Churches of christ noninstrumental

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

Is this a cult, or are they orthodox christians. They told me that they are the only to heaven. Just like to know your opinion.

[STEVE (68.119.202.252)]

THEY ARE A CULT THEY BELEIVE YOU HAVE TO BE BAPTISED IN THE NAME OF JESUS IN ORDER TO BE SAVED

[Moosy (66.162.203.195)]

What is a cult, Steve? Anything that might disagree with your worldview?

And, by the way, you are wrong. The churches of Christ do not baptise in the name of Jesus. They do so in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They do however, insist on being baptized in order to be "saved".

-Moosy

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

The mainstream church of Christ is not a cult. I'm assuming that by saying non-instrumental, that you're referring to The International Church of Christ. I believe that they are a cult. I was part of them for a while. They refused to baptize me because I was not happy enough for someone about to be baptized. And yes, they believe that baptism is what saves. They kept sin lists and had breaking sessions. Delphi has a couple of forums devoted to x-members. A lot of people have been hurt by that group. They used to have one over one discipling where every member had to have a discipler, but they did away with that I think. The abuse still lingers, though. So much has happened with that church over the last year that I can't even begin to go into it all. There are plenty of sites you can visit to read up on them, such as Reveal and Cults on Campus.
Take care and God bless.

[Anonymous (199.141.125.33)]

The “Church of Christ” (Campbellite). Over 150 years ago Thomas and Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone, and others started a “Restoration Movement” in places like Ohio and Kentucky, and elsewhere, to restore 1st Century Christianity. They said that the Bible was their only rule of faith and practice and that “where the Bible speaks, we speak and where the Bible is silent, we are silent.” With regard to where the Bible is silent, there was a split over liberty. Some said that where the Bible is silent, you have liberty. The super-conservatives took the position that where the Bible is silent, you do not want to introduce into the church anything not mentioned in the Bible, and certainly not mentioned in the New Testament: Organ, Piano, etc. These are the non-instrumental faction.

There was a split in about 1920, afforded by the census, where the non-instrumental brethren hijacked the name “Church of Christ” and filed separately with the census bureau. They have plain buildings and the only name on it will be “Church of Christ.” The others resorted to calling themselves the “Christian Churches and Churches of Christ” and they will have names on their buildings like “First Christian Church” or “Central Church of Christ.” In the 1950s, when the liberals were breaking off of many denominations, the “Disciples of Christ” broke off and can probably be identified with the ecumenical movement which is somewhat Universal Unitarian.

Doctrinally, they are strong on the “sacraments” of “water baptism” and “the Lord’s supper (communion).” Some of them believer that you can’t go to heaven if you are not water baptized, and some believe that you can only be water baptized by them. They have made an idol of both these so-called sacraments.

In Ephesians, it says that there is “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of us all.” If there is one baptism for gentiles, it has to be the baptism of the Holy Spirit. They make a big deal that the Greek word for baptism means to immerse. That is mostly correct but they pump water into it. The translators did not translate the Greek BAPTIZO because there was no perfect word to translate it into, so they transliterated it in “baptism”. It roughly means immersed, engulfed, filled, inundated; and it fits being baptized in the Holy Spirit, or having received the Holy Spirit when you have repented and become a true believing child of God.

The Lord’s Supper is really the gospel account of when the JEWS got together on the night he was betrayed to celebrate the Passover. The Jews were commanded to do this on one night of the years. Bastardized “Christianity” has turned this into a pagan ritual and called it Sunday Communion, or Weekly Communion, or Monthly Communion, or Quarterly Communion, or Easter Duties. The Lord wasn’t instituting anything new when he was EXPLAINING the TRADITIONAL Passover that they had performed for many generations. He explained that the emblems of the Passover referred to HIM and that HE is the Passover. Communion simply means fellowship. Eating together is communion like having a pot luck meal after Sunday meeting; or any other day.

Christ’s baptism was a death, burial, and resurrection. “We are buried WITH Christ”, not LIKE Christ. We can not do the same thing. He did it ALL for us. He took our place and got what WE deserved, and he is the only one who could have been the sacrificial lamb because he was without spot or wrinkle – without sin. So when John the Baptist was hesitant to baptize Jesus, it was because he knew that Jesus was different and that the water baptism that he was performing was not appropriate for Jesus. The function he performed was to Anoint Jesus as the Christ, as the Messiah. “Christos” means “the anointed one.” His anointing as the Christ, by John, is common Biblical Christian doctrine and also included in Old Testament Bible prophesy.

When Philip water baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, he was conducting the common practice that was performed on Jewish proselytes. The Jews had ceremonial cleansings and washings; foot washings, head shavings, and scripture states “diverse washings”. The New Testament refers to baptism as “not the cleansing of the flesh” with water.

The “church” is not a building made with hands. It is the “body of Christ” or the “ecclesia” (Greek) which means “the called-out ones”. The Church cannot be “restored”. The church is an absolute. The scripture says that the Lord adds to it daily, those who are being saved; and that nobody can add to it or take away. There is one church that all Christians automatically belong to – and there is nothing else to join. Regarding leadership, now that the Apostles [sent out ones] are no longer with us, all we have is that is scriptural is in the letters of Timothy and Titus. The elder brethren in local assemblies watch out for our spiritual welfare and from among them there might be a “bishop”, from the Greek word Episkopos, which “epi” means “over”, and “scope” means “see”, and “os” is “one who”, or “overseer”. There are no arch-bishops. All leadership is local.

These truths are so simple but organized [pagan] religion has got it all wrong. After the New Testament times, Gnostics, worshippers of Diana, and other pagan influences corrupted Christian assemblies much like the liberals do today. The single worst thing was for Constantine to amalgamate Christian and pagan practices and declare a Holy Roman Empire, and that is what we see today. Babylon, the mother of harlots. The harlots are all the denominations. When Martin Luther came out of Romanism, not all Romanism came out of him.

I am a true “catholic” [universal], because I am true to the “one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and father of us all; who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” [Paul, to the Ephesians.]

[Empyrean (64.12.117.20)]

As a former member, I agree that this "church" is a cult because they teach that you will only be saved if you go through thier study program, be baptized and become a member of thier "church". They say that non-members aren't true followers of Christ and will not be saved.

I was a leader in this church and It saddened me to see the people follow and put thier trust in thier fellow disciples more than they would God. God is the only one that can judge you - not your disciplers.

[Anonymous (199.141.125.33)]

I was once a part of the "Christian Churches and Churches of Christ" and I graduated from one of their Bible colleges. I would call them very sectarian, but they don't quite meet the definition of a cult. Cult's are such that try to control every aspect of your life and just about have an internal security system to make sure that everyone falls in line with the all-powerful leader. Cult's are militant in wanting to rule over your flesh.

Secrarianism, or exclusiveness, is the problem with virtually all denominations. Then the liberal denominations don't believe in much of anything. The whole basis of sectarianism is that someone thought they had an original idea that would be a help to God and they went ahead and sold their idea to others. MAN has corrupted Christianity. http://www.ChurchGrowth.cc

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

I don't know; however, I was brought up in this denomination and when I was saved went through a major "change in my way of thinking" (a conversion)


If a cult is:
A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry?id=c0799700

then I would say no.

However, I certainly believe it is very difficult to be saved in this organization since everything points to "works" instead of "Jesus"

[Anonymous (199.158.95.166)]

Anon 64: I'd say the majority of them are saved in spite of the institution and in spite of the works of the flesh. But I didn't know very many of the "non-instrumental brethren", as we called them.

[Former Church of Christ Member (64.12.117.20)]

199,

You know I have to maintain that it is harder to be saved in this organization; although, I am not God and by no means no anyone else's heart.

When the emphasis is on what you have to do and not what Jesus did it is hard to "believe" that salvation is by grace and not by "your works". I can work and work and work; however, if I do not realize that it is Christ that saves me and not my works then I miss the point of Christ's sacrifice. Again, I can only talk about my own experience.

For me, it was a total mind change, a total conversion. I was baptised in the Church of Christ around age 12. But I struggled. I was the "good" child; yet I could never be good enough. The issue vexed my mind. How could I ever go to heaven if I couldn't be good enough? I seem doomed to loose my salvation daily.

