches grape juice and crackers back then??
Again calling the kettle “black”. I don’t worship with instruments, but I can’t condemn someone that does-even if there are guitars, pianos, organs, etc… Jesus, Paul, none of the desciples said “don’t use them anymore”- just as they never said worship only in off the path homes of fellow christians. We assume that because of technology and the age very accommodating climate controlled buildings with signs in front, computer controlled technology, power points etc. are okay, but the age and times don’t allow for the same accomodations on instruments?
We’ve been given the specifics we need - fruit of the vine (grape juice works there) and unleavened bread (matza bread -”crackers”-works there as well).
If it was supposed to be more specific I think it would have been given.
The method of pasteurizing grape juice to halt the fermentation has been attributed to an American physician and dentist, Thomas Bramwell Welch in 1869, even though pasteurizing grape juice was done in ancient times. A strong supporter of the temperance movement, he produced a non-alcoholic wine to be used for church services in his hometown of Vineland, New Jersey. His fellow parishioners continued to prefer and use regular wine. Wonder what they used before 1869 ??? Maybe real wine. Seems like we have strayed from the real element to a “man made” one.
Can we use “any” fruit that grows on a vine or must this only be Welches? Btm line, we follow man made traditions sometimes…dont we
Maybe if it was wine the Bible would have said wine. Not every time you read of wine in the Bible are you reading about something that had much, if any, alcoholic content. Some sources indicate that fresh grape juice that hadn’t fermented was considered the best and most desirable.
Also, we can know what kind of fruit (of the vine) Jesus used since they were eating the passover. However, since the Bible says “fruit of the vine”, I would say that any juice made from a fruit that grows on vines would be acceptable. Grape juice is readily available, so someone who makes juice from watermelons is really going through a lot of trouble to stretch the command.
To use juice from grapes, like Jesus did, is not following a man-made tradition. This sounds like arguing for arguments sake.
Arguing for the sake of arguments sake is right. That was the point I was trying to make. Sometimes what we consider matters of faith (instruments for instance) are really kind of petty and don’t have much to do with faith. Sounds almost along the lines of some of the arguments the Gentiles and Jews had that Paul had to address.
wonder how some got drunk from “juice” whom Paul condemned. Eitehr way is fine with me and maybe we are being petty.
Randy (and all interested),
Thanks for the background on the candlestick…I am in agreement as far as I can tell, and can only add that Rev 1:20 seems to clearly define the candelstick of Rev 2:4-5…the candlesticks/lampstands are churches, so removing their candelstick would be equivalent to losing their place as Christ’s church. God would no longer recognize them as a local congregation of the church…at least that seems completely obvious to me.
My whole point for bringing this up is this: there is a point at which Christ can decide that a particular assembly of christians is not doing the works they should be, and is, therefore, no longer recognized as a church. This directly relates to the denomination issue. Of all the “churches” out there, there are so many conflicting doctrines and practices that Christ cannot be pleased with all of them (not to mention the division). How do we determine if it is our congregation (or denomination) that He does not recognize? This is really my question…what works were lacking in Ephesus for which Christ called for repentance, and which endangered their status as a true church? What kinds of works might we do/not do that could endanger the position of our local congregations?
With Rev 2:4-5 I don’t believe we have any right to say, “Well we’re all Christians so we’re all under grace and okay and ought to accept one another.” We have a responsibility to “remember our first love” and “do the works” that Christ would have us do. There are specific things that we must do as a church. We also have a responsibility to help one another and correct one another where we are lacking so that this doesn’t happen to any church. As Paul said, “Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?” [1Cor 5:12] We also have a responsibility to accept criticism, and respond to it properly. Souls are at stake, and there is no room for apathy or defensiveness.
“They came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: and
Paul, as his custom was, went in unto them, and for three sabbath
days reasoned with them from the scriptures, opening and alleging
that it behooved the Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead;
and that this Jesus, whom, said he, I proclaim unto you is the Christ”
(Acts 17:l-3). (Cf. Paul with pagans in Acts 14 & 17).
