Who Are the Churches of Christ?

[Livelysword]

I am also a member of the church of Christ. I fellowship with the church on Sundays that are a part of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, in which I have also placed my membership with.

I'm a member of the Colonial Dames too, but I still am a part of Christ's church.

Lively:  The Christian and Missionary Alliance is not the church of Christ...  they are two separate faiths... scripture teaches one faith... Eph 4:5

[DCR]

I am also a member of the church of Christ. I fellowship with the church on Sundays that are a part of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, in which I have also placed my membership with.

I'm a member of the Colonial Dames too, but I still am a part of Christ's church.

Lively:  The Christian and Missionary Alliance is not the church of Christ...  they are two separate faiths... scripture teaches one faith... Eph 4:5

I wonder if we have the authority to say what group is truly Christ's church and what group isn't.

There was the church Christ started in the first century.  Maybe all professing Christians claim to be part of that church.  Did you ever consider that?

Then, there was the movement that began in the early 1800s, which led to the formation of a group that generally refers to themselves as the "Churches of Christ" in that this is what we usually put on our signs out front.  Maybe, folks in this movement tried their hardest to "restore" the practices and beliefs of the early church.  But, who's to say they got everything right?  There's a lot of disagreement over a lot of issues among churches who go by the name "church of Christ" now.  We never could come to agreement on everything...

Anyway, I believe we need to be very, very careful in asserting who is truly part of Christ's church and who isn't, if they follow Christ to the best of their understanding, believe in Him, and have been baptized in His name.

[mandalee65]

I am also a member of the church of Christ. I fellowship with the church on Sundays that are a part of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, in which I have also placed my membership with.

I'm a member of the Colonial Dames too, but I still am a part of Christ's church.

Lively:  The Christian and Missionary Alliance is not the church of Christ...  they are two separate faiths... scripture teaches one faith... Eph 4:5

You're right, Lively. Scripture teaches faith in Yahweh.

Seems to me like your faith is in the COC.

[Livelysword]

I am also a member of the church of Christ. I fellowship with the church on Sundays that are a part of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, in which I have also placed my membership with.

I'm a member of the Colonial Dames too, but I still am a part of Christ's church.

Lively:  The Christian and Missionary Alliance is not the church of Christ...  they are two separate faiths... scripture teaches one faith... Eph 4:5

I wonder if we have the authority to say what group is truly Christ's church and what group isn't.

There was the church Christ started in the first century.  Maybe all professing Christians claim to be part of that church.  Did you ever consider that?

Then, there was the movement that began in the early 1800s, which led to the formation of a group that generally refers to themselves as the "Churches of Christ" in that this is what we usually put on our signs out front.  Maybe, folks in this movement tried their hardest to "restore" the practices and beliefs of the early church.  But, who's to say they got everything right?  There's a lot of disagreement over a lot of issues among churches who go by the name "church of Christ" now.  We never could come to agreement on everything...

Anyway, I believe we need to be very, very careful in asserting who is truly part of Christ's church and who isn't, if they follow Christ to the best of their understanding, believe in Him, and have been baptized in His name.

Lively:  It really is as simple as the following...


1Ti 4:1  Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2  Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3  Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.


Is departing from the faith, still in the faith?  While I am not allowed to specifically state which religion this is...  figure it out... which religion forbids people to marry and commands them to abstain from meats?  Such is teaching doctrines of devils and has departed from the faith...


2Jn 1:9  Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
2Jn 1:10  If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
2Jn 1:11  For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.


Whoever does not abide in the doctrine of Christ has not God...  it does not get any simpler...  the religious world is not abiding in the doctrine of Christ...


1Co 3:11  For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.


One has to build upon the foundation of Jesus Christ... what he set down, to be upon his foundation...  a wise master builder thinking he wants to be on the foundation of Christ does not go over and build his Spiritual house off of or apart from the foundation of Christ...  when he does, he simply does not have Christ... and if all he teaches others and they also build with him apart from the foundation of Christ... none of them are on the foundation of Christ and are all lost...  if the blind follow the blind, both shall fall into the ditch...  water baptism for the forgiveness of sins is foundational... those who reject it and do not adhere to it as taught in scripture simply do not have Christ... they have built upon another foundation...


Rom 16:16  Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.
Rom 16:17  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Rom 16:18  For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.


Either we serve the Lord Jesus Christ and abide in his doctrine, or we do not have Christ, and not built upon the one foundation of Jesus Christ... and this is not something one should play around with... its a life and death situation as it has life and death consequences...