Then one day (when I was in my mid-twenties) I was driving home in my car and listening to the story about the rich young ruler which I had heard many times before. You know the disciples were amazed because this ruler was known to be good (as far as works, etc.); however, he still did not seem to be good enough. But then (as Paul Harvey says) I heard the rest of the story. When the disciples asked Jesus if this man cannot be saved, then who can? Jesus stated, with man this is impossible but with God, everything is possible. (Now I am paraphrasing here because my bible is in the other room.) That's when it hit me. I could not "save" myself. I would never be good enough and would fail in at least some small sin every day. It was Christ's shed blood that saved me.

Now, I am not saying that every member of the Church of Christ understands the teachings of this church the same way I did. I understand that there are saved people attending various churches; however, I suspect that a number of individuals in this organization get hung up on the works issue like I did.

I can only speak of the "non-instrumental brethern" because that is all I know. Perhaps the "non-instrumental brethern" are more focused on works than the Christian Churches. I do not know.

[199 (67.170.149.100)]

Former Member:

Yes, they are more legalistic which goes along with outward works; having to be water baptized by only them, etc. Your situation is probably not uncommon. I imagine the "not being good enough" is enough to doubt your salvation if you don't have a proper understanding of being saved by Grace, even though it sounds like you were definitely saved.

The Campbelites make an idol out of the so-called "sacraments". When I was in their Bible college, I was assigned to prepared an oral report on the sacraments, which I had thought were legitimate at the time, but I really couldn't convince myself with my own presentation.

My experience with organized religion was that I concluded that man was trying to program the holy spirit with his own works. All denominations became man-made religion. The Restoration Movement was foolishly trying to restore something that is already an absolute. Christ is the head of the Church and He regulates the Church. I came out of organized religion with no place to go but I found some Christians who believe like me. You can check out my web site to find out what I believe, if you wish.

I would like to share with you the following excerpt which was taken from my web site http://www.ChurchGrowth.cc .

One premise that should be helpful is that under GRACE there are no ordinance for fleshly performance. When Christ fulfilled the Law by His death on the cross; when the veil of the temple was rent, the Law and ordinances were discontinued: No more foot washings, head shavings, sacrifices, ceremonial cleansings and washings, or any other outward means to serving God other than the law of love. The so-called last supper was actually the last Passover supper with Jesus. The Jews observed the Passover once a year on a certain night. There is no connection between "Passover" and "communion". It is total heresy. So-called "communion" is simply fellowship including eating together. Also, baptism certainly means to immerse, engulf, or inundate, but not necessarily with water. There are five kinds of baptism in the scriptures but only one for the Christian walk under Grace. There is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5). If there is one baptism under Grace, what baptism does it have to be? Answer: The Holy Spirit. More than one baptism under Grace would be contrary to Ephesians 4:5. Being cleansed with water [like a Jewish proselyte] as "an outer sign of an inward work" is not Biblical but a man made doctrine. Next, John's baptism was for Jews, for the remission of their sins without full knowledge of the message of the One who would come after John with a greater baptism. John's baptism [anointing] of Jesus was to introduce Jesus as The Christ (The Anointed One) who would also go through a death, burial, and resurrection; providing Redemption and Atonement for Sin. No one can qualify to be baptized with the same anointing of Jesus by John. It is sacrilegious to try to imitate Jesus. He did all the work. We are buried "with him" not "like him". Early in the Book of Acts the Church did not have Gentiles yet; not until Acts 10 and dealt with again in Acts 15 (and Galatians). In Chapter 8 the Christians were all Jewish and still conducted themselves with the Jewish traditions. The Etheopian expected the ceremonial cleansing and washing that was performed with prosylites; it was unnecessary under Grace.

The scriptures are so clear on these things that, if you haven't become pathological in the traditions of men, you can easily figure it out for yourself. I recommend that you study and prove these things for yourself.

[fedupwithripoffs (65.65.224.15)]

After reading through your fine points for spotting a cult I believe you've left out the most insiduos one of all. They have brainwashed our children, imposed their will on our gov. taken untold millions from our economy without paying taxes, polluted our society with hate and confusion,(by posting inaccurate websites for example) murdered untold millions in past wars and inquesitions, operate bussiness (again without paying taxes)and undermine innocent primitives in foriegn lands as they irradicate their cultures.(This is just the tip of the iceburg) but most of all they prey on the weak, the old and disabled with emotional triggers and the preaching of ignorance,(no wonder people are looking for other paths.)promising them heaven in exchange for a donation. I could go on and on but you know who you are. I give you fundamentalist christions, you self rightous piece of garbage. look in a mirror and read off your list of cult tipoff's.
you and your's should be at the top of your own list.Tell us about Jim and Tammey Fae and the multi-million dollar scam they used to bleed old people from their SS money. They were just two that got caught, how many does that leave. You and who else?

[Wyoming (67.170.149.100)]

fedupwithripoffs:

You are throwing out the baby with the bath water but you are partially right about things.

Most of the stuff done in the name of Christianity isn't Christian at all. You can start with the Crusades and the Inquisition and take us up to the circus of phoney religious racketeers on T.V. The perpetrators give Jesus Christ a black eye. There are a lot of non-Christians among the Christians who give Christianity a bad name. Satan has been going to church for 2000 years. Look at all the disjointed denominations! Satan's number one mission is to get everybody to rebel against God, like he did, and blame the Judeo-Christian religion for everything. It's no big surprise!

And there are naive people caught in the middle. The perpetrators will be worse off than ordinary sinners when they appear before the Judgement Seat of Christ. There will be a day of reconning.

There are also true Christians and true Christianity with those who are true believers conducting themselves with the true spirit of Christ in their hearts. But we get a black eye for the phonies who call themselves "christian" and do evil.

When making blanket statements, please try to remember that "always" and "never" are seldom.

[Anonymous (12.10.104.39)]

In response to 199:

I am an ordained minister in the Christian Church, and I must vehemently disagree with your assessment! Especially of the Lord's Supper ("communion"). If you carefully read ALL the accounts in the NT (including Paul's) you will see that Jesus Christ did indeed institute the Lord's Supper for the church to celebrate, not only as a memorial of His death, but also in anticipation of His return.

As for the Christian Church/Church of Christ (and I do not speak of the non-instrumental churches of Christ here), we most definitely do not "make an idol" out of communion or baptism. While some in our denomination put more emphasis on baptism than others, for the most part, I believe, we agree that we are saved by grace through faith, and that baptism is the first act of obedience to our Lord and Saviour. We do emphasize the Lord's Supper, and partake weekly as we believe the Scriptures teach.

Your assessment of the Restoration Movement is off-base as well, and I suggest you do some more research into it, to get a correct view. The Stone-Campbell Movement by Leroy Garret is an excellent work and should help you in this regard.

Are we a "cult?" By no means!

Mr Music

[199 (199.141.125.33)]

My Dear Brother,

I see that you have learned your catachism well, and obviously you have read my postings above.

Nobody has been able to disprove scripturally this understanding of the scriptures on (1) communion which is the followship of the saints in coming together in the name of the Lord, which includes eating together, and not gluttonous and getting drunk [big meal?], and apparently they ate at tables [besides lying at meat] because there is a referrerence to the Lord's table, and (2) the one baptism [one Lord, one faith, one baptism] for the Gentile Church being baptism in the Holy Spirit. The traditionalists can only try to read things in between the lines.

If I have mis-represented any facts about the Restoration Movement, please correct me. My knowledge is from Harold Ford's class and textbook on Restoration History. I won't be reading Leroy Garret's book becasue I no longer retain an interest. I'll have to depend upon you.

[Anonymous (12.10.104.100)]

199 -

You state: "The Restoration Movement was foolishly trying to restore something that is already an absolute. Christ is the head of the Church and He regulates the Church." This, of course, is not true!

The basic premise of the Restoration Movement was to get back to what the Bible taught, and away from the "traditions" and man-made "doctrines" of the denominations. Did they succeed? Only to a point, I will admit. We have always considered Christ as the Head of the Church! The Restorationists were not trying to "restore" Christ's headship, but rather were attempting to fully recognize His headship, whereas other denominations had failed to do so.