Despite the fact that only some of the Jews in Thessalonica,
“consorted” or united with Paul and Silas in addition to the
“devout Greeks” and some “chief women” of the city (Acts
17:4), Paul did not compromise truth for the sake of religious
unity. Everywhere he went he “reasoned” with people by
logically giving them the evidence on any spiritual matter which
proved such to be true, whether unity resulted or not, knowing
(of all people-Acts 23:l) that sincerity minus the Truth will
damn the soul just as much as one who knows the Truth but is
insincere will be damned (Phil. 1: 15-17; John 8:32; Josh. 24: 14;
Rom. 6: 17).
“Dennis - I have taken the Lord’s Supper as an “unknown” all over Kentucky and once in Florida. Never did anyone question me about it or even mention it.
You may have ate a cracker and swallowed a shot of juice but that’s all. If you take and are not in Christ’s church he didn’t eat with you.
“the primary difference between a member of the
Lord’s church and the denominationalist relative to Scripture is
that Christians have reasoned (i.e. recognized the implications
or made deductions) properly in regard to: (1) what actually
constitutes religious authority today-The Bible Only-(correctly
disregarding present-day claims regarding dreams,
relations, feelings, angels, councils, popes, extra-canonical
books, creeds, catechisms, manuals, etc.) and (2) the direct
statements making up the Bible (i.e. using an inductive/
deductive approach in handling such statements (evidence). For
instance, our difference with the Mormon cult’s claim to
“inspired” books past the Bible hinges on the lack of evidence
proving (implying) their claim and their failure to see the
available evidence proving (implying) such claim to be false
(primarily through the Law Of Contradiction). Mormons
“infer” (they believe) that “additional books” are inspired,
whereas the Christian infers (knows) this to be false. [NOTE:
There is no explicit Bible verse stating "The Book Of Mormon is
false"! Such MUST BE INFERRED!] Though they claim to
follow Scripture, because of a prior acceptance of the “Watchtower”
teaching as authoritative, “Jehovah’s Witnesses” will
misapply “blood passages” even to the point of the death of
children who are disallowed transfusions. Their inductive/
deductive methodology is at fault, NOT THE PASSAGES
USED! “
Faithful - Paul did not compromise truth for the sake of religious unity. Everywhere he went he “reasoned” with people by logically giving them the evidence on any spiritual matter which proved such to be true, whether unity resulted or not, knowing(of all people-Acts 23:l) that sincerity minus the Truth will damn the soul just as much as one who knows the Truth but is insincere will be damned
This invites many questions. Let me guess, you have it all PERFECTLY fiqured out like Paul. Are you ever wrong and do you think you KNOW everything as did Paul? You state that sincerity minus truth will damn you, so you are saying you have it all fiqured out PERFECTLY and not wrong about one thing you believe the bible teaches? Your very own statement damns you and us all, seeing we all have not arrived nor do we all understand it all PERFECLY, meaning we lack some understanding of TRUTH.
How diverse can we be and still maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace? By diversity I refer to the differences or unlikenesses which exist in that large realm of nonessential matters commonly called “matters of opinion” or more accurately “matters of necessary judgment” about things not legislated by God. This area may include a number of doctrinal issues and matters of considerable importance.
Surely all of us are ready to admit that there is a very large area of issues, beliefs, practices, and undertakings upon which we differ at once and even after considerable study. At the same time we are largely agreed that some things are beyond debate in the Christian’s mind. The obvious difficulty is where we are going to draw the line between the great field of heterogeneous activities and convictions that are permissible and those convictions and practices that are prohibited or inadmissible. We all draw the line somewhere, and it is right to do so.
Is there a solution to this vexing problem? What diversity can be tolerated by the body of Christ and what diversity begins the destruction of that body? To be in fellowship with Christ and as many of our brethren as possible is the hope and obligation of our lives. We need, then, a principle or a series of scriptural principles to enable us to determine this vitally important matter in a God-pleasing way. Even after we have a set of guiding principles we are still going to have some diversity in application to plague us. Yet we can hope, given the right principles, to arrive at a oneness of agreement that such differences that remain will be minor trifles.
With these introductory thoughts in mind, I invite you to search with me for some answers to our diversity. I don’t want to eat up too much space here - go to my blog for more… http://churchesofchrist.wordpress.com/
faithful - first off, I’m a member of the Lord’s church, not some denomination, so I’m sure the Lord ate with me.