Christ taught us there is but one church... and that one church is his body... and we are members of his body when we put on Christ in baptism... where our sins are all washed away... those who do not teach such, do not have Christ and will perish forever...  God adds people to the church of Christ upon being baptized... one does not run down the street and  join a choice of his or her choice and think this is the Lord's church... because unless it is built upon the foundation of Christ, its not his church...  and this is just the simple part of what one must do to have salvation in Christ...  others as in the last set of verses above may have other doctrines wrong and so are apostate from Christ... even if they had once obeyed the gospel and do not hold to sound doctrine in Christ... they do not have Christ...  there are so many different and varying religions in this world... all teaching different things of what one must do to have salvation in Christ and how to worship the Father... and they can not all be right when they are all so different... Jesus never taught one can do whatever it is they please and have Christ...  one has to ask... how much do we value our souls...  how serious will people view this teaching...  watch the mocking and you will witness people who have no respect for the authority of Christ...


How to be saved from your sins...

God's Part:

God, in His infinite Love and Mercy, extended GRACE to man at the cross at Calvary. Jesus Christ, the sinless Lamb of God, was crucified shedding his blood for the sins of man, was buried, and rose again the third day victorious over sin and death!
1 Cor 15:1-4 (KJV)

Man's Part:

To HEAR the gospel... So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Rom 10:17 (KJV), Rom 1:16 (KJV)

To have FAITH ... which only comes by hearing the Word of God and without which it is impossible to please God
Rom 10:17 (KJV), Rom 1:16 (KJV), Eph 2:8-10 (KJV), Heb 11:6 (KJV)

To REPENT ... of (turn from) your sins
Luke 13:3-5 (KJV), Acts 2:38 (KJV), Acts 3:19 (KJV), 2 Cor 7:10 (KJV)

To CONFESS ... with your mouth that Jesus Christ is the Son of God
Rom 10:9-10 (KJV), Mat 10:32 (KJV), Luke 12:8 (KJV), Acts 8:37 (KJV)

To be BAPTIZED ... (immersed, in water, not sprinkled) into Jesus Christ to have your sins forgiven (washed away)by the blood of Christ by faith in him.
Mat 28:19-20 (KJV), Mark 16:16 (KJV), John 3:3-5 (KJV), Acts 2:38 (KJV), Acts 8:35-39 (KJV), Acts 10:47-48 (KJV), Acts 22:16 (KJV), Rom 6:3-17 (KJV), 1 Cor 12:13 (KJV), 1 Cor 15:29 (KJV), Gal 3:27 (KJV), Eph 4:5 (KJV), Eph 5:26 (KJV), Col 2:11-13 (KJV), 1 Pet 3:20-21 (KJV)

To CONTINUE in faith ... to live a faithful life in Christ and not allow yourself to be moved away from the hope of the Gospel
Acts 14:22 (KJV), Col 1:23 (KJV), Rev 3:5 (KJV)

[Livelysword]

I am also a member of the church of Christ. I fellowship with the church on Sundays that are a part of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, in which I have also placed my membership with.

I'm a member of the Colonial Dames too, but I still am a part of Christ's church.

Lively:  The Christian and Missionary Alliance is not the church of Christ...  they are two separate faiths... scripture teaches one faith... Eph 4:5

You're right, Lively. Scripture teaches faith in Yahweh.

Seems to me like your faith is in the COC.

Lively:  I have faith in the church of Christ as being the Lord's church because he spoke of it in scripture... the church of Christ is of the faith of Christ...  and Yahweh is the Lord in Hebrew...  One does not have to write and speak Hebraic to have God... and not only does scripture teach faith in Yahweh... it teaches faith in Yeshua... which in engish is Jesus who is the Christ, the son of the Living God...  also known as Jehovah...  there are it may be so many voices in the world and NONE of them is without significance... NONE OF THEM...

[memmy]

Lively, one faith is one faith in Christ Jesus. I have the faith that He has done the saving. Nothing I, nor you or anyone else can do that.

A house divided can not stand.

My church family is not of the devil, because the devil does not profess Christ as his Savior. I do not believe the lies of the devil. He tries to get some to believe that others are not quite ever good enough because they don't do everything right.

Jesus said that whosoever believes on Him will not perish.

I suggest when we all get to heaven, that you stay away from the door of the small room you will be in, because if it happens to open, you  may be very frightened how many in other denominations, such as mine and others, that you chose not to worship with now, will all be there holding hands united as Jesus prayed for, and will be praising our Lord God on high together as one in Him!

I just wish you would wake up and see that before then though, because you are missing out on so much that Jesus has given us to enjoy now.

