One Entrance into the One Kingdom

[marc]

Speaking practically, I don't think the Muslims, who are doing the persecuting, are concerned about our doctrinal squabbles.  The reason for this would be that baptism is an obvious, visible statement.  It's a commitment; no turning back.  It does seem to be a turning point.

Rubel Shelly commented a few years back that a Baptist missionary in Africa had told him he was having trouble getting people in the water for this very reason. 

But you know, there aren't any half-in followers.  Jesus talked about this a bit.

Regardless of whether we believe this is the exact point at which our sins are forgiven, common usage of the term "baptism" marks it as a beginning.  Rubel used the term "crossing the Rubicon". 

It takes courage to make a decision for Christ in a Muslim country. 

[Lee Freeman]

I believe the Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16 "you must believe it is for the remission of sins" to be absurd as well.

Can a person be baptized by any other authority than Christ's? 
Can a man be baptized by his own authority?  How about President Bush's authority?  Can he be baptized by John Lennon or Allah or Buddha's authority? 

If you say that he must be baptized in the name of or authority of Christ, then we have a problem.  For there are conditions in Acts 2:38:
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Both conditions apply or neither condition applies.

Churchmember, scripture lists lots of reasons for being baptized and lots of blessings bestowed by God at baptism, such as: the gift of the Holy Spirit; the remission of sins; the pledge of a good conscience; because of the resurrection of Christ; dying to sin; being buried and raised with Christ; being clothed with Christ; being born into his kingdom; etc. Why do people only latch on to the remission of sins as if it's the only reason, or at least the only reason a person has to be consciously aware of before their baptism is valid? To be consistent, if one must know and properly understand remisson of sins before one can be properly baptized, one must also know about all these others before one can be properly baptized.  

But to insist that people have such knowledge makes baptism a work. Basically saying that only if I understand it correctly first God will save me.

I've never heard a minister before going into the water ask a person to repeat after him: "I believe that baptism is for the remission of sins," nor in the water say to that person, "Joe, based upon your confession that baptism is for the remission of sins, I now baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, for the remission of your sins." No, they're asked to confess Jesus. That's the only valid knowledge a person must have-that Jesus is the Christ, and the only confession they must make. The majority consensus among  churches of Christ has historically been that a baptism done for any or all of of the above-mentioned scriptural blessings/reasons to be baptized, or for the simple desire to obey God, was/is a valid baptism.

To say that I have to understand remission first or God can't or won't save me is like saying a malaria shot will only work if I'm aware that's it's a malaria shot first. When in fact, the shot does what it's supposed to and cures my malaria regardless of whether or not I'm aware that it's a shot for malaria.

Pax.

[SammySmile]

The word "save" can mean to be "kept safe," as Noah was kept safe in the ark.  The context of the passage is Christians coming under persecution.

In some Muslim countries, for example, Christians are not persecuted until they are water baptized.  Why?  

Because they are not yet Christians according to God's Word!

Tommy

No, Tommy, not according to God's Word.  Only according to your COC tradition.  Peter said he that believes on Jesus shall receive remission of sins.  That's a much, much, much more iron-clad statement than your interpretation of baptism for the remission of sins which has multiple meanings. 

[TRH]

The word "save" can mean to be "kept safe," as Noah was kept safe in the ark.  The context of the passage is Christians coming under persecution.

In some Muslim countries, for example, Christians are not persecuted until they are water baptized.  Why?  

Because they are not yet Christians according to God's Word!

Tommy

No, Tommy, not according to God's Word.  Only according to your COC tradition.  Peter said he that believes on Jesus shall receive remission of sins.  That's a much, much, much more iron-clad statement than your interpretation of baptism for the remission of sins which has multiple meanings. 

SammySmile,

Just so you know on the front end of this discussion I am not trying to pick a fight in anyway.  I honestly fail to see how anyone could attempt to discredit baptism being the point one becomes a child of God.  Would you provide book chapter and verse to support your belief please?



Do you agree with belief as it is defined in the NT?  By the statement you made you do not.  How do you reconcile immersion's role and your opinion with the conversions recorded in the NT?  Also you may want to include several other "traditions" with your list.