My point is the same as yours - those outside the church “have a bite a cracker and a shot of juice” but that is all they do. There is no reason for us to interrogate each person to make sure their beliefs line up with ours before offering them the Lord’s Supper. If they aren’t a Christian they just had a miniature snack at best, and possibly brought damnation upon themselves at worst.
We don’t need to “police” the Lord’s Supper within the churches of Christ. God will do that.
“They are actually pushing the plea of Christ for unity away and dividing even more than those they are condemning.”
I’m living proof that’s lie!
It’s not a lie-it is truth, and we can see it. Why can’t you?
Corey, you wrote earlier: “If you, me or someone else is taking the Lord’s Supper in the wrong manner then we are eating and drinking damnation unto OURSELVES. It is between the individual and God to sort out whether it was done in an unworthy manner, not Johnny Robertson.”
Out of curosity, why doesn’t the same frame of thought apply to the issue of baptism. I’ve confessed, repented and been baptized, but yet I am told by coC leadesrs that I am not saved. Why isn’t my understanding of baptism an issue between myself and God to sort out without undue judgement from others?
Great question, Rick
Rick,
The difference is that your baptism wasn’t Biblical. You didn’t acknowledge that baptism is for the remission of sins and that it comes prior to salvation. Beyond that, even though I (and others) have attempted to show you the Biblical role of baptism I know you’re not going to teach it. You’re going to continue to teach that salvation comes before baptism.
I can’t know the heart and beliefs of each person when they partake of the Lord’s Supper. Paul is clear that it is between the individual and God. I can know why you were baptized and I can know what you will continue to teach about it. I worry less about your baptism than what you will teach others about it.
Look at Apollos in Acts 18. He was mighty in the scriptures and teaching many things correctly, but not baptism. Aquilla and Priscilla took him aside and explained it to him properly. That is what I’m trying to do here.
The Baptist beliefs on baptism remind me of the Ephesians in Acts 19. You have some understanding of what it is and you’re trying to be obedient. However, you need to fully understand baptism, to make sure your baptism is the one God instructed, and to go and teach it correctly from here on. Paul didn’t want to let those men’s baptism be sorted out by God on judgment day, he wanted them to make sure it was correct right then. I want the same for you.
faithful;
“Dennis - I have taken the Lord’s Supper as an “unknown” all over Kentucky and once in Florida. Never did anyone question me about it or even mention it.
You may have ate a cracker and swallowed a shot of juice but that’s all. If you take and are not in Christ’s church he didn’t eat with you.
That’s part of the problem. If we in the COC do let a “baptist” or say an unbaptised child take the Lord’s supper we say they’re just having a snack and Jesus is not eating with them. Christ is the one judging their hearts, not us. How can we justify our actions? Christ even knowingly ate with Judas just moments before He was betrayed.
First, are you finally saying that other christain denominations are in “Christ’s Church”? How can you say Christ does not dine with His followers outside the COC, when their hearts seek to dine with Him?
My 10 year old son, is autistic, ADHD, and has cerebral palsy. His learning level is 2nd grade. However he’s really bright is some areas. Last year he wanted to take the Lord’s Supper. I wasn’t going to let it be a “snack” and because so refused for a long time. As a christian dad I don’t believe he’s not ready to be baptized yet, but he has explained to me the absolute meaning of the Lord’s Supper with all the eloquence of a seasoned shephard. Based on his understanding of the Lord’s Supper I agreed to let him begin taking it. My church is a lot more progressive than yours, I definately deduce that. However, each week my wife and I are starred at,we’ve been questioned, even scolded for letting our son take the Lord’s Supper before he’s baptized.
Last month JC said somewhere on this site (not exact quote)… Since their heart is not in the right place, it doesn’t make sense to offer them the Lord’s Supper. My point is…there we go playing God’s judge again.
Corey,
Let’s not read into Scripture what is not there. Acts 18 tells us this:
Where does it say that they taught him baptism? It says that they taught him more adequately - and one can assume that baptism was a part of that teaching, but if you do any sort of study about what “more adequately” means, you’ll find every bit of Christian doctrine bantered about as a possibility.
I included the last paragraph, because I thought that it was interesting that he was a help to those who “by grace had believed”. Maybe that was the “more adequately” - that a person is saved by grace through faith - not through works, like baptism.
The point? We just don’t know.