[Livelysword]

Lively, one faith is one faith in Christ Jesus. I have the faith that He has done the saving. Nothing I, nor you or anyone else can do that.

A house divided can not stand.

My church family is not of the devil, because the devil does not profess Christ as his Savior. I do not believe the lies of the devil. He tries to get some to believe that others are not quite ever good enough because they don't do everything right.

Jesus said that whosoever believes on Him will not perish.

I suggest when we all get to heaven, that you stay away from the door of the small room you will be in, because if it happens to open, you  may be very frightened how many in other denominations, such as mine and others, that you chose not to worship with now, will all be there holding hands united as Jesus prayed for, and will be praising our Lord God on high together as one in Him!

I just wish you would wake up and see that before then though, because you are missing out on so much that Jesus has given us to enjoy now.

Lively:  Do me a favor will you... List 5 denominations which you believe will be in heaven and 5 which you do not believe they will be in heaven and both based upon the doctrines they teach...

[Lee Freeman]

Lively and Lancelot, no one is arguing that we follow uninspired men instead of Christ. However the Church of Christ as we know it, historically speaking, dates to 1832, when Stone's Christians and Camnpbell's Disciples officially united. It is simply a fact that our interpretations of scripture and how we do church were influenced in large part by those who came before us.

The idea that our brotherhood managed to remain totally unaffected for good or ill by all of the secular forces around it throughout our history is a dangerous one that blinds us to reality. For example, the calamity that was the Civil War had an enormous impact on the Stone-Campbell Churches in various ways-social, theological, etc., some good, some bad. To pretend as if the Church of Christ skipped 1900 years of Christian history is not only naive, but just plain wrong. No group of Christians that has ever existed has been totally free from outside influences.

We have rightly always claimed to follow Christ alone, but in actual fact, we've often followed Christ filtered through culture, social forces, etc. By studying our history we are better able to identify what in our beliefs is merely cultural, non-essential, and what is eternal, unchanging.

Stone's and Campbell's goal was to reform the church and unite all sincere believers in Christ upon the basic, core, essential teachings of the NT. They claimed to be "Christians only, not the only Christians." As late as 1889 FD Srygley was arguing in the Gospel Advocate that members of Christ's Church do not have to think alike on every subject nor be in doctrinal lock-step. Srygley, like Stone and the Campbells, understood the difference between unity and uniformity.

We need to study our history and reappropriate much, like this view, that was lost.


Pax.

[Livelysword]

Lively and Lancelot, no one is arguing that we follow uninspired men instead of Christ. However the Church of Christ as we know it, historically speaking, dates to 1832, when Stone's Christians and Camnpbell's Disciples officially united. It is simply a fact that our interpretations of scripture and how we do church were influenced in large part by those who came before us.

The idea that our brotherhood managed to remain totally unaffected for good or ill by all of the secular forces around it throughout our history is a dangerous one that blinds us to reality. For example, the calamity that was the Civil War had an enormous impact on the Stone-Campbell Churches in various ways-social, theological, etc., some good, some bad. To pretend as if the Church of Christ skipped 1900 years of Christian history is not only naive, but just plain wrong. No group of Christians that has ever existed has been totally free from outside influences.

We have rightly always claimed to follow Christ alone, but in actual fact, we've often followed Christ filtered through culture, social forces, etc. By studying our history we are better able to identify what in our beliefs is merely cultural, non-essential, and what is eternal, unchanging.

Stone's and Campbell's goal was to reform the church and unite all sincere believers in Christ upon the basic, core, essential teachings of the NT. They claimed to be "Christians only, not the only Christians." As late as 1889 FD Srygley was arguing in the Gospel Advocate that members of Christ's Church do not have to think alike on every subject nor be in doctrinal lock-step. Srygley, like Stone and the Campbells, understood the difference between unity and uniformity.

We need to study our history and reappropriate much, like this view, that was lost.


Pax.

Lively:  There are some things you simply are not understanding... it would not have mattered if someone came by today... and did what campbell and the others did... that is, get back to what the bible teaches and lay the foundation which is the foundation of Christ and build upon that...  It does not matter if someone came by in the 10th century and did it.. or later... makes no difference when someone does it... they are building upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets...  why chomp Campbell and Scott and the rest?  They did you and me a favor by showing us that the authority for what we need to be following is in the bible, and that we have to go to the bible to study it and learn that the bible is the guide for all we do...  Campbell and Scott and company have only laid the foundation which was found in scripture and built upon it...  you seem to think what they laid is some other foundation of their own making...  wrong...  the plea was... lets get back to the bible and follow what it instructs us to follow... and not the teachings of men...  Is there any influence in how we worship from what they had taught... sure... but we are to follow the teachings of others who follow the bible... we are to read the bible and consider their conversation...  does that mean when I follow some of the teachings of Campbell, that I am doing so against the word of God... nope... I find the things he taught we must do in the worship is the things we find taught in the bible...  if it wasn't... Campbell and Scott would have been found to have been mistaken... there have been hundreds of thousands who since them have studied their bibles and come to complete agreement with them... many who are actually every bit as good and studied as they were...  over the years the church had found some things which has come up, and brethren have split because of such things.... but to date we know the points of contention and we can study them points and know what the truth is...  instead of chiding Campbell and Scott... you should be thanking them...  otherwise many of us would be in other denominations today...


