Author Topic: Why our unity movement failed?  (Read 31017 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12499
  • Manna: 226
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #70 on: Wed Nov 14, 2007 - 11:01:18 »
Some points of interest (to me at least)

We can replace the commandment to wash feet  with some other form of servanthood (cultural you Know?) 

We can replace fasting with other more acceptable forms of sacrifice.

We can  substitute greet one another with a holy kiss with a hand shake.

we can ignore lifting up holy hands in prayer (to pentecostal you see)

Elders can pray for the sick and not annoint with oil.

But when it comes to baptism it must be by imerssion, the recipient must understand it is for the remission of sins and if it is not done or the wrong method is used or the person does not fully understand they are lost because they have never beeen saved.  Sounds like salvation by works not grace to me.  Later johnb

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #70 on: Wed Nov 14, 2007 - 11:01:18 »

Offline notofmyown

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 495
  • Manna: 51
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #71 on: Wed Nov 14, 2007 - 11:09:27 »
Sherman said
Unity then is based on recognizing as brothers and sisters in Christ those who have faith in Jesus Christ

Strip away all the 19th century wordiness and jargon and that is what our unity movement was founded on.  Thomas Campbell got in trouble for offering the LS to a different brand of Christian.  He and others simply wanted Christians to own one another and rid themselves of the sectarian spirit.

That sums up Campbell's theology pretty well. Thomas was convinced that the mainstream Protestant denominations shared more beliefs in common than not. He believed that where they differed was chiefly in "matters of which the kingdom of heaven does not consist. In other words, incidental, peripheral doctrines. Robert Richardson, A. Campbell's biographer, defined the movement as "a generalization of Christianity." It looked for the common ground on essential doctrines of the faith that all orthodox denominations shared in common. Both father and son were more concerned with the evils of sectarianism than with ensuring doctrinal orthodoxy in every particular. I'm convinced that were either the Campbells or Stone to come back today their views would be considered too "liberal" by many to allow them to preach or teach their views. Sadly I'm not sure they'd recognize their own movement divided as it is into three main factions and a dozen smaller, splinter groups.

Pax vobiscum.



It is interesting to me that many of the more traditional publications like Gospel Advocate have had articles recently talking about the "hijacking" of the Church's History and the Hijacking of quotes from these "founders"  They do not like you to go back to many of these founders because they are out of sync with what is now....So Lee and others  stop the hijacking ok? ::tippinghat:: jk ya know but it is kinda sad that only certain "people" are allowed to quote from these guys.

Offline Howie26

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
  • Manna: 3
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #72 on: Wed Nov 14, 2007 - 12:06:13 »
Some points of interest (to me at least)

We can replace the commandment to wash feet  with some other form of servanthood (cultural you Know?) 

We can replace fasting with other more acceptable forms of sacrifice.

We can  substitute greet one another with a holy kiss with a hand shake.

we can ignore lifting up holy hands in prayer (to pentecostal you see)

Elders can pray for the sick and not annoint with oil.

But when it comes to baptism it must be by imerssion, the recipient must understand it is for the remission of sins and if it is not done or the wrong method is used or the person does not fully understand they are lost because they have never beeen saved.  Sounds like salvation by works not grace to me.  Later johnb

John,

I agree with your assessment that we can get too narrow in our view of baptism/immersion.  We're not the only group that suffers from this problem.  I had a study with a woman recently who told me she had been immersed 3 times in 3 different churches and at no time for the reasons I was showing her in Scripture.

However, it seems from your previous post that you may regard immersion in water in the 1st century as a strictly cultural matter.  I'm willing to consider that - but there are so many applications like Romans 6:3 to the DBR of Jesus; Galatians 3:27 to wearing Christ; Colossians 2:12, DBR again; I Peter 3:21 to the water that saved Noah from the wicked world; Acts 22:16 to washing away sins.  I think there's so many applications here that, unless all the world's water were to dry up, it is just as much a part of the plan now as it was then.

Offline memmy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11973
  • Manna: 322
  • Gender: Female
  • Blessings
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #73 on: Wed Nov 14, 2007 - 12:17:45 »
Quote
Why our unity movement failed?