Corey - The difference is that your baptism wasn’t Biblical. You didn’t acknowledge that baptism is for the remission of sins and that it comes prior to salvation.
Corey, when you were baptized per Acts 2:38, how much did you understand about the rest of Acts 2:38, which we so often leave out. The rest says and you shall recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit…when you were baptized, did you understand what that part of the verse means - per you doctrinal view, you hang yourself with such thinking. I have talked with many and almost all didnt understand the rest of Acts 2:38 when they were baptized…if one part of the verse has to be understood to make baptism valid so does the rest. It’s time we stop this nonsense and allow God to do as he says Col. 2:12 - He does the work in baptism - Mark 16:16 does not say He that believes and understands everything about baptism perfectly shall be saved. Again, if the first part of Acts 2:38 must be understood PERFECTLY, so does the rest…
What does the Bible say was the area in which he was lacking? Baptism. He knew only the baptism of John. Perhaps there were other areas in which he needed instruction, but we can KNOW that he wasn’t teaching proper baptism since it is the one area specifically mentioned.
Can a person with an incomplete understanding still be a help to true believers? Of course. I bet that some of Rick’s sermons are full of Biblical truths that would be a help to me. That doesn’t mean that all he taught would be scriptural. Apollos is a great example of that.
Lastly, baptism is never called a work in scriptures. Belief (which we all agree to be essential to salvation) is called a work in John 6:29. Now, is that a work that saves us? No. No work can save us, as salvation comes by the grace of God. Does that mean that there is nothing we are to do? No. There is a huge difference between an act of obedience in submission to God’s commands and a meritorious work to earn our salvation.
Now, I’ve just showed you where belief in God is a work in scriptures. Can you show me where baptism is called a work in the New Testament?
Randy,
After I was baptized I realized that I had received the gift of the Holy Spirit. I knew that He now dwells within me (1 Cor 6:19). I knew that He now intercedes for me in prayer (Romans 8:26-27). I knew that by following the word He inspired I might produce the fruit that God desires (Galatians 5).
I don’t think it takes too long to explain those things or to learn those things.
I agree with you that it is God who does the work in baptism. I would never dispute that. But by saying that we don’t really need much, if any, understanding of baptism makes Paul a fool in Acts 19. Why didn’t he tell those Ephesians, “don’t worry, God does the work in baptism. It doesn’t matter what you believed or understood about it. God is going to make everything alright”?
What he actually did was to explain it to them and then immerse them again in the proper way. If it didn’t matter what they knew then it would have been pointless to do it a second time.
Corey and Rick,
Good point, Corey, about there being a difference between works of submission to God and meritorious works. We cannot earn our salvation [Eph 2:9], but God will still judge us according to our deeds [1Peter 1:17].
The definition of “faith” has been altered. Saving faith in Scripture is always accompanied by works. [see Heb 11] Even James said that “faith without works is dead.” [James 2:17] This is why the term “faithful” means “obedient.”
So, Rick, no one making comments (as far as I can tell) is advocating salvation by personal merit…doing enough works to be recognized as a “good” person. We are only advocating true faith. If I say that baptism is necessary for salvation it is only because God has asked us to be baptized, and true, living faith requires that we submit to Him. A “believer” is not simply one who believes, but one who has put their faith in Christ.
But, Corey, to say that one must have been “baptized for the remission of sins” in order to be saved is not being consistent. As Rick pointed out, if you say that one must fully understand remission of sins, then they must also fully understand the gift of the Holy Spirit. They are both direct results of baptism and repentance according to Acts 2:38. And I know I still don’t fully understand the gift of the Holy Spirit…does that mean my baptism was invalid?
Also, Acts 2:38, as we in the cofC like to point out, would be better translated “unto the remission of sins” rather than “for the remission of sins.” If this is true (and I believe it is) then remission is a result of baptism, not a condition to be met in the mind of the candidate. We are not baptized specifically to receive forgiveness, but to turn our lives over to God, which results in forgiveness.
Rick and Corey, baptism is an act of submission, a pledge to God to be His servant. [1Peter 3:21] This is why Jesus was baptized…to fulfill all righteousness…to declare to God that He wanted to be a servant. Simple obedience to the command is not enough, but neither do we have to understand all of the results (I don’t know of anyone but possibly Christ who did).
