Posted on 05/01/2006 7:14:29 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
A proper candidate for baptism that has been baptized for the remission of their sins is added to the church by God. It doesn't matter who performs the baptism.
Yes, that is correct. churches of Christ are autonomous and there is no central governing authority. The local elders are responsible for each individual congregation. The Bible says that God adds those who obey what the Lord requests that they do to the church. Very astute. Although many members are unfaithful and are not living as they should and scripturally do not have salvation secured, those that do are in the right "body", the only body of Christ and are headed for salvation. Anyone not in the "body" of Christ and is serving in a man-made denomination can not make such a claim to salvation per what the scripture teaches.
lol That's the opinion of those who hear me sing! No, really, I'm okay, just not anything worth amplifying.
But I'm sure God likes it when I sing to Him.
Why should I? You know where Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16, John 3:5, Acts 2:38, Acts 8:36, Acts 10:47, Acts 16:33, Acts 19:5, and Acts 22:16 are as well as I do, and that is by no means an exhaustive list. In every instance, you will merely explain that can't be what it means because if it did mean that Calvin or your church or your preacher would be wrong.
You're presenting water baptism as completely necessary to salvation...and then back off to tying it to "normal" instances of salvation.
Point to an example of salvation without baptism after Christ's resurrection. Inevitably you will point to the apostles, the theif on the cross, or Cornelius. Of those, only Cornelius is applicable and even that example relies on spurious assumptions that not even the apostle Peter was willing to make.
Well, how wonderfully gracious of you. We've never discussed the topic, you don't know me, and you've demonstrated a glaring lack of ability in representing Reformed doctrine...but you've been kind enough to poison the well before the discussion even starts.
Which one of Christ's commands were you obeying when you did that?
Point to an example of salvation without baptism after Christ's resurrection. Inevitably you will point to the apostles, the theif on the cross, or Cornelius. Of those, only Cornelius is applicable and even that example relies on spurious assumptions that not even the apostle Peter was willing to make.
I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency in your statements. And now you've given us a wonderful argument from silence to go with it.
Try this one: Show me an example of salvation without audible hearing of the Gospel after Christ's resurrection. Can't find any? Drat...I guess deaf people are screwed then huh?
Exaclty! Also, ....He who believes AND is baptized shall be saved....
We don't have anything about women not wearing make up either; but the men, well.......
Is it? What about the water that the Ethiopian Eunuch was baptized in? "Here is water what doth hindereth me to be baptized?"
I bet you know how to make a lot of dishes that require "Cream of Mushroom Soup".
None?
Why do you say that?
No churches fell in the Garden of Eden and needed redemption. Only people did that.
Now you can ask how many souls were purchased by Christ's sacrifice (you'd need a pen, paper and calculator for that).
Now if you asked me how many churches there are supposed to be, I'd say one, if you mean capital "C" Church as in Body of Christ. If you mean small "c" church, as in congregations, well, the New Testament recognizes numerous churches.
Baptist churches are autonomous, as the Southern Baptist Convention and other Baptist associations are voluntary, and their decisions on not binding on the individual congregation. Even some associational churches, such as the Presbyterian Church in America, cannot compel a congregation from dissent and departure. There are in addition independent churches of various persuasions, with differing theologies: charismatic, dispensational, Reformed, etc. How does independence from an ecclesiastical body distinguish a Church of Christ from other independent churches?
Although many members are unfaithful and are not living as they should and scripturally do not have salvation secured, those that do are in the right "body", the only body of Christ and are headed for salvation. Anyone not in the "body" of Christ and is serving in a man-made denomination can not make such a claim to salvation per what the scripture teaches.
This doctrine resembles the belief of extra eccelsia nulla salus held by some Catholics, usually those opposed to the mainstream of their church for the perceived liberalism of its modern leaders. It is ironic that a group whose roots are in the Reformation churches holds a position similar to that of the Council of Trent.
I am referring to the church, the body of Christ. You are correct that there is only one body of Christ. You are also correct that there were numerous congregations of that body in the New Testament. The important thing to recognize is that they were all part of one body, and all were to be teaching the same thing. It is true that many of them dealt with problems of false teaching, and that is why Paul wrote to them to show them the error of their ways.
Please explain what is un-Scriptural about teaching that those that are not in the body of Christ are not able to be saved.
That turns the sacrament into "cannonball!"
***That turns the sacrament into "cannonball!"***
Better than a belly flop!
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.