Tommy

[SammySmile]

The word "save" can mean to be "kept safe," as Noah was kept safe in the ark.  The context of the passage is Christians coming under persecution.

In some Muslim countries, for example, Christians are not persecuted until they are water baptized.  Why?  

Because they are not yet Christians according to God's Word!

Tommy

No, Tommy, not according to God's Word.  Only according to your COC tradition.  Peter said he that believes on Jesus shall receive remission of sins.  That's a much, much, much more iron-clad statement than your interpretation of baptism for the remission of sins which has multiple meanings. 

SammySmile,

Just so you know on the front end of this discussion I am not trying to pick a fight in anyway.  I honestly fail to see how anyone could attempt to discredit baptism being the point one becomes a child of God.  Would you provide book chapter and verse to support your belief please?



Do you agree with belief as it is defined in the NT?  By the statement you made you do not.  How do you reconcile immersion's role and your opinion with the conversions recorded in the NT?  Also you may want to include several other "traditions" with your list.

Tommy

Tommy,

That's fine.  I'm not picking fights either.  Most that post here believe as you do, and it would be impossible for me to respond to everyone.  I could post 50 verses if I wanted to regarding salvation apart from baptism.  Let me just say that I think the error of your particular persuasion comes because you don't understand the concept of salvation being, not a set of hoops to jump through, but a power to live for God by faith alone.

Why don't you help me and explain why exactly water baptism is not a work for you.  Or are you of the persuasion that we are saved by certain works, but not others?

Thanks for your answer.

[churchmember]

Lee:

To say that I have to understand remission first or God can't or won't save me is like saying a malaria shot will only work if I'm aware that's it's a malaria shot first. When in fact, the shot does what it's supposed to and cures my malaria regardless of whether or not I'm aware that it's a shot for malaria.

Lee, that is in its essence, the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration. 
Peter to whom was given the keys to the kingdom and inspired by the Holy Spirit gave the instructions to the believing men that were pricked in their hearts (because they were still under guilt) Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.  A man cannot be baptized unto the remission of sins if he is under the false impression that his sins have already been remitted.  In the same way a baby cannot be baptized because a baby cannot consent. 

These believing that were pricked in their hearts sought the remedy for their sin.  These men understood that when Peter told them to be baptized that it was to be
1.  By the power of Christ's eternal sacrifice (in the name of Jesus)
And
2. It was to be done towards the remission of sins. 

To teach otherwise is to miss the mark, that is, to fall short.  I hope and pray that you do not continue in this practice for we have no biblical authority to teach otherwise.  The only authority to fall short is by man's authority and that will not hold up on the day of judgement. 

[TRH]

Tommy,

That's fine.  I'm not picking fights either.  Most that post here believe as you do, and it would be impossible for me to respond to everyone.  I could post 50 verses if I wanted to regarding salvation apart from baptism.  Let me just say that I think the error of your particular persuasion comes because you don't understand the concept of salvation being, not a set of hoops to jump through, but a power to live for God by faith alone.

Why don't you help me and explain why exactly water baptism is not a work for you.  Or are you of the persuasion that we are saved by certain works, but not others?

Thanks for your answer.
[/quote]

My position is based in Eph. 2:10 - grace - thought faith.  The "through faith" part is where we get man's response to claim God's grace.  Many and maybe you hold the position that any response from man negates grace, I do not believe that is so.

In terms of conversion, baptism apart form repentance is worthless.  Just as belief apart from repentance is nothing as well.  What I mean is we cannot separate repentance, confession, baptism, faithful living from the Bible's definition of belief.  I believe the thrust of James 2 was to point out that faith and works are so inseparable they are the same thing.  Biblically, for one to say he has faith ought to mean he has works as well.  Biblically for one to say he has good works ought to mean that he works because of his faith.

Should I interpret faith alone to be related to TULIP?

Tommy

[SammySmile]

I believe the thrust of James 2 was to point out that faith and works are so inseparable they are the same thing.  
Tommy

Tommy,

If faith and works are the same thing, then please list all the works in James that a man must do in order to be saved.