Rick, I cannot judge your baptism…I wasn’t there. But I do think the fact that baptism is so closely linked to salvation terminology demands that you take a second (third, fourth, however many you are up to now) look at what you might teach about it.
Corey, be careful not to require something of the baptizee that is God’s work: remission of sins. Certainly we ought to teach every potential convert about the results of baptism, including remission. But, for those who did not understand remission, but still made a commitment to God in baptism, we cannot require from them what is God’s work without requiring an understanding of every spiritual blessing of baptism.
Rick,
You asked: “Why isn’t my understanding of baptism an issue between myself and God to sort out without undue judgement from others?”
My answer: Because some of us care enough to judge. 1Corinthians 5:12 says, “Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?” Of course this judgment is not simply for the sake of condemning others, but is supposed to motivate us to help and correct others and maintain the purity of the church (getting out the leaven and all that).
I hope you know, Rick (and everyone else), that I am not trying to condemn you, but only trying to help and correct where I see clear contradictions of Scripture. I would expect no less from you or anyone else who claims to follow Christ.
Corey -After I was baptized I realized that I had received the gift of the Holy Spirit.
I see you stated “AFTER”. This is what I mean Corey, you on one hand can tell soemone they must understand part of Acts 2:38 “before” hand and then you can understand the rest AFTER…come on now, you can see the folly here. If you insist one understand Acts 2:38 before their baptism is valid, you just hung yourslef with your own statement ( AFTER )…I think Clint exlains this very well…
I still trying to catch up but here is my thoughts on My understanding of Acts 18: 24-26: That Apollos, who was a Jew bred in the Jewish religion, traditions and Scripture, either came in contact with John the Baptist or heard of his message on the baptism of repentance (John didn’t teach salvation ie the death, burial and resurrection of Christ for it had not happened, he taught of the coming of the Messiah and of the need for repentance). Apollos accepted John’s teaching that Jesus was the Lamb of God but Apollos did not know yet of Jesus’ death and resurrection as Savior or of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. He taught what he knew of the Old Testament Scriptures diligently and accurately Acts 18 tells us. Priscilla and Aquila could tell that Apollos had not heard of the full story of the gospel (of Jesus the Messiah’s death, burial and resurrection) so they shared it with him.
Clint,
I understand what you’re saying. Baptism is “unto” the remission of sins in the same way we’re told confession is “unto” salvation. Both bring us near salvation, but it is God who actually brings us into salvation. I don’t want anyone to think I’m saying the act of baptism saves and if that is how it came across I apologize.
The problem I have is what is taught in the Baptist churches and others - that salvation comes before salvation. Rick can correct me as to his personal baptism if I’m wrong, but most Baptist churches teach that baptism is only a sign of obedience after salvation, not an act of obedience that occurs prior to God saving us. I don’t claim to perfectly understand everything in God’s word, nor would I expect anyone else to, but to deny that baptism occurs before salvation is not in harmony with scripture. You don’t have to understand everything in the New Testament to understand that.
I am not addressing the honest individuals who are never taught fully about baptism and are baptized as a sign of obedience. I am addressing people who have been shown, through the Bible, that baptism is an act of obedience that must occur before we can be confident of our salvation. Those people now have a responsibility to cast off what they’ve been previously taught and to examine the scriptures on their own.
Look again at the Ephesians of Acts 19. If Paul had never found them and explained baptism fully to them, would their baptism have been valid in God’s eyes? I can’t say, but I would hope so, but I have no Biblical evidence to support my hope. The fact is that they were explained more fully about baptism. They could have said, “well, what if we’d never been taught by you, Paul? What then?” Or, “Paul you’re being petty by insisting we get baptism ‘right’”, or “what if we don’t have a perfect understanding about everything?” They could have fought against Paul’s teachings like so many do today, but they didn’t. They simply obeyed and I would hope that anyone who is taught the truth more fully would attempt to follow it rather than throw out “what-ifs” and objections.
Randy - I just worded that wrong. What I meant was, I understood before I was baptized that I would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit after I was baptized.
I understood before I was baptized those blessings of the Holy Spirit that I would receive after I was baptized.
So, no, I’m not hanging myself with that logic. I just failed to express myself clearly in my post.