Because we have taken the focus off of Christ and put it on us, (the church).

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12499
  • Manna: 226
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #74 on: Wed Nov 14, 2007 - 12:19:28 »
Howie

I believe immersion was the original form of baptism.  I prefer that and teach that.  However like the Campbells and Stone I am not willing to  exclude others from fellowship because they do not understand or see scripture exactly like I do.  Later Johnb

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #74 on: Wed Nov 14, 2007 - 12:19:28 »



Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12499
  • Manna: 226
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #75 on: Wed Nov 14, 2007 - 12:21:04 »
Quote
Because we have taken the focus off of Christ and put it on us, (the church).

Amen!

Offline Howie26

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
  • Manna: 3
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #76 on: Wed Nov 14, 2007 - 13:37:31 »
Howie

I believe immersion was the original form of baptism.  I prefer that and teach that.  However like the Campbells and Stone I am not willing to  exclude others from fellowship because they do not understand or see scripture exactly like I do.  Later Johnb

Neither am I

Offline Sherman Nobles

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3294
  • Manna: 272
  • Gender: Male
  • "For God so loved...."
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #77 on: Wed Nov 14, 2007 - 13:47:10 »
Quote
So, salvation is by grace through faith and faith is not even from ourselves, but is a gift from God!

Sherman,

I believe you are referring to Ephesians 2:8 here.  And if I understand that verse correctly, it is salvation that is a gift from God, not faith.  Faith is from ourselves (Genesis 15:1-6, Hebrews 11:6).

Eph.2.8-10
"For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God not of works, lest anyone should boast.  For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."

The phrase in question is "that not of yourselves", what does it refer to?  I suppose it could refer to either salvation or faith.  Salvation is a gift for sure, but is faith also a gift?  It's proximity to "that not of yourselves" leans credance to the concept.  And 1 Cor. 12 speaks of the "gift of faith".  And faith comes from hearing the word of God; and faith is not something that we can manufacture on our own but is dependent upon God revealing His word to us.  So I lean towards faith itself being a gift from God, as well as salvation, of course.  

And then from experience, whenever I hear the voice of the Lord, faith comes with word.  I don't have to work it up.  Noah had faith to build the ark, because God told him to build the ark and revealed to him what was coming.  I believe faith is a by-product of humbly receptively hearing the word of God.  But then it takes faith to listen for and trust the word of God.  

So faith is both something God gives us and something that we choose.  But does faith originate within ourselves?  I don't think so.  If God doesn't turn the lights on, we stay in darkness.  We are dead in our trespasses and sins and dead men cannot raise themselves from the dead; only God can give dead men life.  So salvation is completely the work of God in our hearts.  But then we also accept that we have free choice.  Calvanism vs. Armenianism, which one?

Calvanism =  
God Foreordains -> Man is Saved -> Man Receives Salvation by Faith

Armenianism =
God Foreknows -> Man Receives Salvation by Faith -> Man is Saved

Note how they are both linear/temporal, but God is eternal.  I believe both are true simultaneously.  It's like AC electricity which flows both directions at the same time.  I don't know how it does that, but I know when I turn the switch on the lights come on.  In like manner, faith is a gift and a response.  I don't know how salvation works, but I know that I am saved because of the Sacrifice of Jesus; and God turned on the lights for me.

Hallelujah!

Thanks for reading my ramblings; I hope they are encouraging!

Offline Brian Kelley

  • Member of God's one church
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 847
  • Manna: 7
  • Gender: Male
  • Saint Brian
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #78 on: Wed Nov 14, 2007 - 13:49:59 »
Quote
So, salvation is by grace through faith and faith is not even from ourselves, but is a gift from God!

Sherman,

I believe you are referring to Ephesians 2:8 here.  And if I understand that verse correctly, it is salvation that is a gift from God, not faith.  Faith is from ourselves (Genesis 15:1-6, Hebrews 11:6).

Eph.2.8-10
"For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God not of works, lest anyone should boast.  For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."