[James Rondon]

Faith and works are not the same thing. If so, Romans chapter 4 would be nonsensical. Some have tried to assert that faith and works are the same thing, and have, in essence, replaced faith with works. In doing so, they have pursued salvation as if it were by works, and fall under the same condemnation of those whom Paul wrote about at the end of Romans chapter 9, going into chapter 10... Why do some labor to make faith = works? Simple. A person has control of works, whereas, faith has control of a person.

[Harold]

Just so you know on the front end of this discussion I am not trying to pick a fight in anyway.  I honestly fail to see how anyone could attempt to discredit baptism being the point one becomes a child of God.  Would you provide book chapter and verse to support your belief please?

Joh 4:25  The woman said to him, "I know that the Messiah is coming. When he comes, he will tell us everything." (Messiah is the one called Christ.)

Joh 5:24  I can guarantee this truth: Those who listen to what I say and believe in the one who sent me will have eternal life. They won't be judged because they have already passed from death to life.

FTL

[Harold]

Eph 2:8  God saved you through faith as an act of kindness. You had nothing to do with it. Being saved is a gift from God.
Eph 2:9  It's not the result of anything you've done, so no one can brag about it.
Eph 2:10  God has made us what we are. He has created us in Christ Jesus to live lives filled with good works that he has prepared for us to do.
Jas 2:1  My brothers and sisters, practice your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ by not favoring one person over another.
Jas 2:14  My brothers and sisters, what good does it do if someone claims to have faith but doesn't do any good things? Can this kind of faith save him?
Jas 2:20  You fool! Do you have to be shown that faith which does nothing is useless?
Jas 2:26  A body that doesn't breathe is dead. In the same way faith that does nothing is dead.

Faith is a verb, you act on what you believe.

Put it all together it makes perfect sense, faith produces works, not works producing faith.

FTL

[marc]

Back to an earlier question, baptism's not a work; it's a surrender.  Rather than us doing something to save ourselves through baptism we admit we cannot save ourselves and give ourselves over to God.  We symbolically die, get rid of our old lives, and say to God, "Take me and live your life through me." 

It's just about the opposite of a work.

Yeah, we do sometimes talk about it as if it were a work.  We argue about the "point of salvation" stuff that the Bible's vague about (we can pick out verses that seem to say that salvation comes at the point of belief, baptism, and confession) and insist on rebaptizing anyone who we don't think got it exactly right.  We do things that seem to turn it into a work.

But in its original intent, it's not a work.  It's surrender.

[SammySmile]

Back to an earlier question, baptism's not a work; it's a surrender.  Rather than us doing something to save ourselves through baptism we admit we cannot save ourselves and give ourselves over to God.  We symbolically die, get rid of our old lives, and say to God, "Take me and live your life through me." 

It's just about the opposite of a work.

Yeah, we do sometimes talk about it as if it were a work.  We argue about the "point of salvation" stuff that the Bible's vague about (we can pick out verses that seem to say that salvation comes at the point of belief, baptism, and confession) and insist on rebaptizing anyone who we don't think got it exactly right.  We do things that seem to turn it into a work.

But in its original intent, it's not a work.  It's surrender.

Marc, okay, now you're one who doesn't view baptism as a work.  What about the one baptizing?  What does his actions count as?

[marc]

I don't think he's terribly relevant.  He's like a preacher who makes the word available, with less responsibility.  I mean, I don't think many people would feel the need to be rebaptized if the person doing the baptizing turned out to be a fake. I've heard that way-back-when he didn't even touch the baptizee; he just officiated (this was portrayed in the Jesus movie from the late seventies, and I've heard this was an accuurate idea).

Those in Corinth seemed to latch on to the baptizer, and Paul chastized them for it. 

I don't think there's a lot Biblically about the role of the post-John baptizer.

[SammySmile]

I don't think he's terribly relevant.  He's like a preacher who makes the word available, with less responsibility.  I mean, I don't think many people would feel the need to be rebaptized if the person doing the baptizing turned out to be a fake. I've heard that way-back-when he didn't even touch the baptizee; he just officiated (this was portrayed in the Jesus movie from the late seventies, and I've heard this was an accuurate idea).