You talk about us following culture... yet I highly doubt you can show where it is we are following culture...  the war effected us?  Did we start teaching another gospel when the war started?  What did we start teaching different?  That one no longer needs to be baptized to have their sins washed away?  What did we change?  Any change we have  had has been the result of study of the bible... not the culture... 


There is this last paragraph in which you state they said they claimed to be Christians only, not the only Christians... well, if that is true... they were mistaken on the last part... they were the only Christians...  one does not become a Christian following the teachings of the denominations they came out of...  Srygley if taught what you state above... is deceived... Christians are commanded to think alike... to be of the same mind and same judgment... that is to think alike... and that on every subject... to be in lockstep doctrinally...   tell us... what is the difference between unity and uniformity?  Time to go to the bible and read how it is we are all trying to be more Christ like... if we are all trying to put on Christ... we should all start to mirror his life... and Christ calls for unity...  and I certainly do not mind that one studies history and the history of the varying churches in the world and what they believe and do so against what the word of God states... that way everyone can see the lies they have been taught over all the years with the denominations which have sprung up...  You know... you can feel free to leave the church of Christ... and go start your own church based solely upon what the bible teaches... and all you will be doing is planting another church of Christ...  that is, if you stick to what the bible teaches...

[memmy]

Lively, what do you consider a denomination to be?

[Lee Freeman]

Lively, I appreciate where you're coming from, I really do, because I used to be you as far as your thinking goes. I never even heard of Campbell until I was 18 and back then could've cared less. You have the misconception I had that until the Campbells and Stone came along, no one cared about the Bible however it was Luther who first gave the church the idea of Sola Scriptura, or "Scripture alone." The Church of Christ wasn't, nor is it today, the only Christian communion to take the Bible seriously.

What prompted Stone and the Campbells to begin their reformation-they called it a reformation, not a restoration-was the disunity in the Church. In his 1809 Declaration & Address Thomas Campbell says some very interesting this, such as that the major Protestant denominations are essentially agreed as to the "positive" ordinances of the gospel institutions, so that they differed mostly over nonessentials:

It is, to us, a pleasing consideration that all the churches of Christ, which mutually acknowledge each other as such, are not only agreed in the great doctrines of faith and holiness; but are also materially agreed, as to the positive ordinances of Gospel institution; so that our differences, at most, are about the things in which the kingdom of God does not consist, that is, about matters of private opinion, or human invention.


Thomas further says that as different individuals and groups of Christians strive to follow God's will, there will necessarily be "some difference in opinion [interpretation],' just as there was among the NT churches-and this without any breach of unity. Thomas says in one place in the Declaration:

The cause that we advocate is not our own peculiar, nor the cause of any party, considered as such; it is a common cause, the cause of Christ and our brethren of all denominations.

Proposition 8 says:

8. That as it is not necessary that persons should have a particular knowledge or distinct apprehension of all divinely revealed truths in order to entitle them to a place in the church; neither should they, for this purpose, be required to make a profession more extensive than their knowledge: but that, on the contrary their having a due measure of scriptural self-knowledge respecting their lost and perishing condition by nature and practice; and of the way of salvation thro' Jesus Christ, accompanied with a profession of their faith in, and obedience to him, in all things according to his word, is all that is absolutely necessary to qualify them for admission into his church.

In a paragrah of the Address Thomas says:

Every sincere and upright christian, will understand and do the will of God, in every instance, to the best of his skill and judgment; but in the application of the general rule to particular cases, there may, and doubtless will, be some variety of opinion and practice. This we see was actually the case in the apostolic churches, without any breach of christian unity. And if this was the case, at the erection of the christian church from amongst Jews and Gentiles, may we not reasonably expect, that it will be the same at her restoration, from under her long antichristian and sectarian desolations?