The phrase in question is "that not of yourselves", what does it refer to?  I suppose it could refer to either salvation or faith.  Salvation is a gift for sure, but is faith also a gift?  It's proximity to "that not of yourselves" leans credance to the concept.  And 1 Cor. 12 speaks of the "gift of faith".  And faith comes from hearing the word of God; and faith is not something that we can manufacture on our own but is dependent upon God revealing His word to us.  So I lean towards faith itself being a gift from God, as well as salvation, of course. 

And then from experience, whenever I hear the voice of the Lord, faith comes with word.  I don't have to work it up.  Noah had faith to build the ark, because God told him to build the ark and revealed to him what was coming.  I believe faith is a by-product of humbly receptively hearing the word of God.  But then it takes faith to listen for and trust the word of God. 

So faith is both something God gives us and something that we choose.  But does faith originate within ourselves?  I don't think so.  If God doesn't turn the lights on, we stay in darkness.  We are dead in our trespasses and sins and dead men cannot raise themselves from the dead; only God can give dead men life.  So salvation is completely the work of God in our hearts.  But then we also accept that we have free choice.  Calvanism vs. Armenianism, which one?

Calvanism = 
God Foreordains -> Man is Saved -> Man Receives Salvation by Faith

Armenianism =
God Foreknows -> Man Receives Salvation by Faith -> Man is Saved

Note how they are both linear/temporal, but God is eternal.  I believe both are true simultaneously.  It's like AC electricity which flows both directions at the same time.  I don't know how it does that, but I know when I turn the switch on the lights come on.  In like manner, faith is a gift and a response.  I don't know how salvation works, but I know that I am saved because of the Sacrifice of Jesus; and God turned on the lights for me.

Hallelujah!

Thanks for reading my ramblings; I hope they are encouraging!
I don't understand why God cannot elect some people while others freely choose Him, both being saved eventually through belief and receipt of Jesus.

Offline Sherman Nobles

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3294
  • Manna: 272
  • Gender: Male
  • "For God so loved...."
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #79 on: Wed Nov 14, 2007 - 13:55:40 »
I don't understand why God cannot elect some people while others freely choose Him, both being saved eventually through belief and receipt of Jesus.

Actually, when you hear various peoples' testimonies, some seem to be hand-picked by God and almost forced to believe (like Paul and even Thomas).  With others it's a much more gradual unfolding (like the tradition of Barnabas' conversion).  But in both types, if God doesn't do it, it doesn't get done.

Offline Brian Kelley

  • Member of God's one church
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 847
  • Manna: 7
  • Gender: Male
  • Saint Brian
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #80 on: Wed Nov 14, 2007 - 14:05:33 »
Certainly God does it, but one can ask God to help them.

Offline Sherman Nobles

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3294
  • Manna: 272
  • Gender: Male
  • "For God so loved...."
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #81 on: Wed Nov 14, 2007 - 14:43:37 »
Absolutely! What does the word say, "Ask and you shall receive. Seek and you will find. Knock and the door will be opened."  So our part in our relationship with God is very important.

Offline peck

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1518
  • Manna: 165
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #82 on: Thu Nov 15, 2007 - 05:35:09 »
My understanding of faith is that it is the avenue by which God "gives us" an opportunity to access the grace of God...but each of us have the responsibility of an inward choice of deciding if we want to accept Jesus as Lord..We must hear about Jesus by some means..We must do our part and accept the message..God's part ...our part..

However,what about Lydia...did God help her accept the message of the gospel..Acts16:14..the Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message...

Would the jailer ever have accepted Jesus as Lord if a miracle had not happened...

Would Paul have ever given up his Jewish zeal without a miracle...

I don't know but perhaps these unusual events were an exception to the rule that each of us today face...

It seems that God looked on the heart of Cornelius and accepted him because of his own faith and then the special event of the HS occured...after faith..but then again Peter was sent to him through supernatural means...

So,in my opinion,the absolute truth may be from both sides of this issue..

God bless,Peck

da525382

  • Guest
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #83 on: Thu Nov 15, 2007 - 07:57:07 »
My understanding of faith is that it is the avenue by which God "gives us" an opportunity to access the grace of God...but each of us have the responsibility of an inward choice of deciding if we want to accept Jesus as Lord..We must hear about Jesus by some means..We must do our part and accept the message..God's part ...our part..