Those in Corinth seemed to latch on to the baptizer, and Paul chastized them for it. 

I don't think there's a lot Biblically about the role of the post-John baptizer.

Marc,

If it's not relevant, then it should be okay for a person to baptize themselves, right?

[marc]

It's not relevant in that the baptizer doesn't confer salvation or blessing or anything on the baptizee.  And he certainly doesn't earn anything for it. What are you getting at?

[SammySmile]

It's not relevant in that the baptizer doesn't confer salvation or blessing or anything on the baptizee.  And he certainly doesn't earn anything for it. What are you getting at?

Well, honestly I'm trying to get to the core of this belief.  Is it or is not absolutely necessary for there to be someone there to baptize? 

[marc]

I don't really like breaking things down to ingredients that seem to make them seomething they're not.  Talking about what is and isn't necessary or permissible puts me in mind of people insisting a correct formula be said or a person be baptized by a person with certain qualification, neither of which is a Biblical idea. I think such concerns go further away from the point rather than toward it. They are the things that cause us to make decrees and lists.

What you see in Biblical baptisms is that they are to some extent public.  Like we were talking about earlier, it is a public proclamation of dying and rebirth at the hands of God.  I'm not sure I can come up with a situation where this could be done alone.

But I'm hesitant to make proclamations.

[Lee Freeman]

Lee:

To say that I have to understand remission first or God can't or won't save me is like saying a malaria shot will only work if I'm aware that's it's a malaria shot first. When in fact, the shot does what it's supposed to and cures my malaria regardless of whether or not I'm aware that it's a shot for malaria.

Lee, that is in its essence, the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration. 
Peter to whom was given the keys to the kingdom and inspired by the Holy Spirit gave the instructions to the believing men that were pricked in their hearts (because they were still under guilt) Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.  A man cannot be baptized unto the remission of sins if he is under the false impression that his sins have already been remitted.  In the same way a baby cannot be baptized because a baby cannot consent. 

These believing that were pricked in their hearts sought the remedy for their sin.  These men understood that when Peter told them to be baptized that it was to be
1.  By the power of Christ's eternal sacrifice (in the name of Jesus)
And
2. It was to be done towards the remission of sins. 

To teach otherwise is to miss the mark, that is, to fall short.  I hope and pray that you do not continue in this practice for we have no biblical authority to teach otherwise.  The only authority to fall short is by man's authority and that will not hold up on the day of judgement. 

churchmember, I used to think the way you do, but now I don't agree with this because a) scripture doesn't teach it and b) it makes baptism and salvation a work; c) it goes against the traditional understanding of baptism in churches of Christ for nearly two centuries. I've searched long and hard for a scripture that teaches the necessity of knowing about remission of sins before my baptism'll count, and I can't find it. Because it doesn't exist.

What we have is Peter referecing remission in Acts 2. What we don't have is the apostles quizzing each baptismal candidate before they baptized them to make sure they'd understood what Peter'd said about remission. The key belief is that Jesus is the Christ; anyone who can publicly proclaim that Jesus is the Christ is a fit candidate to be baptized. Such has been the teaching of Campbell, Stone, Scott, Richardson, Loos, Lipscomb, Harding, McGarvey, Larimore, Srygley, Moser, Brewer, Nichol, Goodpasture, Allen, Shelly, Anderson, Cope, Hendren, etc.

Campbell opposed rebaptism all along. Regarding his own Baptist baptism he stated in 1832:

I was immersed by a Regular Baptist, but not in a Regular Baptist way. I stipulated with Matthias Luse that I should be immersed on the profession of the one fact, or proposition, that Jesus was the Messiah the Son of God, when I solicited his attendance with me on that occasion. He replied that it was not usual for the Baptists to immerse simply on that profession; but that he believed it to be scriptural. Fearing, however, to be called to account for it by some of his brethren, he solicited the attendance of Henry Spears, a very worthy brother, for whose undissembled piety I always cherish the highest regard, to accompany him and to bear the half of the censure which might fall upon him for this great aberration from the good old Baptist way. Brother Spears accompanied him, and on this profession alone I was immersed; nor have I ever immersed any person but upon the same profession which I made myself. (AC, "Dialogue on Reimmersion Concluded," MH, July, 1832)