In an April, 1824 Christian Baptist essay entitled The Foundation of Hope and of Christian Union, Alexander Campbell wrote:

The belief of this one fact, and submission to one institution expressive of it, is all that is required by Heaven to admission into the church. . . The one fact is, that Jesus the Nazarene is the Messiah. The evidence upon which it is to be believed is the testimony of twelve men, confirmed by prophecy, miracles, and spiritual gifts. The one institution is baptism into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Every such person is a christian in the fullest sense of the word, the moment he has believed this one fact, upon the above evidence, and has submitted to the above mentioned institution; and whether he believes the five points condemned or the five points approved by the synod of Dort, is not so much as to be asked of him; whether he holds any of the views of the Calvinists or Arminians, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, or Quakers, is never once to be asked of such a person, in order to admission into the christian community, called the church.



As for how culture affected us, take our cessation of using real alcoholic wine and one chalice, in communion, which was a result of the 19th century Temperance movement and the fear of the spread of diseases such as yellow fever, smallpox and influenza.

Stone's and Scott's millennial views were for a while heavily influenced by premillennial Baptist pastor William Miller, founder of what became the 7th Day Adventist Church. Until Miller's prophecies of the end proved to be wrong, both Stone and Scott, formerly postmillennialists, as was Campbell, followed Miller's predictions with keen interest. Even Campbell initially thought that Miller might be right.

Then there's our views on Civil Rights in the 60s. Would Churches of Christ have made the progress they did on Civil Rights had not the Baptist Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the wider religious and secular culture of the 60s not championed Civil Rights? I don't think so. In fact, many Church of Christ institutions initially resisted integration and full civil rights-until they saw the way the winds were blowing and that they couldn't resist it. Despite the fact that men like David Lipscomb had championed Christian integration in the 19th century.

Many of our distinctive views in churches of Christ can be traced back to specific leaders like Alexander Campbell, James A. Harding, David Lipscomb, TB Larimore, etc. What's interesting is that this process is actually selective. For example, we retained Alexander Campbell's opposition to spiritual gifts, while abandoning his view of the Holy Spirit personally indwelling each believer. We retained Campbell's belief in the remission of sins conferred at baptism, yet abandoned his insistence that it isn't necessary to understand remission in order for a baptism to be valid. We retained Moses Lard's opposition to instrumental music, but discarded his belief that there was/is a baptism of the Holy Spirit separate and apart from our water baptism into Christ. Many of the "founders" took female deacons for granted, yet we've largely abandoned that. Also, we've abandoned the predominant  premillennialism of the founders in favor of an amillennial position. As late as the 1950s GC Brewer taught that solos, duets and other "special music" was scriptural, yet when I was a kid "special music" was only allowed after the worship service was over. Alexander Campbell and most of the other notable ministers in the brotherhood did not believe it was necessary to have an understanding of the remision of sins for a baptism to be valid, and yet we largely abandoned that position as well.

Following the Bible is right and good. The problem comes when we expect everyone to interpret every part of it exactly like we do. Dr. Robert Richardson addressed this the 4th installment of his 1847 Millennial Harbinger series entitled Reformation:

It may be asserted, we presume, as a truth at length established by the world's experience, that the various parties or divisions which constitute Christendom can agree only in the general truths and facts of Christianity. To these there has always been a very marked and obvious assent. But when we descend to particularize; to the minutiae which may be descried by minds of microscopic intelligence; to the nice distinctions which may be drawn by the acumen of metaphysicians, we find as marked and striking a contradiction. The history of Christianity, indeed, from its very origin until now, might surely suffice to show how vain and hopeless is the attempt to induce the world to adopt any particular set of opinions or system of doctrines which can be devised by human skill. . . .

Were we, indeed, asked to define theoretically, in terms the most brief and expressive the reformation which we urge, we should denominate it-A generalization of Christianity. It is in this character that it presents a basis of Christian union. It is in this point that it lays aside the differences; the peculiarities; the distinctions, which disunite and mark out sects; and retains the agreements, the universalities, the identities which secure harmony and peace.  . . .

It is true, indeed, that we earnestly plead for the adoption of the Bible alone, and that we concur with the whole Protestant world in the . . . saying . . . that "the Bible is the religion of Protestants." . . . The whole Bible is certainly to be believed; the Bible  alone is to be recieved as the standard and fountain of divine truth; but it is not to be forgotten that the Bible contains much more than Christianity, and much more even of Christianity itself than is necessary to the object now before us-Christian unity and cooperation. To say that the Bible is our religion, is true, in the sense that the Bible contains our religion.- But Judaism is as much a religion of the Bible as Christianity. . . There needs no more fruitful source of error and confusion than the Bible alone, if every  portion of it be equally binding upon the Christian, and equally important to Christianity. . . .