I certainly agree, Peck, however, there still remains two greatly divided interpretations in the Christian world that cannot at the same time be absolute truth.  One side attributes our salvation entirely to a move of God based in election, the other attributes the completion of our salvation only to our own response independent and apart from God.  The two, ISTM, cannot exist together for one attributes all of our salvation to God, the other to God only to a point, after which completion is accomplished by man's response.  I personally attribute every single aspect of my own salvation to God, to a move of God, I claim none of it, and all to His glory.  That belief is anathema to many Christians, and vice-versa, not therefore co-existant absolute truth, ISTM.

The better understanding comes when one can see the tension in scripture relative to one's free choice or response being pre-ordained by God.  Both in our minds seemingly cannot exist, but scripturally they do.

Offline Sherman Nobles

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3294
  • Manna: 272
  • Gender: Male
  • "For God so loved...."
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #84 on: Thu Nov 15, 2007 - 08:46:10 »
Western Greco-Roman thought is more logic oriented and focuses more on either/or; salvation is either God's choice or it's our response.  Eastern thought is more mystical and readily accepts both/and statements; salvation is both God's choice and it's our response.  Scripture reflects more of an Eastern mindset; though Paul does attempt to translate such concepts into Western thought. 

I tend to lean more towards salvation being a mystery, both God's choice and my response.  I don't know how it works, but I do know that I've received Christ by faith, been born of His Spirit, and I can see the Kingdom of God and am seated with Christ in heavenly places - all because of the grace of God (undeserved favor towards me)!

Offline peck

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1518
  • Manna: 165
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #85 on: Thu Nov 15, 2007 - 09:11:13 »
My understanding of faith is that it is the avenue by which God "gives us" an opportunity to access the grace of God...but each of us have the responsibility of an inward choice of deciding if we want to accept Jesus as Lord..We must hear about Jesus by some means..We must do our part and accept the message..God's part ...our part..

I certainly agree, Peck, however, there still remains two greatly divided interpretations in the Christian world that cannot at the same time be absolute truth.  One side attributes our salvation entirely to a move of God based in election, the other attributes the completion of our salvation only to our own response independent and apart from God.  The two, ISTM, cannot exist together for one attributes all of our salvation to God, the other to God only to a point, after which completion is accomplished by man's response.  I personally attribute every single aspect of my own salvation to God, to a move of God, I claim none of it, and all to His glory.  That belief is anathema to many Christians, and vice-versa, not therefore co-existant absolute truth, ISTM.

The better understanding comes when one can see the tension in scripture relative to one's free choice or response being pre-ordained by God.  Both in our minds seemingly cannot exist, but scripturally they do.


Very well said...I suppose my reason for saying both thoughts are absolute was in the fact that each side has an absolute truth on the pages of the bible...Both sides get their discernment from the absolute truth in the words of the bible....perception makes 2 choices seem to be different yet both seek truth from the bible itself....

God bless,Peck

da525382

  • Guest
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #86 on: Thu Nov 15, 2007 - 09:31:40 »
Western Greco-Roman thought is more logic oriented and focuses more on either/or; salvation is either God's choice or it's our response.  Eastern thought is more mystical and readily accepts both/and statements; salvation is both God's choice and it's our response.  Scripture reflects more of an Eastern mindset; though Paul does attempt to translate such concepts into Western thought. 

I tend to lean more towards salvation being a mystery, both God's choice and my response.  I don't know how it works, but I do know that I've received Christ by faith, been born of His Spirit, and I can see the Kingdom of God and am seated with Christ in heavenly places - all because of the grace of God (undeserved favor towards me)!

Sherman, that's a great post.....

Offline Howie26

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
  • Manna: 3
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #87 on: Thu Nov 15, 2007 - 11:29:28 »
It seems this post is now very off-topic.  I would like to see a new thread on God's choice/our choice.  I do not agree with Calvinism - which I believe was Calvin's attempt to answer what the Bible does not address.  But I would look forward to a discussion on the matter.