But I do think that every one immersed by the Baptist preachers, or "laymen," who really believes in his heart and confesses with his mouth that Jesus is the Messiah, understanding the meaning of what he says[concerning his profession of faith] is introduced into this kingdom. ( Alexander Campbell MH, 1832)

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.  Remisiion of sins is, indeed, connected with baptism; but so is adoption, sanctification, and all blessings of the new institution. The salvation of the soul, which comprehends everything which can be enjoyed in the present world, is attached to it. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved. To be baptized for the remission of sins exclusively, is not what is meant by putting on Christ, or by being immersed into Christ. (AC "Rebaptism," MH, Nov., 1831)

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 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)

David Lipscomb and J W McGarvey agreed with Campbell:

Commenting on his own immersion in a GA article of 1883, Lipscomb recalled:

"I was baptized quite young by Brother [Tolbert] Fanning. He asked me why I wished to be baptized. I responded "to obey God." He explained it was to bring me into a condition that God would forgive me and accept me as a child of God. I responded, "I wish to be baptized to obey God." I have studied the question for forty years, and I do not yet know how to improve the answer I made."

Lipscomb was sometimes asked what one must believe to be saved. Jesus said in MarK 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." What was it that a person ought to believe in order to be saved? Obviously, thought Lipscomb, a person had to believe that Jesus was the risen Savior. Yet, the rebaptists were also contending that one also had to believe that baptism was for the remission of sins. Lipscomb argued that such a contention was tantamount to adding to the Word of God. He could find nowhere where it was stated that to be saved one must believe that baptism is for the remission of sins. If one must believe that baptism is for the remission of sins, and that one was being baptized for that specific purpose, then it would appear that a preacher would find it necessary to explain these facts prior to performing the act. Yet there was no example of such an interrogation in the New Testament.

Lipscomb insisted that the expression "for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38 was not part of the command. If it were, then there would have been some problem in explaining the design for that command. If "be baptized for the remission of sins" is the command, then how could "for the remission of sins" be the design? Obviously, "be baptized for the remission of sins for the remission of sins" is nonsense.

Lipscomb stated:

"To be baptized for the remission of sins as the only design-that is, if we do it, moved only by the desire of securing the remission of sins, the design is a wholly selfish one. I do not believe that men baptized by a design purely selfish are acceptably baptized."

McGarvey agreed:

"As for the design of immersion, which expression means merely the blessing promised to those who are immersed, it involves no duty either of the immerser or of the immersed. It belongs to God and not to man."

From, Jerry Gross, "The Rebaptism Controversy Among Churches of Christ," in Baptism and the Remission of Sins: An Historical Perspective, ed. by David W. Fletcher, pp. 300-312.

If your view is correct, then Campbell and Lipscomb were never properly baptized, hence never saved. Surely you wouldn't suggest that these venerable men were/are lost simply because they didn't understand the remission of sins at their baptism and were never rebaptized?

And again, why do you single out remission of sins alone and make a valid baptism entirely dependent upon this one thing? Scripture says much more about baptism than the remission of sins. Read Romans chapter 6, for example, where Paul teaches that at baptism we are buried and raised with Christ and die to sin. To be consistent, if one must know about remission for one's baptism to be valid, one must also know and understand everything else scripture attaches to baptism. It's all or nothing. But placing all the emphasis on whether or not one understands remission (or any other doctrine connected with baptism) is to miss the point entirely and turn God's saving grace into an intellectual exercise that is a very thinly-disguised works-salvation and baptismal regeneration.

Hebrews 6:2 calls baptism an "elenmentary teaching" one of several the Hebrew Christians were stuck on and should've moved beyond, but hadn't. Has the Church of Christ been like those Hebrews?

Pax.

[SammySmile]

Marc,

I think you can appreciate the fact that if the act of water baptism is necessary to make contact with the blood of Jesus, then one better be absolutely sure that one is doing it 100 percent accurate.  For if one does it improperly, one might inadvertantly miss the blood.  So I think it's important.