As for the Lord's Supper - I'm not sure I understand what you are saying in your last post. I do know that "tables" is not the same as we understand them to be. If you recall, the Bible says they were "reclining at table" - a reference to the fact that people at that time reclined and ate their meals, probably at a "table" that was just inches off the floor. Other than that, I am not sure what you're looking for from me as far as explanation.

Baptism. Now, that's an interesting discussion in itself! What is the "one baptism"? I would think (and I may be agreeing with you here), that it is the placing of a person into the family of God; that is, the Holy Spirit placing us into Christ. This "Holy Spirit baptism" is NOT what passes for such today, with the "speaking in tongues" and such! Does this mean that "water baptism" has no place in the Church today? By no means! For it is through this baptism that we identify ourselves with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and (I believe) is but one "part" of the "whole" of the "one baptism."

I do not doubt your sincerity or your experiences. But I do believe you have lost your perspective on the Christian Church/Church of Christ for one reason or another. A bad experience, perhaps? Or unsound teachers? Whatever, you seem to be somewhat bitter toward our denomination. And I hope and pray that I might be of help to you in some way.

Mr Music

[Anon 199 (199.141.125.33)]

My friend, I simply reject the Campbelite doctrine, and I still have much fondness for the good that came out of my relationship with these dear brethren. I heard over and over again that we were attempting to "restore the first century church." The Church is an absolute and cannot be "restored". Are you trying to clarify that it's not the Church to be restored but the form of practice? With regard to forms, I used to call it, "trying to program the holy spirit." I believe I've gone many further steps beyond the Restoration Movement regarding sectarianism, as follows:

http://www.mauricejohnsonarchives.com/Clergymen_Content.htm

When someone like me comes along and threatens the security you find in your sacramental ordinances, it is not uncommon the retort that the other person must be bitter, especially if you disagree vehemently.

You are admitting "water baptism" as a second baptism which is an extraneous ordinance that is not authorized in the scriptures. You must certainly know that "an outer sign of an inner work" does not come from scripture. The first thing I could think to be close to that would be the fruit of the holy spirit.

On communion, I'll more simply say that they got together to eat just like we have church pot lucks today, and that the Greek for communion simply means fellowship. Also that the Last Passover was for Jews only and the words Jesus spoke were in context with the Jews and the future of the Jews, nothing new for Gentile believers.

That was an excellent post you made at the other thread in answer to the person that said that all paths lead to God. It's amazing how irrational many of these postings are.

You must be a music minister? You'll love this. Click on the left for alphabetical titles:

http://www.geocities.com/hearchoirs/

How do you feel about your home team. I grew up with the other team.

[Michael (Mr_Music) (12.10.79.194)]

199 -

I see we will probably not agree on baptism or on the Lord's Supper. I sincerely believe you are wrong about the Lord's Supper, in saying it was not for Gentiles. I believe Jesus' words were addressed to ALL believers, "Jew" and "Gentile" both. Context, my friend (and I mean the context of the entire Scriptures) dictates that the Lord's Supper, as instituted by Jesus Christ on the Passover, is something we "Gentile" Christians are to observe. Or have you forgotten Paul's admonition in 1 Corinthians 11:20ff?? Paul was not writing to Jews, but to Gentiles! And instructing them in the practice of the Lord's Supper!

As for baptism, no I am not making water baptism a "second baptism" - I believe it is a part of the "one baptism" as I said before. It should be the first act of obedience when one has been placed into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit.

Right now, I'm not an active minister - that is, I'm not preaching anywhere. I have been a music minister, as well as a youth minster (that's not my calling, though!), minister of education, and a preaching minister. I'm always ready and willing to fill the pulpit if needed. My "ministry" at present is via the web. Specifically, dealing with the cults. It's an interest I've had for over 30 years, so I am somewhat of an "expert" on it.

Enjoyed your post, even though we disagree.

Mr Music

[Wyoming (199.141.125.33)]

Thank you Michael. We are still one in Christ and even though we disagree, we are friends. It's Christ in us that counts. It's been a pleasure. We do well to work together at these other threads. I don't know for how long. [I've known the people at the postings against Robert A. Grove Ministries, Inc. They believe the same doctrine that I believe.]

One last thing... For me the Lord's supper is eating a full meal together (without gluttony and getting drunk with wine -- note the context.), which is different than the annual Jewish Passover. The text of the Bible does not call the Passover the Lord's Supper. The titles in the margin call it the Lord's Supper. Not enough Christians question that.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Wyoming,

I have been thinking about this a bit since I originally posted as Former Member. How could I have originally been saved if I thought it was "my" actions of believing, repenting, and being baptised that saved me? All I am saying is that I could not really get to the place where you have to be to be saved if I believed that I could participate in my salvation via being baptised.

Isn't one of the main points in understanding Christ's gifts realizing that there is nothing you can do to save yourself? (And I will include baptism here). Even Satan believes in Jesus. Isn't it the understanding that:

1. You are a sinner and can do nothing to save yourself.

2. You need a Savior who is all sufficient - thus my belief that once saved always saved.

3. Simply believing and accepting this gift.

When I became a member of the Church of Christ, I simply believed that Jesus died on the cross for my sins; however, I skipped number one above. I was still trying to help in my own salvation.

I know one thing, when I was a member of the Church of Christ, I always worried about my salvation, now I have no doubts regarding this.

God Bless,

[alphaomega (alphaomega)]

In reply to MrMichaels post above.. the quote:
As for baptism, no I am not making water baptism a "second baptism" - I believe it is a part of the "one baptism" as I said before. It should be the first act of obedience when one has been placed into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit.

If you think water baptism is somehow one with "the baptism of the holy spirit", you indeed do need instruction on Ephesians 4:5

There are many baptisms in the bible, but surely if you believe you are saved by grace ALONE, you realize water baptism cannot contribute to your salvation one iota.

You see after God called me out of Roman Catholicism, I was looking for a bible believing church that was non denominational. I ended up in a Church of Christ in toronto canada and even went to their bible college for one year. I did not go back because of their stand on "water baptism" and "baptismal salvation".

Before I left "ontario christian seminary" I asked the dean of the that church of christ campbellite school. If a person is not baptized in water, will they or will they not get into heaven? I pressed the headmaster and teacher for a clear cut answer.. his reply was NO that such a person would not get into heaven. I was dumbfounded and my jaw dropped.. such a well versed greek student taught at princeton seminary he was, would make such a claim.

NO, I did NOT go back to Ontario Christian Seminary in Toronto, as they teach the heresy of "baptismal regeneration". The baptists have tried to engage them in debate many times on this issue but they refuse.

Furthermore, every Church of Christ indoctrinated member will tell you the "water" in John 3:5 definately refers to "water baptism". That is a lie and trick of satan to brainwash a person into the sacramental theology of Augustine, which the church of christ campbellites unwittingly follow.

The order of salvation in relation to redemption is ALWAYS blood before water.. take note of this.. even in the tabernacle services they had to do a blood sacrifice before even attempting to get to the laver of washing. So that right there refutes the church of christ sacramental position.

Baptismal Regeneration is a serious heretical error that attacks the foundational teaching of regneration. Paedobaptists who baptise infants are in no better a position thinking that the waters of baptism will somehow secure sacramental grace to the recipient. I could go on and on about this subject why the church of christ is a cult as I was myself in this cult at one time, but suffice to say, there are some major distinctions between water baptism and regeneration, and here are some major distinctions for those who have not look further into this subject:

http://gospelgrace.com/soteriology/MajorContrastsWaterBaptismRegeneration.htm

Major Contrasts Between Regeneration
And The Ordinance of Water Baptism

1)
a) Regeneration is by the agency of the Holy Spirit
(John 3:3,5,6,7,8 proves this by the context regeneration is found in);
b) but Baptism is in water, administered by the agency of a man of God.

2)
a) Regeneration is the instantaneous operation of God,
b) but Baptism must wait for both the Baptizer and water.
example: “Many state that the Lord came into my heart today; well, did He do it over the a Baptistry? And just as soon as that work was started, it was completed by immersing you in water, for the remission of your sins.