The founders had another motto: In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; in all things, charity.

You can read the whole of Thomas Campbell's D & A and the other articles I posted from on Hans Rollmann's Restoration Movement website here:

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/restmov.html


Pax.

[Livelysword]

Lively, what do you consider a denomination to be?

Lively:  Any group which specifically are not the body of Christ... that is one has to be born exactly as the bible tells us one is to be born to be in the body of Christ... and when I say born... I am talking about baptism, our birth in baptism... and none of the religions out there are teaching it... and if they do teach that... they hold false worship...

[Lee Freeman]

Lively, what do you consider a denomination to be?

Lively:  Any group which specifically are not the body of Christ... that is one has to be born exactly as the bible tells us one is to be born to be in the body of Christ... and when I say born... I am talking about baptism, our birth in baptism... and none of the religions out there are teaching it... and if they do teach that... they hold false worship...

The Baptists, many Pentecostal denominations and Nondenominational churches preach the necessity of baptism by immersion. I heard with my own ears a nondenominational pastor say five times in a sermon once that baptism by immersion is the point at which we come into contact with Christ's saving blood. Many denoiminations teach the necessity of baptism. True, they don't all stress the remission of sins, but then neither did Alexander Campbell. He and his family were baptized by a Baptist elder and had no understanding of remission of sins being tied to baptism, yet even after Campbell discovered remission of sins he refused to be rebaptized on the grounds that he was already scripturally baptized. The primary design of baptism, Campbell argued, was to put one into Christ, not to confer remission of sins (though that happened too); one couldn't be born into Christ twice, therefore he rejected rebaptism for the remission of sins (or trhe gift of the Holy Spirit, or any other blessing connected to baptism). Campbell was a lot more broadminded than many of his spiritual descendents:

Baptism is no where proposed as an expiatory rite. He that regards it as such-he who goes to the water as a Jew to the altar, and is baptized merely to obtain the remission of his sins, mistakes the whole matter. . . .

I trust we need not attempt to show that Jesus Christ has not ordained any institution solely for the remission of sins-any rite or observance for expiation. Remission of sins is, indeed, connected with baptism; but so is adoption, sanctification, and all the blessings of the new institution. The salvation of the soul, which comprehends everything which can be enjoyed in this present world, is attached to it. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved. To be baptized exclusively for the remission of sins, is not what is meant by putting on Christ, or by being immersed into Christ. No person, intelligent in the Christian religion, can be baptized for the remission of his sins apart from all other blessings. . . .

Besides, no person can be born twice to come again into the same kingdom. The first birth introduces us into the kingdom of nature; regeneration, or being born of water and the Spirit, brings us into the kingdom of grace; and being born from the grave will introduce us into the kingdom of glory. NO man can be born twice into one and the same kingdom. (A. Campbell, "Rebaptism" MH, Nov., 1831)


Because, mark me closely, I do admit that a person who believes the gospel, and cannot be immersed, may obtain remission. So that I cannot take the affirmative and say remission is absolutely suspended upon being baptized in water. (Alexander Campbell, "Reply to [Baptist Pastor] James Fishback No. I," MH, July 2, 1832)


To require of every such applicant a statement of his views of each and every fact and ordinance in the Christian Institution; or to command a person, without examination, to nullify his former profession and to be baptized for the remission of sins, is, indeed, to paganize all immersed persons, and to place the world, the whole world, Jew, Gentile and Christian, just as it was on the day of Pentecost. (AC, "Reply," MH, 1835)


We have always preached that "he that believes the gospel and is immersed shall be saved." If, then, we must erect a new tribunal to determine the true believers, and the true gospel, and the true baptism, before admission to the Lord's table, we ought to abandon the no-creed system, and make the christian [sic] immersion a church business and have a vote in the church on all the "candidates for immersion."

But I oppose this whole course of procedure, because it is alien to the reformation;--the Bible alone system--and is in fact building again the things which we have been pulling down. It is turning away the ears of the people from the gospel to debates about words. . . (AC, "The Apostolic Advocate," MH, May, 1836)