Corey, you are one of few who understood that then - most dont. Matter of fact the church of Christ have three diff takes on “the gift of the Holy Spirit” or maybe I should say there are three takes on what this verse means. Let me ask you this ” what if you failed to understand Acts 2:38, would God still save you if you were baptized? It sounds like you are saying yes, which I agree.
Rick - your post about Apollos being only a Jew and not at all acquainted with Jesus is just wrong. Look at verse 25:
he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus
We are also told in the same verse that he had been instructed in the way of the Lord. Obviously his instructions had not been complete, but he still was trying to follow Jesus. Again, we can only point to one error in his teaching - the one the Bible plainly gives us - and that is an incomplete understanding of baptism. Any other areas in which he needed instruction are purely conjecture.
Okay - I misspoke when I called baptism a work. Scripturally, it is not ever referred to as such. And it seems from your post that you and I agree that baptism is not a “meritorious work to earn our salvation”.
I’ve appreciated the comments, and I agree with much that has been said on both sides. It sounds like the big difference is what we believe with regards to the point of salvation. And Scripturally, there are arguments for both sides. How do we reconcile this?
Does it have to be “my way or the highway”, or is there a third way?
I’m just asking.
Randy,
What will happen if you fail to understand Acts 2:38? Would God still save you? I don’t know. I said that I would hope so. What Corey hopes doesn’t equal what God will do. I hope everyone be saved, but God said that isn’t going to happen.
The bigger question in my mind is, what if someone tries to fully explain baptism to you and you reject it? What if you write it off as a “petty” issue and on judgment day you find out God didn’t think it was “petty” at all?
I think the Bible teaches that grace is good enough to cover our honest faults and misunderstandings. To openly reject a teaching because it doesn’t fall in line with what we’ve been previously taught is not an honest misunderstanding - it is an outright rejection of God’s word.
Nathan,
It gives me great joy to hear you acknowledge that baptism is not a meritorious work to earn salvation. So many people try to say that is what is taught within the churches of Christ, and it is not. I really appreciate you saying that. I love to hear when we all agree.
As to how we reconcile the moment of salvation, let me try to give my best explanation:
I believe the Bible to teach that salvation occurs after we have heard the word, believed it, repented of our sins, confessed Christ as Lord and been immersed for the remission of sins.
If I am wrong, and it occurs somewhere else within those commands, then what has happened to displease God? Nothing.
Someone else believes that salvation occurs before baptism, and therefore teaches that it isn’t essential, can be altered (by sprinkling or pouring), and doesn’t ever have to occur.
If they are wrong, and it does occur after immersion, the what has happened to displease God? Perhaps many things. A command has been altered or disregarded.
Which version shows the most reverence for God’s word? Which version takes fewer chances with our salvation?
There is no “my way or the highway”. There is only “God’s way or the highway (perhaps “low-way” is better)”. My plea in all matters is to be as safe and sure as we can, not leaving things to chance, and not trying God’s grace to see just how much it will cover.
I understand what youre saying Corey, but others may not - and may never reach our “supposed” understanding, so do we write them off as brethern ? I just cant do that, seeing I am not perfect and who knows - could be wrong myself. We have downed people way too long over the issue of baptism and its time we allow God to be God. I agree with you, but some may never understand this as you and I…
- I’ve appreciated the comments, and I agree with much that has been said on both sides. It sounds like the big difference is what we believe with regards to the point of salvation. And Scripturally, there are arguments for both sides. How do we reconcile this?
Does it have to be “my way or the highway”, or is there a third way?
I’m just asking.
Nathan, I think somehow we must agree to disagree. I know this doesnt fly well with most cofC people, but either we walk together this way or we just keep making more and more sects. I always find it funny how we can put down denominations and pretend we arent split all up…truth is we are just as split over even less issues….
I love you each in the Lord and look forward to the day that we all rejoice in eternal worship of our Lord and Saviour. May God bless!
I amen that!
I, too am catching up-and only have a few things to say..
First of all, I don’t think you, Corey (or any of us) have the right or place to be able to judge whether Rick’s baptism was valid b/c you were not there and do not know His heart, and obviously are not God. I don’t believe we have the right to judge people’s baptism based on the knowledge they had prior to being baptized. Like many have said, we do not have to understand it all before for it to be valid-I know I did not, but I know I am still saved.