Offline Barabbas

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 558
  • Manna: 17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #88 on: Thu Nov 15, 2007 - 12:14:22 »
I think a movement where it tries to be ecumenical on one hand and then define what particular practices one must do to be a christian on the other is doomed to failure - two mutually exclusive goals.  Most churches vary along this line - extreme ecumenism on one side - extreme narrowness of definition of christianity on the other, with the illustration of the narrow way to back them up.

Offline Barabbas

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 558
  • Manna: 17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #89 on: Thu Nov 15, 2007 - 12:16:38 »
It seems this post is now very off-topic.  I would like to see a new thread on God's choice/our choice.  I do not agree with Calvinism - which I believe was Calvin's attempt to answer what the Bible does not address.  But I would look forward to a discussion on the matter.

Historically speaking, I think the restoration movement's view on baptism grew out of anxiety of the calvinistic approach.  Am I really one of the saved? Am I one of the elect? How can I be sure? Since such and such went athiest - he must not have been a "real" christian anyway - he must not have been one of the elect.

The Campbells, coming out of the Presbyterian tradition which is highly Calvanistic, knew all about this anxiety. How can we relieve this anxiety about who is saved and who is not? They interpreted baptism to be this outward sign of inward grace. No longer does one have to anguish over election or not - one can have confidence by baptism that they are the saved in Christ.

Of course this just moved confidence back a level. What if my baptism wasn't for the right reasons? What if I wasn't immersed? What if I was only baptised as an infant? We're back to square one - ANXIETY

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #90 on: Thu Nov 15, 2007 - 14:47:10 »
Some points of interest (to me at least)

We can replace the commandment to wash feet  with some other form of servanthood (cultural you Know?) 

We can replace fasting with other more acceptable forms of sacrifice.

We can  substitute greet one another with a holy kiss with a hand shake.

we can ignore lifting up holy hands in prayer (to pentecostal you see)

Elders can pray for the sick and not annoint with oil.

But when it comes to baptism it must be by imerssion, the recipient must understand it is for the remission of sins and if it is not done or the wrong method is used or the person does not fully understand they are lost because they have never beeen saved.  Sounds like salvation by works not grace to me.  Later johnb

John, as you know, the majority opinion among churches of Christ until about fifty years ago was that a knowledge of remission was not required for a baptism to be valid. Campbell opposed the teaching that those baptized in Baptist Churches or otherwise without a specific knowledge of remission had to be re-immersed,. For Campbell (and Stone) a trusting faith in Christ and a willingness to obey him was the key factor.

In fact, David Lipscomb stated in the GA that he couldn't think of anything more selfish than a penitent being baptized or re-baptized specifically for the remission of sins. Belief and obedience were all that were required.

Pax vobiscum.


Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #91 on: Thu Nov 15, 2007 - 14:57:01 »
It seems this post is now very off-topic.  I would like to see a new thread on God's choice/our choice.  I do not agree with Calvinism - which I believe was Calvin's attempt to answer what the Bible does not address.  But I would look forward to a discussion on the matter.

Historically speaking, I think the restoration movement's view on baptism grew out of anxiety of the calvinistic approach.  Am I really one of the saved? Am I one of the elect? How can I be sure? Since such and such went atheist - he must not have been a "real" christian anyway - he must not have been one of the elect.

The Campbells, coming out of the Presbyterian tradition which is highly Calvanistic, knew all about this anxiety. How can we relieve this anxiety about who is saved and who is not? They interpreted baptism to be this outward sign of inward grace. No longer does one have to anguish over election or not - one can have confidence by baptism that they are the saved in Christ.

Of course this just moved confidence back a level. What if my baptism wasn't for the right reasons? What if I wasn't immersed? What if I was only baptised as an infant? We're back to square one - ANXIETY

This is it exactly.  How could one be certain one's conversion experience, assuming one even received one, was a valid, genuine experience, and not one's mind playing tricks on them? Under extreme frontier Calvinism, conversion experiences were only eligible to an elect few, known only to God. But Campbell read the Bible and saw that God didn't desire anyone to be lost. Baptism was the way a believer could thus have the assurance that he/she was saved.