But who is a Christian? I answer, Every one that believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God; repents of his sins, and obeys him in all things according to his measure of knowledge of his will. . . . Should I find a Pedobaptist more intelligent in the Christian Scriptures, more spiritually minded and more devoted to the Lord than a Baptist, or one immersed on a profession of the ancient faith, I could not hesitate a moment in giving the preference of my heart to him that loveth most. Did I act otherwise, I would be a pure sectarian, a Pharisee among Christians. Still I will be asked, How do I know that any one loves my Master but by his obedience to his commandments? I answer, in no other way. But mark, I do not substitute obedience to one commandment, for universal or even for general obedience. And should I see a sectarian Baptist or a Pedobaptist more spiritually minded, more generally conformed to the requisitions of the Messiah, than one who precisely acquiesces with me in the theory or practice of immersion as I teach, doubtless the former, rather than the latter, would have my cordial approbation and love as a Christian. So I judge, and so I feel. It is the image of Christ the Christian looks for and loves; and this does not consist in being exact in a few items, but in general devotion to the whole truth as far as known. . . . There is no occasion, then, for making immersion, on a profession of faith, absolutely essential to a Christian--though it may be greatly essential to his sanctification and comfort. . . . (A Campbell, "Any Christians Among Protestant Parties?," MH, Sept., 1837; Campbell's response to the Lunenburg Letter.)

We speak for ourselves only; and while we are always willing to give a declaration of our faith and knowledge of the Christian system, we firmly protest against dogmatically propounding our own views, or those of any fallible mortal, as a condition or foundation of church union and co-operation. (A. Campbell, Preface to the 2nd ed. of The Christian System, 1839)


We do not suppose all unimmersed persons to be absolute aliens from the family of God--nor are they absolutely excluded from any participation with us in prayer or in the Lord's supper. (Alexander Campbell, "The Christian Magazine," MH, March, 1845) To the idea that Campbell repudiated his views in the Lunenburg Letter, this is eight years after he wrote the response to the Lunenburg Letter.


"If he will dogmatize and become a factionist, we reject him--not because of his opinions, but because of his attempting to make a faction, or to lord it over God's heritage." (A. Campbell, commenting on how to deal with heresy)


Pax.

[Livelysword]

Lively, what do you consider a denomination to be?

Lively:  Any group which specifically are not the body of Christ... that is one has to be born exactly as the bible tells us one is to be born to be in the body of Christ... and when I say born... I am talking about baptism, our birth in baptism... and none of the religions out there are teaching it... and if they do teach that... they hold false worship...

The Baptists, many Pentecostal denominations and Nondenominational churches preach the necessity of baptism by immersion. I heard with my own ears a nondenominational pastor say five times in a sermon once that baptism by immersion is the point at which we come into contact with Christ's saving blood. Many denoiminations teach the necessity of baptism. True, they don't all stress the remission of sins, but then neither did Alexander Campbell. He and his family were baptized by a Baptist elder and had no understanding of remission of sins being tied to baptism, yet even after Campbell discovered remission of sins he refused to be rebaptized on the grounds that he was already scripturally baptized. The primary design of baptism, Campbell argued, was to put one into Christ, not to confer remission of sins (though that happened too); one couldn't be born into Christ twice, therefore he rejected rebaptism for the remission of sins (or trhe gift of the Holy Spirit, or any other blessing connected to baptism). Campbell was a lot more broadminded than many of his spiritual descendents:

Baptism is no where proposed as an expiatory rite. He that regards it as such-he who goes to the water as a Jew to the altar, and is baptized merely to obtain the remission of his sins, mistakes the whole matter. . . .

I trust we need not attempt to show that Jesus Christ has not ordained any institution solely for the remission of sins-any rite or observance for expiation. Remission of sins is, indeed, connected with baptism; but so is adoption, sanctification, and all the blessings of the new institution. The salvation of the soul, which comprehends everything which can be enjoyed in this present world, is attached to it. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved. To be baptized exclusively for the remission of sins, is not what is meant by putting on Christ, or by being immersed into Christ. No person, intelligent in the Christian religion, can be baptized for the remission of his sins apart from all other blessings. . . .

Besides, no person can be born twice to come again into the same kingdom. The first birth introduces us into the kingdom of nature; regeneration, or being born of water and the Spirit, brings us into the kingdom of grace; and being born from the grave will introduce us into the kingdom of glory. NO man can be born twice into one and the same kingdom. (A. Campbell, "Rebaptism" MH, Nov., 1831)


Because, mark me closely, I do admit that a person who believes the gospel, and cannot be immersed, may obtain remission. So that I cannot take the affirmative and say remission is absolutely suspended upon being baptized in water. (Alexander Campbell, "Reply to [Baptist Pastor] James Fishback No. I," MH, July 2, 1832)


To require of every such applicant a statement of his views of each and every fact and ordinance in the Christian Institution; or to command a person, without examination, to nullify his former profession and to be baptized for the remission of sins, is, indeed, to paganize all immersed persons, and to place the world, the whole world, Jew, Gentile and Christian, just as it was on the day of Pentecost. (AC, "Reply," MH, 1835)


We have always preached that "he that believes the gospel and is immersed shall be saved." If, then, we must erect a new tribunal to determine the true believers, and the true gospel, and the true baptism, before admission to the Lord's table, we ought to abandon the no-creed system, and make the christian [sic] immersion a church business and have a vote in the church on all the "candidates for immersion."