The second point is something you recently touched on Corey, and I agree with you-I would never preach Jesus and His message without leaving out baptism. I don’t know how one could read the Bible and just decide to leave it out. If I was bringing someone to Christ and sharing the message with Him, I would most definitely include baptism as something to be obeyed. I don’t think many of us here would argue with that whatsoever.
The problem I have with what you are saying is this: That we HAVE to know exactly what baptism is doing prior to being baptized for it to be valid and be acceptable to God. I don’t read that in the Bible and I serve a God who wants ALL men to be saved (I know they all will not, but it is still His desire). If we are being obedient to Him, but may not have it all figured out yet, I know, because I serve a powerful and amazing God full of grace and love-that He will save us. It is a journey of coming to know Him and coming more into a relationship with Him-we obey Him out of a desire to be like Him and come closer to Him-but we will not understand it ALL at that moment. Actually, we will probably never understand it all until we get to heaven! It is a completely different circumstance when people have been taught the message and refuse to obey or decide to do it their own way-I do believe that.
I think why people think some in the CofC believe it is a work we do is when we emphasize more on what we KNOW that on what God does in the act of baptism-it is God who saves, not our knowledge. When we make it more of-what did you know or not know-then we boil it down to us and push God out of the picture, and I think that is wrong.
I don’t think any of us are trying to play with God’s grace-I would never want to do that. I never “want to test the waters” to see how far I can go to stay in His grace-that would just be absurd. I know some do that, and they are treading on dangerous ground-but I honestly believe that the men and women who have posted here are not in that category, and are truly trying to faithfully follow God the best we know how.
Ok, maybe that was more than a few things
There is another thing that you said, Corey that resonated with me:
“I think the Bible teaches that grace is good enough to cover our honest faults and misunderstandings. To openly reject a teaching because it doesn’t fall in line with what we’ve been previously taught is not an honest misunderstanding - it is an outright rejection of God’s word.”
I completely agree-that is why I have changed some of my stances that are normally “CofC doctrine” because what I read in the Bible does not line up with some of the beliefs, and when it boils down to it-my loyalties lie with God and what He says over what the “church of Christ” tells me to believe. That is what frustrates me when something can be directly pointed out in scripture to some of those who have been GIVEN a line of doctrine to believe-and EVEN when the Word of God is placed in front of their face to show what they are teaching does not line up with what they have previously believed or have been taught-they choose to stay where they are. I don’t get that. I know that is not easy-to admit that something you have believed all along may not be correct-and it is a journey of constantly seeking, discovering, studying, and trying to figure out the will of God. We will never “arrive”… until we meet God face to face. I definitely look forward to that day!!
Amen, Rick!!
Katherine, what specifically do you see that the cofC is teaching that’s not biblical? You state you can show them ( us ) places in the bible and we just ignore it – what things do refer to? We could easily make the same argument and say we show you things and you fail to believe them. This is the whole problem – we all have our convictions as to what we believe and when someone rejects them ,we often reject the person. This, I think is where we should learn to walk together and love each other as Christ loves us…as JP pointed out, who gives any of us the right to say we are right totally with our interpretations ? I have my own convictions as to what I believe the scripture teaches and I could very well be wrong, but I refuse to be like Johnny and others and dismiss everyone who disagrees with me. That attitude is pure pride and only create “puffed up knowledge”.
Corey said: I think the Bible teaches that grace is good enough to cover our honest faults and misunderstandings. To openly reject a teaching because it doesn’t fall in line with what we’ve been previously taught is not an honest misunderstanding - it is an outright rejection of God’s word.
Corey, you as I was raised c of c and we were taught certain things. Do you EVER reject a teaching because it does not fall in line with what the c of c taught you? Think about it. Additionally, do you really believe people outright rejects God’s word? What would they be gaining to be intentionally doing that. I think they are not rejecting God’s word outright, rather, it is an outright rejection of YOUR interpretation or the interpretation you were taught. I think your comment stems from some of the things we were taught, like people in denominations “don’t want to follow the truth” Like this is some character flaw that denominational types have.
I agree Gail. I dont meet many people who are “trying” to reject God or the word, but there are many who fight and debate with each other over their interpretations..hense the many, many sects and denominations - even within the church of Christ.