Campbell stated on a number of occasions that belief and baptism were the only prerequisites for Christian union. As I said above, a specific understanding of remission, the gift of the Holy Spirit, etc. were not required in Campbell's theology. If the penitent submitted to baptism out of a trusting faith, God would fulfill his promises. And he wavered on whether or not immersion was absolutely essential in every case, theorizing that some who had mistaken the outward baptism might still possess the inward. By the late 1840s his thinking had evolved to the point where he was willing to own as a brother anyone who believed and taught the "seven ones" of Ephesians 4.

Pax vobiscum.
« Last Edit: Thu Nov 15, 2007 - 15:03:18 by Lee Freeman »

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12499
  • Manna: 226
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #92 on: Thu Nov 15, 2007 - 15:00:57 »
Lee
Yep.  You are correct.  But I have seen a lot of folks dunked in the last 35 years.

I like this quote you use.  I also wish He would have lived longer and influenced our movement more.

"Let the unity of Christians be our polar star." - Elder Barton Warren Stone (1772-1844)

My cousin's mom was re-baptized three times. And I have a friend who's been re-baptized something like eight or nine times, so I know exactly what you mean.

I like (obviously) the Stone quote, too. Stone was convinced that neither the Bible, nor doctrine, nor baptism could unite the Church-only when each believer possessed "the spirit of the book," would the Church ever be united.

Pax vobiscum.
« Last Edit: Thu Nov 15, 2007 - 15:07:04 by Lee Freeman »

Offline Howie26

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
  • Manna: 3
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #93 on: Thu Nov 15, 2007 - 15:04:32 »
I agree with the thinking that you don't have to know everything about immersion.  Mark 16:16 clearly says, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved."  I only see the act prompted by faith here.

But here's my question.  What if a person, at the point of being baptized, is told, "This has nothing to do with being saved.  You're already saved.  This is to become a part of our denomination."  I'm not being hypothetical here.  People have told me this was the process they went through.  Since the physical act is secondary, and the faith behind the act is primary - if, in your mind, you are saying, "This act is NOT for the forgiveness of sins, I do NOT put on Christ through this, my sins are NOT being washed away at this point," -- this isn't just incomplete knowledge; it contradicts the reasons why we are baptized -- but if this is what is in your mind, what you believe, isn't that cause to question the validity of the person's response?

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #94 on: Thu Nov 15, 2007 - 15:10:20 »
I agree with the thinking that you don't have to know everything about immersion.  Mark 16:16 clearly says, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved."  I only see the act prompted by faith here.

But here's my question.  What if a person, at the point of being baptized, is told, "This has nothing to do with being saved.  You're already saved.  This is to become a part of our denomination."  I'm not being hypothetical here.  People have told me this was the process they went through.  Since the physical act is secondary, and the faith behind the act is primary - if, in your mind, you are saying, "This act is NOT for the forgiveness of sins, I do NOT put on Christ through this, my sins are NOT being washed away at this point," -- this isn't just incomplete knowledge; it contradicts the reasons why we are baptized -- but if this is what is in your mind, what you believe, isn't that cause to question the validity of the person's response?

Howie, I was taught that such a baptism was wrong. But now I believe that anyone who believes in Jesus and is baptized, whether they think they're already saved or not, is saved.

Pax vobiscum.

Offline Howie26

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
  • Manna: 3
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #95 on: Thu Nov 15, 2007 - 15:22:15 »
I don't tell people in this position that they're not saved or that they are saved.  My approach has been to listen, show some examples and explanations from Scripture, and let them make up their own mind about it.  Most, but not all, decide to be re-immersed.  Do you think I am over-imposing about this? 

marc

  • Guest
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #96 on: Thu Nov 15, 2007 - 17:08:06 »
I think that we're to have faith in Jesus when we're baptized.  If we do, I see no reason to be baptized again.  Faith in baptism is not required.