Now, if you are broadening the requirements and allowing for "imperfect" baptisms, baptism done alone or non-baptized believer or sprinkling, I'd like to know.

And I'm not playing games with you, Marc.  It's just when I speak to ten COC'ers, I get ten different versions of this.  Is there not a concensus among you of this concept?  It's kind an important point.  What is your understanding?

One COC pastor says a person who's sprinkled is still unforgiven of sins.  One COC pastor says unless the person knows it's for "remission of sins," one is still unforgiven of sins.  Do you guys not know?  I mean, some of us maybe missed salvation because we weren't baptized properly.  What if someone is only dunked halfway?  What about three quarters?  What about only 90 percent dunking?

[Harold]

I don't really like breaking things down to ingredients that seem to make them seomething they're not.  Talking about what is and isn't necessary or permissible puts me in mind of people insisting a correct formula be said or a person be baptized by a person with certain qualification, neither of which is a Biblical idea. I think such concerns go further away from the point rather than toward it. They are the things that cause us to make decrees and lists.

What you see in Biblical baptisms is that they are to some extent public.  Like we were talking about earlier, it is a public proclamation of dying and rebirth at the hands of God.  I'm not sure I can come up with a situation where this could be done alone.

But I'm hesitant to make proclamations.

Who baptized John the Baptizer?  Jewish ritual cleansing did not require someone to baptize someone. First you get right with God, (Repentance) then you pass through the water in ritual cleansing. Old man in, new man out, sound familiar.

Rom 6:3  Don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4  When we were baptized into his death, we were placed into the tomb with him. As Christ was brought back from death to life by the glorious power of the Father, so we, too, should live a new kind of life.

They did require two or three witnesses to the baptism, sounds really familiar.

FTL

Read Ps. 51

[marc]

Marc,

I think you can appreciate the fact that if the act of water baptism is necessary to make contact with the blood of Jesus, then one better be absolutely sure that one is doing it 100 percent accurate.  For if one does it improperly, one might inadvertantly miss the blood.  So I think it's important.

Now, if you are broadening the requirements and allowing for "imperfect" baptisms, baptism done alone or non-baptized believer or sprinkling, I'd like to know.

You're talking to someone else here, not me.  I said nothing about contact with the blood.  I have argued against such language time and time again. Baptism's not a magic trick.  

You're focusing on the trees and missing the forest, I think.

And I'm not playing games with you, Marc.  It's just when I speak to ten COC'ers, I get ten different versions of this.  Is there not a concensus among you of this concept?  It's kind an important point.  What is your understanding?

I'm starting to believe you have obtained a superficial picture of the Church of Christ and, no matter what peole say, you are unable to change your initial impression.  That's the key here; you need to understand that there's more than you are seeing.  Believe people when they speak to you.

The plain answer to the ten different ideas is "so what?"  None of us are God.  And, since I'm not arguing baptism as a work, our "getting it right" isn't the most important concept here.

One COC pastor says a person who's sprinkled is still unforgiven of sins.  One COC pastor says unless the person knows it's for "remission of sins," one is still unforgiven of sins.  Do you guys not know?  I mean, some of us maybe missed salvation because we weren't baptized properly.  What if someone is only dunked halfway?  What about three quarters?  What about only 90 percent dunking?

See my previous response.  Our elders aren't infalliable either.   (I'm messing with you there; I would have thought with your experience among us you'd use more of our terminology.)

[TRH]

Faith and works are not the same thing. If so, Romans chapter 4 would be nonsensical. Some have tried to assert that faith and works are the same thing, and have, in essence, replaced faith with works. In doing so, they have pursued salvation as if it were by works, and fall under the same condemnation of those whom Paul wrote about at the end of Romans chapter 9, going into chapter 10... Why do some labor to make faith = works? Simple. A person has control of works, whereas, faith has control of a person.