The above cited example is far fetched. The “Church of Christ” Campbellite Denomination (who claim they are not a denomination – which is a lie) keeps the baptistery full of water all the time, because of this mentality. If a person comes forward and states that he believes on Jesus Christ, the “Church of Christ” Campbellites, have their four steps :
a) believe,
b) repent,
c) confess before the church
d) be baptized in water “for the remission of your sins”.

The above stated list is backwards, as repentance precedes believeing, in reality and both of these works of God are the fruits of being born of God. One doesn’t repent and believe, in order to be born of God. Is the Absolute Sovereignty of God of this universe so dependent on man, that He works a work of grace; He begins it, but wait a minute, we’ve got to fill the baptistery, we’ve got to go get the preacher, it’ll take two to three hours to fill it, so we have to wait… this is all so foolish. The difference is between instantaneous work of the Sovereign Spirit in quickening in making alive, (what did God say in Ezekiel 16:6? He said to the infant LIVE!) and the work of man which must wait for the Baptizer and water.

3)
a) Regeneration changes the nature of the heart;
b) but Baptism is the external manifestation of that change, in an act of obedience; (because water baptism is the first work of obedience in one who has been saved). “As many as gladly received his word, were baptized.” Acts 2:41. The Jerusalem Jews would not have received Peter’s words, if they had not been quickened, if they already had not life. So, they gladly received the Word of God, by the indwelling spirit of regeneration that indwelt them, and as a result nobody had to twist their arms to get them under the water. They knew they weren’t being baptized in order to go to heaven, but to show that they accepted the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, in their conversion experience.

4)
a) The Spirit of Regeneration is irresistible, as no man can resist God.
God said in Ezekiel 16:6; … LIVE, and the infant instantaneously had life, and so it is with us as Christians. It is the work of God on the passive sinner, in the subconscious, but we do know concsioiusly that something has happened to us; ones desires are different, ones outlook is different, which is all the fruit of what has happened.
b) but Baptism can be denied by the Baptizer, until regeneration is evidenced. No pastor or preacher should be too anxious to baptize anybody, simply on confession, but he should also SEE some evidence of it. This is biblical, because even John the Baptist would not baptize those who heard his message until they brought forth fruit meet with repentance; Matthew 3:8. If water baptism was absolutely necessary for salvation, that He would permit this ability to deny by the pastor? Absolutely not! The Church of Christ Campbellites always try to get their converts under the water as quick as they can. That is “Synergism”, which is unbiblical.

5)
a) Regeneration takes place in the sphere of man’s subconcsiousness;
b) but, Baptism takes place in the convert’s consciousness, as he knows what he’s doing, because He’s heard the truth of God, and he wants to to be obedient, to what the scriptures state.

6)
a) Regeneration is the Gift of Life;
b) but Baptism is an act of obedience OF THAT LIFE. In other words, the passive sinner, becomes active in obeying the command to be Baptized. Life in action is what is demonstrated.

7)
a) Regeneration gives a good conscience; 1 Peter 3:20,21
b) but Baptism is the answer of that good conscience, toward God.

8)
a) Regeneration is not dependent on the Gospel, (as this would be Gospel Regeneration, which would be as heretical as Baptismal Regeneration.):
b) but Baptism is dependent on the proclamation of the truth of the Gospel., If it takes a man to baptize someone, then that is synergism or cooperation (2 agents working together to accomplish something:, but you do not have 2 agents in giving life. Must someone preach before God can quicken an individual? This is ludicrous. God gives life, preparing the person to receive the messege of the Gospel. God uses no mediator or instrumental means between Himself and the Sinner, to give him life (or quicken / regenerate).

9)
a) Regeneration enables the recipient to put away the filth of the flesh;
b) but Baptism does not put away the filth of the flesh (Sarx); this necessitates a word study on the word flesh. 1 Peter 3:20,21

10)
a) Regeneration is the application of Jesus Christ’s blood, or His finished work by the agency of the Holy Spirit.
b) but in Baptism, there is the application of water in a burial, which has already been preceeded by Jesus Christ’s blood.

BLOOD ALWAYS PRECEDES WATER,in relation to salvation. In the Old Testaments there were types which illustrated this, as in the Tabernacle worship. The alter of brass, where blood was shed, preceded the lavar of washing. There are many who have different modes of baptism;

i) Burial – which is the correct New Testament method.
ii) Sprinkling – all who sprinkle, will sprinkle infants (paedobaptist), included in this group are Methodists, Presbyterians, Protestant Reformed, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics.. these all sprinkle their infants. If baptism is the answer of a good conscience before God due to having been regenerated as 1 Peter 3:20,21 states, then why do Paedobaptists baptize infants by sprinkling and then when the subject is older, he makes his confession of faith to confirm the salvation obtained in baptism. This is NOT New Testament Baptism.

There are many today, whose baptism is on the wrong side of their conversion experience. We must be sure our baptism is on the right side of one’s conversion experience. One can be sprinkled, immersed or whatever, and not be truly regenerated.

PAEDOBAPTISM is no more efficacious than bathing ones infant at home. The Lord Jesus Christ baptized nobody, and even Paul stated that Christ did not send him to baptize, but to preach the Gospel. John 4:2 & 1 Corinthians 1:17. If baptism was important for salvation then why did Paul state this? The Holy Spirit would never have inspired Paul to write this if Baptism was essential to salvation. In light of the above evidence presented, it is conclusive that Baptismal Regeneration is a heretical doctrine or teaching, which is propogated by religionists, to try to prove that unless a believer is baptized in water (as the Bible does instruct us to do so, but NOT with a view of obtaining or securing salvation), the he is not saved and converted in the New Testament sense.

Taken from: a sermon by W.E. Best on January 26, 1992 pm

[alphaomega (alphaomega)]

When church of christ members are pressed and asked to give account of their beliefs and their heresy is withstood, they will always take you through THEIR "pigtrail" THEY have created in the bible. There is nothing wrong with the bible of course, its their self imposed interpretation and path of interpretation they take you through in the bible that really stinks.

Church of Christ will alway take you to to Acts 2:38 as proof that unless you are baptized in water.. you cannot receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, the one problem with this logic and reasoning and interpretation of Acts 2:38 is that the greek text uses the word "eis" which can be translated "because of" and not just "for" as the King James translators have translated. So the better translation that illumines the text of acts 2:38 more clearly is.. "be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, BECAUSE OF the remission of sins." There is absolutely nothing wrong with that translation, check me out in your greek lexicons on that if you dont believe me. So water baptism by this proof shows that it should never be administered unles there is prior proof of grace. Unless there is prior grace and demonstration of true faith, a fruit of that grace, what use is water baptism, but a futile excercize of the flesh.

So you better make sure you have grace before baptism, or what good is baptism. A sinner can come up a dead sinner out of the water just as much as he or she was dead going down into water without grace.

Of course the other passage in the pigtrail interpretations of "church of christ" cult members is Pauls conversion account in Acts 22:16. To begin with "water baptism" does NOT literally wash away sins, all water baptism did for the apostle paul was show him "figuratively" in the act of baptism that his sins HAD been already washed away prior to his baptism. It is NOT vice versa. God is a God of order, especially in the order of salvation, see 1 Corinthians 6:11 in relation to this verse. There is no mention of water baptism in 1 Cor 6:11, but Paul makes much of this spiritual washing there. What is paul talking about when speaking to the corinthians about this washing? Surely not water baptism.

I only post all this to help those who have had problems with this teaching of baptism, as I know I did at one time.

[alphaomega (alphaomega)]

Michael you quoted this above:

As for baptism, no I am not making water baptism a "second baptism" - I believe it is a part of the "one baptism" as I said before. It should be the first act of obedience when one has been placed into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit.

A question?

What is it that places a sinner into the universal body of christ the "spiritual ekklesia".

Take note! anybody can add themself to any local church but only the God the Holy Spirit can baptise a sinner into the body of Christ. Water Baptism though used in the early church as a confirmatory sign, was by no means a way of making one united with Christs body spiritually as in the universal church. Please do not forget, there are two aspects to the Body of Christ, the local and univeral aspects.