Oh Randy, I think you misunderstood me-I am actually a member of the “church of Christ”, and I wasn’t referring that to all of us-I meant those with the mentality of Johnny and those like him. I was specifically referring to a man (who is a preacher) that me, Nathan, Gail, and some others have engaged with-who will refuse to face any scripture I give him but will only continue to tout his party line-without even seeing it-and is incredibly rude to those who disagree with him.
I am sorry for the confusion-I did not mean that towards anyone here (except Johnny). If you would read through most of what I have written, you would know that I do not dismiss people who disagree with me-even these people who believe they have it all right. I will not reject a person who does not believe like I do. I have tried to focus on the love and unity we find in Christ as we walk together and try to be faithful to God and His will. We do not have to agree on everything to be able to do that-if you will read what I have written, you can see that, I hope. I completely agree with what you said-I know I do not have it ALL right, either-that is why I said none of us have “arrived”, but I do continue to study and learn on my own-taking what I have been taught and measuring it up to the Word of God. That is what I meant.
I hope I cleared that up
Gail - I wasn’t raised in the church of Christ, I was raised in the Baptist church. Because of that I know what it is like to be told that my previously held beliefs may not be correct. Everyone keeps talking about personal interpretations. If you read Acts 2:38 and you conclude that baptism is essential you have no personal interpretation, you’re just saying what Peter said. If you read it and conclude that baptism isn’t essential then you are injecting personal interpretations. The big question is why would you interpret it differently than what it says? Usually because you’ve already been taught it isn’t essential to salvation. That is exactly how I reacted at first. I had to stop trying to see the Bible through Baptist lenses, or even Church of Christ lenses, and just let it say what it says.
Katherine - first off, I didn’t question Rick’s baptism. I even said that he is free to correct me if he believes and teaches that baptism occurs prior to salvation. I know what he teaches now because he’s made it clear here. I once believed as the Baptists do, so I’m not coming from left field here. Rick is still free to correct me, but I’m confident he won’t, because what I said is true amongst almost all Baptists.
Second, you say that you would always teach baptism. Why? Would you teach that baptism is by immersion? Why? The truth is, anything that you would teach on baptism you learned through God’s word. That is all I’m doing here - trying to present the sum of God’s word on baptism, not just some of God’s word on baptism.
Again I’ll ask you, like I’ve asked everyone else here, why would Paul in Acts 19 have the Ephesians to be immersed again if there was no proper way to do it? Why are we acting like the passages on baptism are mysterious or cryptic? They are not. Paul stated that baptism was one of the “elementary principles” of our faith. Something elementary should be able to be understood. If it doesn’t matter what we believe, just that we do have some sort of understanding of baptism, then what Paul did was foolish and redundant.
I see you, Randy and Dennis as coming from a noble position. You want the unity Christ prayed for and you want to join in fellowship with those who profess Christ. I want the same. I also want to be like Aquilla and Priscilla and present the word of God in its full form. I want to be like Paul and make sure no one takes a chance on their salvation because they only have a partial understanding. Having a partial understanding does not make a person wicked, it just means that they aren’t complete. Why must we reject a full understanding? Why is that not something worthy of striving for?
Look at the attitude of the Ephesians in Acts 19 and compare it to the attitudes of many today. Those men simply submitted and today we argue.
Thank you for your response, Corey, and I will have to get back with you…
I know Johnny quite well. I have atteneded his place here and tents and have emailed him for 10 years. I still talk some via email with him. I am from the area Nathan is from…
Corey - see you, Randy and Dennis as coming from a noble position. You want the unity Christ prayed for and you want to join in fellowship with those who profess Christ. I want the same. I also want to be like Aquilla and Priscilla and present the word of God in its full form. I want to be like Paul and make sure no one takes a chance on their salvation because they only have a partial understanding. Having a partial understanding does not make a person wicked, it just means that they aren’t complete.
Randy - Who will ever be complete in understanding totally while here on earth? I dont know of anyone, but I do understand what you are saying too.
Corey, I understand the unity to be “in Christ” not in our understanding of every doctrine and verse.
I didn’t mean that as any reflection on you, Randy-I know that you know Johnny, but I know that you no longer believe like him or endorse what he is doing.
I am sorry if my message somehow became distorted.
No, its all good. I am far from being part of these men and will do my best to make every know that all people in the church of Christ do not act the way they do. They have really given the church of Christ a bad name around here…