James,

I know they are not literally the same.  I was overstating my point for emphesis.  What I mean by the same is if you take one from the other you have nothing.  Faith and works are both aspects of how we respond to God.  Remove faith from works what do you have?  Remove works from faith what do you have?  No right minded Christian believes they obtain salvation by doing good works like helping the sick or needy.  But the Christian who sits idle and does nothing will be very surprized when Jesus returns. 

Romans contrast salvation from Mosaic not the natural result of faith in Christ - Eph 2:10.

Tommy

[marc]

I edited that because you accidentally erased the last bracket on your quotes and the whole thing was in a quote box.

[SammySmile]

Well, Marc, putting aside your not regarding baptism as a work, which I will respond to eventually, your statement "The plain answer to the ten different ideas is "so what?"  None of us are God.  And, since I'm not arguing baptism as a work, our "getting it right" isn't the most important concept here," leads me to the conclusion that your personal opinion is that it doesn't matter how someone is baptized, just as long as they're baptized in some fashion.  You may be right, and I maybe have a improper view of COC.  But it seems to be that your position is very different than many in the COC I've spoken to.

And I find your opposition to the term "contact with the blood" interesting.  That's a term that I've heard lots of COC'ers use.

[marc]

Well, Marc, putting aside your not regarding baptism as a work, which I will respond to eventually, your statement "The plain answer to the ten different ideas is "so what?"  None of us are God.  And, since I'm not arguing baptism as a work, our "getting it right" isn't the most important concept here," leads me to the conclusion that your personal opinion is that it doesn't matter how someone is baptized, just as long as they're baptized in some fashion.  You may be right, and I maybe have a improper view of COC.  But it seems to be that your position is very different than many in the COC I've spoken to.

And I find your opposition to the term "contact with the blood" interesting.  That's a term that I've heard lots of COC'ers use.

But you didn't hear me say it, and you assumed it was what I was talking about. Based on that and the first part of this  post, I don't think you're getting what I'm saying at all.  You seem to be listening to what I'm saying and saying things you've heard from others.  I don't represent the Church of Christ. What I'm saying, I'm saying for myself.

[SammySmile]

Well, Marc, putting aside your not regarding baptism as a work, which I will respond to eventually, your statement "The plain answer to the ten different ideas is "so what?"  None of us are God.  And, since I'm not arguing baptism as a work, our "getting it right" isn't the most important concept here," leads me to the conclusion that your personal opinion is that it doesn't matter how someone is baptized, just as long as they're baptized in some fashion.  You may be right, and I maybe have a improper view of COC.  But it seems to be that your position is very different than many in the COC I've spoken to.

And I find your opposition to the term "contact with the blood" interesting.  That's a term that I've heard lots of COC'ers use.

But you didn't hear me say it, and you assumed it was what I was talking about. Based on that and the first part of this  post, I don't think you're getting what I'm saying at all.  You seem to be listening to what I'm saying and saying things you've heard from others.  I don't represent the Church of Christ. What I'm saying, I'm saying for myself.

Well, Marc, you may not like the term, but I'd tend to think that most COC'ers who use the term are really referencing that it's only in the act of water baptism that the blood can reach the person to cleanse away their sin.  Now, since you object to the term, I assume your version of how the blood is applied is different.  So when is the blood applied?  At baptism or another time? 

[marc]

I currently have  lesson plans to do.  To be honest, I find your questions somewhat legalistic.  I don't have time now; I'll get back to this later.

[SammySmile]

I currently have  lesson plans to do.  To be honest, I find your questions somewhat legalistic.  I don't have time now; I'll get back to this later.

It only becomes legalistic, Marc, if you consider water baptism a work to earn salvation, which you claim you don't believe.

[churchmember]

And again, why do you single out remission of sins alone and make a valid baptism entirely dependent upon this one thing? Scripture says much more about baptism than the remission of sins. Read Romans chapter 6, for example, where Paul teaches that at baptism we are buried and raised with Christ and die to sin. To be consistent, if one must know about remission for one's baptism to be valid, one must also know and understand everything else scripture attaches to baptism. It's all or nothing. But placing all the emphasis on whether or not one understands remission (or any other doctrine connected with baptism) is to miss the point entirely and turn God's saving grace into an intellectual exercise that is a very thinly-disguised works-salvation and baptismal regeneration.