Nobody can add themselves spiritually to the body of Christ by an act of water baptism.. also take note what Luke the physician writes in ACTs.. it was the LORD who added to the church daily.

If all this "baptismal regeneration" heresy were not bad enough, with the church of christ campbellites, what about the "free will" heresies they hold to. But that is a whole other discussion for another thread.

[mr_music (mr_music)]

To alphaomega:

Rest assured, I am NOT in a cult! I have spent over 30+ years studying the cults and comparing their theology to Christianity and the Bible. So I know what constitutes a "cult."

The Christian Church/Church of Christ (not the non-instrumental group!) does NOT teach "baptismal regeneration." We believe that we are saved by grace.

Further, the doctrine of "free will" is NOT a heresy. It is taught in the Bible. And yes, this is a subject for a different thread.

I sense you are not well-learned in Christian theology. Otherwise, you would not make such ill-informed statements as you do in your posts (such as those touched on above).

Mr Music

[alphaomega (alphaomega)]

mr_music you have no clue what your mouthing off about here...

I couldnt care less if you have been studying cults for 100 years, if a person has the grace of Christ, they will not be sucked in by the church of christ cult, instrumental or non instrumental, which you so blindly adhere to. IF you knew what constitutes and does not constitute a cult, you would not be a member of the campbellite church of christ, instrumental or non instrumental.

So you are under the impression that the campbellite cult does not teach "baptismal regeneration", your deceived, I should know I was in the cult for many years and even went to their bible college. What part of what I posted about do you NOT understand?

There is so much error in your cult I barely know where to begin, baptismal regeneration in fact being one of the cheif errors.

Guys like you severely irritate me, dead wood, who think only the mormons and jehovahs witness and chritian science and scientology are the ONLY cults. Your mistaken about campbellites "sacremental" emphasis on grace. What a sick cultic religion you belong to, your campbellite cult treats people with suspicion and contempt if someone doesnt get baptized under your scheme of things. What part of "water baptism is NOT for salvation" do you NOT understand? This isnt about my ignorance, its about yours and your promotion of it.

Thank the Lord for these open boards where cultic people like you big fat pharisees can be exposed for what they really are, perverters of the gospel of Jesus Christ, pushing your sacremental theology. Let anybody be acccursed who ADDS to the once and for all delivered to the saints gospel of grace, and that is exactly what your church does, add to the gospel with your ordinance of sacramental baptism, making water baptism out to be something it is NOT.

Woe unto pharisees like you who pervert the grace of the gospel, you claim to be helping people and then tell them they are not born again if they are not baptized in water, that is error, so it is you who are in error on this point, not I.

How sad for you to be languishing for 30 odd years under such heresy, you do not have a clue about the freedom of the gospel of grace really teaches. If you did you would instantly deny such a cult.

[mr_music (mr_music)]

alphaomega -

"Do not judge, lest you be judged yourselves. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it shall be measured to you" (Matt 7:1-2, NASV).

First off, you have no idea what I believe and what I don't believe. Second of all, it doesn't matter how much time you spent in "campbellite" institutions (we despise being called "campbellite" - we are CHRISTIANS). Evidently you had quite a bad experience in the Christian Church/Churches of Christ. You cannot in all fairness lump us all together.

Nowhere in my comments did I say I believed or taught "baptismal regeneration." If you think I did, you are sadly mistaken.

Despite your time in our denomination, you have no earthly idea what we teach! I do not doubt that there are some non-instrumental churches of Christ that hold to "baptismal regeneration" and this is not a correct doctrine! And I have seen a few individuals in the Christian Church who hold to this error as well. HOWEVER, you cannot judge our entire denomination by a few individuals and/or congregations. We have no headquarters telling us what to teach/believe, like all other denominations I know of. We are autonomous congregations and answer to no "higher ups" such as a Pope or a Bishop or whatever the title happens to be.

We hold to the essentials of the faith - the Trinity, the person and Work of Jesus Christ, His physical resurrection, and salvation by GRACE.

What part of this don't YOU understand? Clearly, you are not as informed as you would like to think. It is you who are spouting off things of which you know absolutely very little, if anything at all.

BTW - I've been associated with the Christian Church for all my life. Not only has over 30+ years been spent studying the cults, but I have done so alongside the BIBLE and Christian theology. So don't sell me short - I DO know what I'm talking about here. Oh - and I studied the CULTS under Dr. Gordon Lewis at Denver Seminary; hardly a "campbellite" institution!

Mr Music

[gatsis (gatsis)]

Former member of Church of Christ in Toronto

I think that the anger displayed alongside a belief system is the Satan that is critical to washing your sins away with baptisim....whichever kind you speak of. How can a belief system bring grace to your soul when it is polluted with struggle to demand truth from others about your "so called" selfless beliefs? Any truth capable of bringing peace and the objects of spiritual desire which Christianity answers the call to, owes its power to the unobstruction of individuals paths to righteousness (in a steady and direct conversation with God and universe).

There is good reason why the Church of Christ International is known to be a cult. I know because I was entangled in it for a short time at the advent of the new millenium. They tell you who to date, that you should be ready to die for the disciples of the cause and that, yes you will go to hell if you are not baptised and if you ever choose to leave their calling. I don't believe that these doctrines can be taken seriously as sound practices of a faith based organization with the integrity of valuing its individual members mental freedom at the highest premium. The basis of faith is trust and trust can not be forced, persuaded or manmade. Trust is earned and groups like the Church of Christ abuse this sacred principle to prey on vulnerable college students on campus in search of love, friendship and community.

I am a believer in God and the proponents of the Bible on how to life your life. When it comes to the literal transcription of Biblical passages, I leave that to the clergy. Everyone commits wrongdoing in their lives so that sin becomes a counterpoint to the purity of our salvation through Christ. Good and evil there is no question exist, however, the price is too high for this question to become the bain of existence in the form of righteousness demanded rather than earned. There will always be people amongst us eager to steal power and influence, authority and social stature, wealth...whatever, with less than authentic means. The sad bit is that the failure to communicate and to get along due to spiritual differences puts religion and spirituality at the crux of political debate. Now what could be less political than the most intimate beliefs a person can have? The whole debate that the personal is political (originally a feminist argument if you will) has been bent out of shape to suit the false prophets and soap box preachers. The meaning of feminism is to bring to light the labour inequalities between males and females to try to lessen the "biology is destiny" label. However, the new age religions have twisted these lessons that sprung from the regeneration of social values after the Holocaust to justify making a new age of spiritual police in place of the Gastapo. Religion is a social value and yet of all things shared, can be the most intimate. Therefore, forcing it out into the public sphere with vehemence and vigor may not be what spirituality requires to thrive and prosper.

Todays feminist has been grappling to take hold in new hostile cultures and finds herself mutating and transforming to stay alive. No longer is only the personal political, the mental/spiritual is now also political. Feminists are too easily dismissed in a measure of economic stature, however, they should not be because their value is more than economic, it is also to serve and to protect the values of mental and spiritual freedom (the cornerstones of modern life in the Global Village) to which so much of this dialogue is owed to. In the Steppenwolf, classic rock tradion, I say "God damn the pusher man".....the pusher of drugs, ideas, weapons, sex, false promises.....whatever.

[1baptism (1baptism)]

<font face="times new roman,times,roman"><font size="+1">The Church of Christ Toronto doesn't belong in this thread.

This thread is for the Church of Christ (NON-INSTRUMENTAL), who are followers of Thomas and Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone, also known as the Restoration Movement.</font></font>

[rjchinook (rjchinook)]

I was raised in PORTLAND, OR by two alcoholic parents. My mother was very abusive emotionally and physically. My Dad was Luthern and my Mother was Catholic and they probably chose not to raise us in a religious envirnoment was more because of their progressive alcoholism. However, because they both worked (very hard workers) and went out a lot, we were left in the care of babysitters most of our childhood. One of our longest babysitters was a old woman named Mrs. B. She was a religious fanatic and convinced my parents that we (me &amp; my sister) should go to church every Sunday with her. The church was, THE CHURCH OF CHRIST in Portland, OR. Weird, I've always believed Mrs. B's religious dogma was just as damaging as my parents alcoholism and the child abuse we suffered.