But I oppose this whole course of procedure, because it is alien to the reformation;--the Bible alone system--and is in fact building again the things which we have been pulling down. It is turning away the ears of the people from the gospel to debates about words. . . (AC, "The Apostolic Advocate," MH, May, 1836)


But who is a Christian? I answer, Every one that believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God; repents of his sins, and obeys him in all things according to his measure of knowledge of his will. . . . Should I find a Pedobaptist more intelligent in the Christian Scriptures, more spiritually minded and more devoted to the Lord than a Baptist, or one immersed on a profession of the ancient faith, I could not hesitate a moment in giving the preference of my heart to him that loveth most. Did I act otherwise, I would be a pure sectarian, a Pharisee among Christians. Still I will be asked, How do I know that any one loves my Master but by his obedience to his commandments? I answer, in no other way. But mark, I do not substitute obedience to one commandment, for universal or even for general obedience. And should I see a sectarian Baptist or a Pedobaptist more spiritually minded, more generally conformed to the requisitions of the Messiah, than one who precisely acquiesces with me in the theory or practice of immersion as I teach, doubtless the former, rather than the latter, would have my cordial approbation and love as a Christian. So I judge, and so I feel. It is the image of Christ the Christian looks for and loves; and this does not consist in being exact in a few items, but in general devotion to the whole truth as far as known. . . . There is no occasion, then, for making immersion, on a profession of faith, absolutely essential to a Christian--though it may be greatly essential to his sanctification and comfort. . . . (A Campbell, "Any Christians Among Protestant Parties?," MH, Sept., 1837; Campbell's response to the Lunenburg Letter.)

We speak for ourselves only; and while we are always willing to give a declaration of our faith and knowledge of the Christian system, we firmly protest against dogmatically propounding our own views, or those of any fallible mortal, as a condition or foundation of church union and co-operation. (A. Campbell, Preface to the 2nd ed. of The Christian System, 1839)


We do not suppose all unimmersed persons to be absolute aliens from the family of God--nor are they absolutely excluded from any participation with us in prayer or in the Lord's supper. (Alexander Campbell, "The Christian Magazine," MH, March, 1845) To the idea that Campbell repudiated his views in the Lunenburg Letter, this is eight years after he wrote the response to the Lunenburg Letter.


"If he will dogmatize and become a factionist, we reject him--not because of his opinions, but because of his attempting to make a faction, or to lord it over God's heritage." (A. Campbell, commenting on how to deal with heresy)


Pax.

Lively:  is that so....


http://www.answers.com/topic/baptist


 Qualifications

Only those people who are baptized members of a local Baptist church[7] are included in the total number of Baptists. Most Baptist churches do not have an age restriction on membership, but will not accept as a member a child who is considered too young to fully understand and make a profession of faith of their own volition and comprehension. In such cases, the pastor and parents usually meet together with the child to verify the child's comprehension of the decision to follow Jesus. There are instances where persons make a profession of faith but fail to follow through with believers' baptism. In such cases they are considered saved but not church members until baptized. Although most churches require you to be baptized to become a member of the church or, alternatively, to transfer membership from a church of like faith, they believe that being baptized will not save you, it is only the outward showing of the washing away of the consequences of the sin nature through the acceptance of the sacrificial death and shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ. It is expected upon baptism that the subject will renounce Satan and commit to Christ and the faithfulness of his teachings. When baptized the convert may participate in his or her first Eucharist, and will be expected to participate in the first Sunday, to show his or her thankfulness for Jesus' sacrifice. However, the children are to be baptized prior to participating in their first Eucharist (first Sunday). If children and unbaptized congregants were counted, world Baptists might number over 150 million.

Some churches, especially in the UK, do not require members to have been baptized as a believer, as long as they have made an adult declaration of faith – for example, been confirmed in the Anglican church, or become communicant members as Presbyterians. In these cases, believers would usually transfer their memberships from their previous churches. This allows people who have grown up in one tradition, but now feel settled in their local Baptist church, to fully take part in the day to day life of the church, voting at meetings, etc. It is also possible, but unusual, to be baptized without becoming a church member immediately.

[memmy]

Not all individual coC denominations are exactly the same either lively.