I don't see a whole lot of difference.  One is entering into the church when one enters into remission of sins.  One is entering into Christ when one is entering into the church.  We put on Christ at the same time we are baptized.  It pretty much means the same thing. 
But when one is under the false impression that he is already a member of the church or that he has already entered into the state of remission of sins, then he is not dying with Christ and arising to walk anew. 

They are all synonymous.  In the church there is remission of sins, pardon.  Putting on Christ is the same thing as becoming part of the bride of Christ. 

Hebrews 6:2 calls baptism an "elenmentary teaching" one of several the Hebrew Christians were stuck on and should've moved beyond, but hadn't. Has the Church of Christ been like those Hebrews?

Think of what you are really implying.  The we of Heb 6 consists of those that have already obeyed the gospel.  If we are to abandon the true teaching of baptism then we are to abandon the principles of the doctrine of Christ for that is listed as well in the same category.  How could anyone become a christian if we leave those teachings.  No.  The simple fact is that you are taking this verse out of context.   It is also 'baptism's' that is mentioned (plural). 

Peter was given the keys to the kingdom.  He gave out those keys on the day of Pentecost.   The command to be baptized in the name of Jesus unto the remission of sins cannot be obeyed while a person is under the false impression that his sins are already gone or that he is already saved. 

[SammySmile]

See, Churchmember seems to be the consummate COC'er. 

Hey, Churchmember, do you use the term "contact the blood"?  What does the term mean to you?

Do you consider water baptism a work?  Yes or no?

[marc]

I currently have  lesson plans to do.  To be honest, I find your questions somewhat legalistic.  I don't have time now; I'll get back to this later.

It only becomes legalistic, Marc, if you consider water baptism a work to earn salvation, which you claim you don't believe.

What I'm saying is legalistic are your constant demands.  Those are coming from you, not me.  Your attitude is becoming increasingly offensive.  I am me.  I am not "The Church of Christ" If you don't understand that distinction, I'm not sure how you've been communicating with anyone on this board.

You are asking questions you assume I have some concern with.  This is a false assumption.  Your questions tend toward legalism. 

You talk of contact with the blood; other than references to the Lord's Supper and our continual cleansing (1 John), I can't find that language in the Bible.  You seem to be looking for a "point of salvation" reference concerning this.  To the best of my knowledge, this is an extra-Biblical request.

Here's a list of all the references to blood in the New Testament. 
Keyword search, Blood
  Be my guest.  Go through it and find your answer.

I have no allegiance to any set of teachings other than the ones found in the Bible.  I find my opinions and doctrines change as I grow and learn more about God.  "Church doctrine", which seems to be what you're focusing on here, is a concept I have no truck for.

[DCR]

It's just when I speak to ten COC'ers, I get ten different versions of this.

That's probably because there are ten different versions of it... and more.

Is there not a concensus among you of this concept? 

No, there isn't.

It could be that there is a lot more diversity of thought in Churches of Christ than you realized.




But, then again, that's true of greater Christianity, isn't it?

[Bon Voyage]

It's just when I speak to ten COC'ers, I get ten different versions of this.

That's probably because there are ten different versions of it... and more.

Is there not a concensus among you of this concept?

No, there isn't.

It could be that there is a lot more diversity of thought in Churches of Christ than you realized.




But, then again, that's true of greater Christianity, isn't it?

Blasted private interpretation!   

[churchmember]

Lee,
Do you believe that the bible teaches that remission of sins happens when we are baptized.?

Do you believe that the bible teaches any other way that remission of sins happens? 

Do you believe that the bible teaches that baptism is necessary (even if the person does not fully understand ) for the remission of sins? 

If you believe that the bible teaches that remission of sins happens "at the moment of belief" then please provide biblical example.  And please stop holding up the example of Alexander Campbell who once said that if baptism is not for the remission of sins then it is not for anything at all.  Because if you don't believe that the bible teaches that remission of sins happens in connection with baptism unto the remission of sins & in the name of Jesus then you need to start presenting the case for belief being the line of demarcation between the guilty and the pardoned.