This church believed in no instruments other than the human voice.
Mrs. B told us that our parents would die and burn in hell, as we would dance around pear trees.
I remember having nightmares of that.
She cramed in our head horrid bible stories about sin &amp; death.
I was only 8-9 years old when she tried to talk me in to allowing the church to seceretly baptise us without our parents permission.
She said everyone that smoked and drank would go to hell.
She always told us how bad and sinful Catholics were, and the way they baptised by sprinkleling water and baptizing babies were wrong.
There is so much more, but to now learn that "The Church of Christ" is a cult is really disturbing, but also understanding.
All this just added to my years of self-destuctive behaviors.
But now I am 51 years old and have spent years in the healing process from all of this.

One thing I know for sure is that the Jesus and God that Mrs. B crammed in my head as a child is not the Jesus and God that I know today.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

rjchinook:

Mrs. B had to be a zealot who lacked Grace. I was once with the other branch of the Church of Christ (Non-instrumental) which has musical instruments in the service. I graduated from one of their Bible colleges. Today I am outside of all man-made denominations. I wouldn't consider the Church of Christ to be a cult but they are on the far right end of sectarianism, although they claim to be trying to restore the first Century church; sounds good in theory but the Lords church is already an absolute in spite of their exclusiveness.

I work in Portland and have spent most of my life where you are now.

Alan
http://www.ChurchGrowth.CC


(Message edited by Wyoming on November 19, 2005)

[fatherofaking (fatherofaking)]

wyoming,
this is the second time now i have heard the lord's church being called an absolute.

can you elaborate on what that means please?

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Every born again child of God is automatically a member of the Lord's church. The Lord himself adds to the church daily those who become saved. The Lord knows those who belong to him and no one will clutch them out of his hands. No one is missing. These are things that man cannot tally nor determine.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Alan,

I wanted to state that I believe you accurately portrayed this particular group to rjchinook above. There may be things that I do not personally agree with about this group but as a general rule you can enter in and out of this group fairly independently which I don't believe you could a cult. Now some may believe that you are doomed if you leave there group but there is no real consequences that I have seen. They will come visit you and take you off of their church rolls which has a negative connotation; however, as a general rule they treat those outside their group respectively.

I think there some interesting movements going on in various parts of the country related to this group. I know of a particular group of individuals associated with this group that have decided that there is nothing wrong with instrumental music and have added such back into their worship service. Also, these individuals still enjoy singing acappella a at times.

I also think it depends a bit on how the individual receives the teachings of the group to some degree. One can be too zealous and to judgmental in any group.

Just goes to show that most individuals belief systems do change over time.

[spanky (spanky)]

It is very interesting that most of you can dismiss baptism as nothing or downplay its significance, but according to Acts 22:16, "Why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and WASH AWAY thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord".

Baptism will never save anyone. Only thru the blood of Christ can anyone have their sins forgiven. Baptism is the ENTRANCE into this grace of having one's sins forgiven. Was Ananias lying? Why would he say this to Saul if Saul's sins were already washed away? Saul had already spent 3 days in prayer and fasting (deep repentance for any devout Jew.) Was Saul not repentful enough? If baptism is an OUTWARD sign of an inward grace that has already taken place, then your saying Ananias lied to Saul. He said what he said by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Saul accounted his conversion by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Luke only wrote of Saul's conversion by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Were all 3 of these men LYING?

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now SAVE US (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the PLEDGE of a GOOD CONSCIENCE toward God)...

What is the like figure Peter is talking about? He mentions Noah passing thru the flood were SAVED BY WATER: the water washed away the degenerate from the earth. Noah was saved thru water by building an Ark. In like manner we are SAVED from our sins THRU WATER when we are baptized into Christ, that is where are sins are WASHED AWAY by the blood of Christ.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

There are a lot of man-made traditions and slogans in organized religion that are not Biblical but have come about through casual preaching, teaching, and hymnology, e.g., "outer sign of an inner work".

Bible scholars recognize a transition through the book of Acts from a Jewish church to a church under Grace. Ephesians is a later epistle for a mature church and regarding the reference "one Lord, one faith, one baptism", what is the "one baptism" <u>for the church</u>? For the answer...

SAVED BY DRY BAPTISM http://www.mauricejohnsonarchives.com/baptism.htm

[steelsword (steelsword)]

spanky , the key word is like figure. Noah was not saved by water, the water is what destroyed life, Noah was saved by his FAITH in GOD, and built an Ark for 40 Years to show his Faith.
He was not saved by circumcision as well, for he was found righteous by GOD 12 years before he was circumcised. Read the part you put in ( ) above. The water didn't wash away our sin(the putting away of the filth of the flesh), the blood of christ did that. I beleive that a christian should be baptised, but not because it saves you, but because the Holy Spirit already resides in you and this is obedience to Christ, by giving a physical sign that yes i am now in the Body of Christ. Read Matt 3:11-14 John baptised with Water unto repentance, But Christ
Baptised with the Holy spirit &amp; Fire, Christ never Baptised with water, or her would of taken the lady in Luke 7:50 down to the river, instead he tells her What has saved her (FAITH) after this , he said go in peace.

The greek word here is ANTITUPON = a copy , a type. I think you better read what saved Noah
Heb.11:7 , 2Peter 2:5, 3:6

[spanky (spanky)]

Steelword, Saul didnt already have the Holy spirit prior to baptism. Look at Acts 9:17,"...receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." Ananias WASNT wrong, Saul HAD NOT the Holy Spirit within at this point prior to baptism. What does the next verse say? Acts 9:18, "...received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized." Baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit go hand in hand, Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized...and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Saul DID NOT have the spirit prior to baptism and scripture PROVED that. And yes, Noah was SAVED BY WATER. That is what Peter wrote in 1 Peter 3:20. God used the water of the flood to remove the corrupt in the world, to cleanse it. The ark was the means to survive this cleansing or purging of evil. That is why Peter says that Baptism for us, is a like figure to the water in Noah's day. The water of Baptism DOESNT cleanse us from our CORRUPTION; we meet the blood of Christ during Baptism where are sins are WASHED away. (Acts 22:16)

[arron (arron)]

noah was saved by faith in GOD. that is why he went into the ark. the water destroyed all around him but he was safe in the ark , which is a symbol of us being in JESUS CHRIST. all are saved by faith. saul(paul) was saved by faith not by being baptised. he received THE HOLY GHOST by faith not by baptisum

[wyoming (wyoming)]

The ark was an ark of safety from the turbulent waters. They didn't get wet; they didn't have contact with the turbulent waters of judgment!

If you read the article I posted above, it is important to understand that the church and the apostles were growing during the transition period through the book of Acts. They had to stop and ponder what to do about practices for Jew vs. Gentile believers in Chapter 10 and again revisit these issues in Chapter 15. (Also read Galatians.) Early in Acts a traditional Jewish ceremonial cleansing and washing was performed on the Ethiopian Eunoch. By the time they understood Grace with the book of Romans and especially the late book of Hebrews, they weren't performing any fleshly ordinances that smacked of Judaism. They weren't re-introduced until the Second Century when Roman Catholicism stepped forward and purported to speak for the Lord's church with their bastardized form of "christianity".

<font color="0000ff">"I beleive that a christian should be baptised, but not because it saves you, but because the Holy Spirit already resides in you and this is obedience to Christ, by giving a physical sign that yes i am now in the Body of Christ."</font>

The one baptism for the church is the baptism of receiving of the Holy Spirit the moment you are saved. Why are you promoting another baptism that is not authorized by scripture? Where do you get a proof text for a spurious outer sign of an inner work like a Jewish ritual? You said it yourself! Baptism for the church is not a cleansing by water, but you turn right around and make a second baptism!

Since your second baptism is not scriptural, you are superimposing an initiation rites for the purpose of bosting in the flesh of the one that is captured into a carnal man-made religion by works of the flesh.

Arron is very right. Thank you Arron.

--Alan.