Offline Bon Voyage

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16049
  • Manna: 408
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #97 on: Thu Nov 15, 2007 - 17:21:13 »
I agree with the thinking that you don't have to know everything about immersion.  Mark 16:16 clearly says, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved."  I only see the act prompted by faith here.

But here's my question.  What if a person, at the point of being baptized, is told, "This has nothing to do with being saved.  You're already saved.  This is to become a part of our denomination."  I'm not being hypothetical here.  People have told me this was the process they went through.  Since the physical act is secondary, and the faith behind the act is primary - if, in your mind, you are saying, "This act is NOT for the forgiveness of sins, I do NOT put on Christ through this, my sins are NOT being washed away at this point," -- this isn't just incomplete knowledge; it contradicts the reasons why we are baptized -- but if this is what is in your mind, what you believe, isn't that cause to question the validity of the person's response?

If the baptism was only to join a denomination, then I would probably agree with you.  But I believe it is more of a red herring than not.

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 36927
  • Manna: 786
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #98 on: Thu Nov 15, 2007 - 17:24:42 »

If the baptism was only to join a denomination, then I would probably agree with you.  But I believe it is more of a red herring than not.

A pink herring then?  ::smile::

Offline Bon Voyage

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16049
  • Manna: 408
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #99 on: Thu Nov 15, 2007 - 17:26:32 »

If the baptism was only to join a denomination, then I would probably agree with you.  But I believe it is more of a red herring than not.

A pink herring then?  ::smile::

Maybe.  It is definitely not as prevalent as some like to make it.

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 36927
  • Manna: 786
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #100 on: Thu Nov 15, 2007 - 17:31:32 »

If the baptism was only to join a denomination, then I would probably agree with you.  But I believe it is more of a red herring than not.

A pink herring then?  ::smile::

Maybe.  It is definitely not as prevalent as some like to make it.

I don't know about Baptists everywhere, but every Baptist individual I know (mostly southern Baptist, but even more so with the independents I know) will defend to the death that they are ONLY baptized for the reason of "joining the church".

They all understand that my view of Baptism is different and that the two are not interchangeable. ie I could not become a Baptist without being baptized INTO the Baptist Church. My church of Christ will recognize and has recognized their baptism if they want to join our church, but that is by no means universal with c of C's. All our church requires for membership is that members be baptized believers (period). My daughter cannot be a member of her father in law's Baptist church (he's the pastor) without being re-baptized into the Baptist church.

Offline Bon Voyage

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16049
  • Manna: 408
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #101 on: Thu Nov 15, 2007 - 17:34:16 »

If the baptism was only to join a denomination, then I would probably agree with you.  But I believe it is more of a red herring than not.

A pink herring then?  ::smile::

Maybe.  It is definitely not as prevalent as some like to make it.

I don't know about Baptists everywhere, but every Baptist individual I know (mostly southern Baptist, but even more so with the independents I know) will defend to the death that they are ONLY baptized for the reason of "joining the church".

I walk among Baptists and I don't hear this. 

marc

  • Guest
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #102 on: Thu Nov 15, 2007 - 17:37:52 »
There are more baptists aroundhere than there are Adkinses (and there are more adkinses than little green frogs), and this isn't what the ones I know say, only what our people say about them. 

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 36927
  • Manna: 786
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #103 on: Thu Nov 15, 2007 - 17:38:20 »

If the baptism was only to join a denomination, then I would probably agree with you.  But I believe it is more of a red herring than not.

A pink herring then?  ::smile::

Maybe.  It is definitely not as prevalent as some like to make it.

I don't know about Baptists everywhere, but every Baptist individual I know (mostly southern Baptist, but even more so with the independents I know) will defend to the death that they are ONLY baptized for the reason of "joining the church".

I walk among Baptists and I don't hear this. 

Must be yankee Baptists

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 36927
  • Manna: 786
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Why our unity movement failed?
« Reply #104 on: Thu Nov 15, 2007 - 17:39:24 »
There are more baptists aroundhere than there are Adkinses (and there are more adkinses than little green frogs), and this isn't what the ones I know say, only what our people say about them. 

Ask one if you can join their church without being baptized into it.

 

     
anything