Various Debates with Multiple Hardline Church of Christ Members

This post is text of debates between myself and several CoCers. To that simultaneous series of debates, this response was posted by a commenter named Ex-CoC, they said,,,,

“This is the most helpful information I have come across, I am a former coc, and have had doubts and confusion on the teachings. All the people who posted pro coc just made me feel a whole lot better I was far away from the lot of you. Damon you could afford to be a little more polite, I think but thanks at least I now know I wasn't crazy.”

If you think the CoC is hard to deal with, try dealing with the Philippine CoC, otherwise known as the Iglesia ni Cristo. That sir, is an exercise in futility. I have gone round and round with a few of them. That is why I say it is an exercise in futility. I knew one person who came out of the Iglesia ni Cristo, who at one time, was a personal family friend of Erano Manalo. He died some years ago, but I asked her if she knew of any others to come out of it. She said she did not know even one. There may be some, she just didn’t know any. Her family virtually had a funeral for her.

The Church of Christ I'm aware of simply does not use instruments in their worship.

Aside from that, like the church I was raised in, baptism is seen as an integral part of the salvation process.

Given what scriptures teach us, to me it seems unusual to see baptism as something which is "optional". Even Jesus had John the Baptist baptize him. If we are to follow Christ's example, then the example of baptism certainly seems like something that Christ himself saw as an important, even critical component of salvation.

I Peter 3:21, for example, is sufficiently definitive for me.

In any event, aside from minor doctrinal issues such as non-instrumental praise, I'm not aware of any Church of Christ members or teachings that in any way have "cult" characteristics.

The CoC that *I* know teaches New Testament Christianity in as straightforward and logical a manner as anybody could imagine or want.

Thus, this "debate" which is referenced above, and which I began to look at, seems to me to be along the lines of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" as far as its relevance to people achieving salvation.

If a group of Christians are following the New Testament in an honest way, and sincerely trying to seek God's will and obey His commandments, I don't think any other group of Christians needs to come along and insist that their dogma must be the correct one.

Rather, I believe that God is eminently qualified to make such judgments and separate the wheat from the chaff.

Having said that, I certainly can't see why any individual would willfully fail to be immersed, as it constitutes a conscious and public act indicating the acceptance of Christ as Savior.

It just occurred to me as I posted this that this is the 41st anniversary of my own baptism on September 9, 1974!

Now that's quite a coincidence...

Even Jesus had John the Baptist baptize him.

This was only one of seven baptisms written of in the New Testament (eight, if one counts ritual cleansing in the mikvah for appearance in the Temple).

To discuss them at all, each must be differentiated as to its purpose. The only water baptism of the Bible is immersion, and that of a true disciple as assessed by the person(s) carrying out this ritual.

The purpose of this baptism is visible and external, and is not performing any change to the inner man, such as spiritual regeneration or conveying salvation, or being prerequisite for God to forgive sins.

But this believer-disciple baptism obviously cannot be the nature of the baptism Jesus required of John Baptizer, and him alone.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.