(Message edited by Wyoming on January 26, 2006)

[steelsword (steelsword)]

Spanky, Paul was a killer of Christians.
As you will see Paul confessed Christ as "LORD"
ie=Repented +Changed in an instance.

Acts 22:10 Paul confessed Jesus as Lord and his heart was changed,&amp; he now followed Jesus' command.

NOW Read 1 Cor 12:3 Spanky.

No man can say JESUS is "LORD" , But by the Holy Spirit.

Now Vs 13 Ananias calls Paul What ???

BROTHER!!! Ananias identifies Paul as a Christian Brother all before he is Baptised.

If you will read acts 9:17 you will see the HOLY Ghost was there as well before baptism.

God Bless ,
Steel
Jude 3

[spanky (spanky)]

In Acts 22:8 the Greek word 'kurios' for 'Lord' is rendered in the Greek as 'by any one who wants to honor a man of distinction'(Strongs 2962-Thayer's Greek-English lexicon). Saul asks Jesus,"Who art thou, Lord?" Saul didnt even no who was talking to him at that moment. Saul DOESNT use the 'kurios' here as a designation that Jesus is his personal Lord, BUT rather Saul addresses the one whom he doesnt know who is calling to him as 'kurios' out of RESPECT. So please get your 'exegesis' correct or stay on the porch my friend.

[steelsword (steelsword)]

Paul did know who he was addressing the second time he called him "LORD" &amp; if he didn't know who it was why did he follow his command?

Acts 22 :8 Paul ask who art thou, Lord?
Yes in this verse "Kurios" is correct, because Paul is Questioning? Then The Lord and Savior identifies himself as JESUS.

In verse 10 Paul places his trust in the Savior and identifies him again as "LORD" and Followes
his command.

On and no way am i staying on the porch, you see all that heard the word in acts received the holy spirit before they were baptised.

Strongs 2962 says <u>KURIOS</u>koo'-ree-os from kuros(Supremacy);supreme in AUTHORITY(as noun),controller, by implication, MASTER(as a respectful title) : Meaning <u>GOD,LORD,MASTER,</u>or sir .

I see you chose the later in this respect as you did not want to post all of 2962.

[steelsword (steelsword)]

Wyoming, does the physical act of Romans 10:9 save you. Why do I have to confess with my mouth
if the lord already knows my words.

I know the eunich was already saved , but was he baptised with water? Is their a reason for showing this Good Work , just as in the physical act of confessing with my mouth.

Not all can see, or hear physically, Christ said that if you confess me before men ,I shall confess you before the Father in heaven. There are more ways than one to confess him as Ruler of your Life.

[steelsword (steelsword)]

Wyoming,I don't see it as a second baptism as you try to make it, but as an obedient confession that i'm in the Body of Christ.

I agree with alphaomega above on his may 17th 7:31 post.

[arron (arron)]

the church OF CHRIST is false in their teaching that you ahve to be baptised. the theif on the cross was not baptised but he believed on CHRIST and was saved BY THE BLOOD BY FAITH IN THAT BLOOD. i know i am saved. i was saved before i was baptised. it is too late for any one to try to change my mind for i know that i am saved

[arron (arron)]

the church OF CHRIST is false in their teaching that you ahve to be baptised. the theif on the cross was not baptised but he believed on CHRIST and was saved BY THE BLOOD BY FAITH IN THAT BLOOD. i know i am saved. i was saved before i was baptised. it is too late for any one to try to change my mind for i know that i am saved

[spanky (spanky)]

Saul addresses Jesus as Lord in Acts 22:10 the same as he did in Acts 22:8, "SIR". It was the title due someone out of respect. Saul only knew of Jesus as a TROUBLEMAKER. Saul was still in the GUILT of his sins when Ananias came to him. Was not Saul in prayer and fasting 3 days? Fasting is the sign that Saul was in deep remorse for persecuting Jesus. Saul had Stephen stoned. Saul was putting Christians in jail. He was guilty of MANY OFFENSES against God. Saul is the one who PENNED, "Godly sorrow BRINGS repentance that LEADS to salvation..." Saul while in the house on a street called 'strait' was regretting that he had sinned against God. So Jesus SENT Ananias to help Saul get rid of his GUILT. Ananias told Saul, " Why tarriest thou, arise, and BE BAPTIZED, and WASH AWAY THY SINS calling on the name of the Lord".

Steel, was Saul still in the guilt of his sins after he encountered Jesus, when Saul was on the road to Damascus? Yes or no

[rjchinook (rjchinook)]

I would like to know why is the Bible story of Noah's Ark's any different from this Hopi Great Flood story? Or you probably will say myth.

Spanky wrote:

"Saul DID NOT have the spirit prior to baptism and scripture PROVED that. And yes, Noah was SAVED BY WATER. That is what Peter wrote in 1 Peter 3:20. God used the water of the flood to remove the corrupt in the world, to cleanse it. The ark was the means to survive this cleansing or purging of evil. That is why Peter says that Baptism for us, is a like figure to the water in Noah's day. The water of Baptism DOESNT cleanse us from our CORRUPTION; we meet the blood of Christ during Baptism where are sins are WASHED away. (Acts 22:16)"

Hopi Flood Story: }

"When people became corrupt and warlike a third time, Sotuknang guided the ones who had retained their wisdom to Spider Woman, who cut down giant reeds and sheltered the people in the hollow stems with a little water and food. Sotuknang caused a great flood with rain and waves, and the people floated in their reeds for a long time. Finally, they came to rest on a small piece of land, and Spider Woman unsealed their reeds and pulled them out by the tops of their heads. They still had as much food as they started with. They sent out birds to find more land, but to no avail. They grew a tall reed and climbed it, but they saw only water. But guided by their inner wisdom (which comes from Sotuknang through the door at the top of their head), the people traveled on, using the reeds as canoes. They went northeast, finding progressively larger islands. The last of these was large and fruitful, and people wanted to stay there, but Spider Woman urged them on. They went further northeast, paddling hard as if going uphill, until they came to the Fourth World. The shores were rocky with seemingly no place to land, but by opening the doors at the tops of their head, they found a current that took them to a sandy beach. Sotuknang appeared and told them to look back, and they saw the islands, the last remnants of the Third World, sink into the ocean. [Waters, pp. 12-20]"

[spanky (spanky)]

I would definitely need to know more of the lore behind this event. Im not from a Hopi culture. What does Sotuknang mean? There seems to be some resemblance in the two events. There may have been some of the Noahic event that was passed down thru the centuries that was told by the elders of the Hopi people that got miscontrued thru the generations. One old minister I know met with alot of the indigenious people that have settled(were settled) in SW Oklahoma at some reservation and he told me that he encountered alot of similarities with their ancestral lore and the BiBle. Example 'Great Spirit' and God?

I really dont know enuff to answer your question, I very well may not have an answer. I hope that is understandable.

[arron (arron)]

i have some friends who are church of CHRIST and they do baptise in the NAME OF JESUS and this is for salvation. they do not use music eithere. all of this is wrong people are not saved by water baptisum period. the are saved by faith in THE BLOOD OF JESUS. as far as music is concerned we use music in our church. if they dont want to use music then dont if they want to baptise in THE NAME OF JESUS do so but dont be saying that is what saves you for it doesnt.

[maria2639 (maria2639)]

My exboyfriend took me to his church for a while, and it was Church of Christ. (They claimed to be "mainstream" for the record.) Anyway, it was what everyone is describing: no music, baptism as a REQUIREMENT for salvation and membership... All in all, it was pretty creepy. I will never go back to one.

[steelsword (steelsword)]

Spanky, Again vs 13 , Ananias identifies Saul as a Brother in Christ. Also paul receives his sight before he is baptised.

Vs 14 Paul (Saul) is Chosen by GOD.(so that he would know GOD's will. It can't get no more absolute than that.

vs 12 Ananias was a devout man according to the LAW and had a good report of all the JEWS which dwelt there.

Hence vs 15 Paul was ordained to be a <u>witness </u>to what he had heard and seen.

The baptism was a outward confession (Witness)
to all including the Jews that Dwelt there that Paul was now in Christ.

vs. 16 The washing away of sin was by calling on the name of the lord, not by the Baptism.

Do you still fast and repent even though you are a Christian?

The fact is Saul (paul was a Changed Man on the road to damascus. The Word of God(Jesus) personally Spoke to him (Chose Him ) and He turned away from (Repented ) of his former self and followed the commands of the Word(Jesus),was washed in the Blood of the Cross, and gave a public confession of the Change within(Baptism), so that all Jews and Gentile would know he was a witness to the things of which he had heard and seen.

Steel.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Steelsword:

I was once a Campbelite and graduated from one of their Bible colleges, and have since tried the case in light of Biblical understanding vs. the traditions of men.

Romans 10:9 offers a mode of comfirmation that someone is saved; hey! how about an outer sign of an inner work -- still the Lord knows our hearts and that's how only He can judge. No water!

So, how do you reconcile with chapter and verse, <font color="0000ff">I don't see it as a second baptism as you try to make it, but as an obedient confession that i'm in the Body of Christ.</font> Vanity!

Titus 3:5-6 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Lord."

1 Corinthians 12:12 "For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentile, whether we be bond or free... "

As I explained earlier regarding the Ethiopian Eunoch, the early Church was still inclined to practice the Jewish ceremonial cleansings and washings until they gradually understood that there are no more ordinances and physical religion under Grace.

The big problem is that when folks hear and read the word "baptism", they automatically preface it with the word "water" and there is not a drop of water in the "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." As long as you have water on the brain, your understaning of the doctrine will be conflicted.

--Alan

http://www.MauriceJohnsonArchives.com

(Message edited by Wyoming on January 29, 2006)

[steelsword (steelsword)]

Help me out here past campbelite.

Matthew 28:19 Spiritual or Water?

I agree with alot of what you say ,&amp; I understand your last sentence.

Provide sources also other than maurice johnson.

You believe water baptism is not for todays church?

I was attending a church and recently left after
i realized thy were out of the campbelite mold.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

The great commission was not water. The response to preaching got them saved. How do you think 5000 got baptized all at once. [The Cambellites say that everyone turned around and dunked everone else after they were dunked.]

Water was never for any days' church. If you rightly divide scripture, you will come to the same conclusion that I have, and it harmonizes and there is no conflict nor contradition, and you will have a better understanding of GRACE... and Grace is just about the most liberating thing to cherish.

The Quakers didn't practice any ordinances. The Plymouth Brethren don't touch water but they make a God out of "the supper", althoug it was only for Jews on one night of the year. The Salvation Army doesn't practice physical ordinance but they certainly go for religious holidays. There are other lesser known and obscure groups and individuals who have seen through carnal ordinances and have come to more surely understand God's Grace.

Again...
SAVED BY DRY BAPTISM http://www.mauricejohnsonarchives.com/baptism.htm

[mr_music (mr_music)]

I've been gone a few days, and have just finished catching up on the discussion. Frankly, most of you haven't used the proper hermeneutics (interpretation) principles in the discussion regarding whether or not the "baptism" we have as Christians (no, it's not a Jewish ritual, although it is similar) is one of water or not.

Let me say first, that there are many "baptisms" mentioned in Scripture - John's baptism; baptism of the Holy Spirit; baptism of fire; and water baptism, to name a few. Now, the "baptism" which is under discussion IS a WATER baptism, it is Christian baptism (instituted by Christ in Matthew 28) and it is into Christ (Romans 6:3, for example). That this is a WATER baptism is made clear in the account of the Ethiopian Eunuch - if all would note Acts 8:36, which reads: "And as they went along the road they came to some WATER; and the eunuch said, 'Look! WATER! What prevents me from being BAPTIZED?'" It is quite clear that Philip preached WATER BAPTISM in his gospel message to the Ethiopian. Any other interpretation of the text cannot be accurate.

As for Saul/Paul - did he have the Holy Spirit before baptism? Seems he did, for in Acts 9:17 indicates that Ananias laid his hands on Saul for the purpose of regaining his sight and being filled with the Spirit. We cannot tell from the parallel accounts in Acts 22 and 26. The account in chapter 9 says merely that he "arose and was baptized" - the account in 22 (verse 16) has Ananias telling Paul to "arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." It is not clear in the text whether the washing away of Paul's sins was the result of his being baptized, or the result of calling on the name of Jesus. To be dogmatic one way or the other is to misunderstand the text, and to exhibit a less-than-Christlike attitude.

I do not have all the answers - just giving some "pastoral advice" here. I would encourage you all to gain a better knowledge of how to properly interpret the Scriptures, making sure to consider the overall context - that is, what the Bible says about the issue, in all related instances. Building a platform on a single incident is unwise - and poor hermeneutics.

Mr Music

[mr_music (mr_music)]

One more thing: "Campbellites" is a derogatory term used by denominational bigots when referring to those who are members of the church of Christ (non-instrumental) and the Christian Church. It is offensive, and I for one would appreciate it the term were "put to rest" and no longer used.

Mr Music

[wyoming (wyoming)]

.

By what authority and knowledge of me do you call me a bigot?

[sneaki13]

I am rather surprised to see all of these statements. I have been in The Church Of Christ for 10 years and all I have found is love and acceptance. It is true that many people think that our way is the only way.

But from what I have read on this discussion board I don't even vaguely recognize any of the churches that I have attended. The things that I have read today are a total shock to my system. I grew up in the Pentecostal denomination and I attribute much of my low self esteem to following their (Pentecostals) beliefs. I don't mean to criticize, I'm just stating a fact of my feelings.

When I came into the Church Of Christ, the very first time I walked in the door, I knew I was home. I have never witnessed any spiritual abuse.

[wyoming]

I get e:mail like this from these folks:

Reformation Rumblings
BUFF SCOTT, JR.
_______________________________________

Q. “Dear Buff, I got the following quote from your Website and was wondering on the grounds of Jude 3 if you would debate this view. I will affirm that the Bible teaches that you must be a member of the one true Church and that is the Church of Christ. Below is the quote.”—Myles Davis.

-------------------------------

Just Who Should We Recognize And Accept?

I will recognize and embrace any brother who has experienced the new birth and is honestly striving to serve his Lord as he understands His will—yes, in spite of his doctrinal defects. He may be aligned with a sect, a cult, a religious party, or not aligned with any of them. If he’s a born-again believer but caught up in some divisive religious party, whether Baptist splinter groups, Mormon cult, Church of Christ denomination, Catholic Church sect, or any of the others, I will try my utmost to “show him a more excellent way.” My message to him will be fundamental: Reform your walk with the Lord by ousting all shades of sectarianism and grasping true freedom in Jesus.

-------------------------------

A. No, my brother, I will not join you in a Church of Christ, circus-style debate. But here is what I will do: I will agree to a written dialogue if you will sign a contract to publish it in a paperback book of about 96 pages and pay the entire cost. Otherwise, I’m not interested.

Your Proposition, “The Bible teaches that you must be a member of the one true Church and that is the Church of Christ” went out with the dinosaurs, but if you’re willing to cough up the expenses to publish this timeworn proposition, we’ll get on with it.

My brother’s a cappella Church of Christ parrots the idea that a man cannot accept false doctrine and be saved. It is ridiculous to claim that a man must be flawlessly indoctrinated in all areas before he can reach heaven. For if he must, as Church of Christ disciples seem to believe and teach, none of us will be saved, for not one of us has reached an absolute level of doctrinal excellence—not even when we initially came to the Lord for salvation.

Consequently, I fellowship brothers who are doctrinally defective, for I have no other kind. To one degree or another, all of us are in error. Perfection is—or should be—our goal. But we will never attain such a high level as long as we remain in this old earthly tabernacle. This is why God’s grace is so vital in each of our lives, for without His grace to balance things out, we would be lost creatures, wandering in an evil world with no hope of rescue. Paul emphasized this truth to the Ephesians, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8).

[truth_child]

by believeing on and in THE LORD JESUS CHRIST is one saved and not through being baptised it is THE BLOOD OF JESUS by faith IN THAT BLOOD that saves a person baptizing is an anwer to a good conceinsce