Posted on 12/15/2011 10:14:12 AM PST by Cronos
Sadly, many in our brotherhood would answer “yes” to this question. Denominations have for years taught that it does not matter what church you attend, as long as a person is sincere and honest. Many in the Lord’s church have swallowed this idea. They cry long and hard that there are sincere, devout Christians in any given denomination. It is no wonder, then, that many congregations of the Lord’s church have joined hands with denominational churches to promote or to participate in any number of things. Of course, they consider their actions to have Biblical backing. They proclaim the words of Jesus in defense of their endeavors: "other sheep I have, which are not of this fold” (Jn.10:16). To them, “this fold” represents the Church of Christ (denominational concept of the Lord’s church), and the other sheep outside of “this fold” represent God’s children scattered among the denominations. Does this interpretation have credence? Is it the case that there are devout Christians in denominations? The answer is no to both questions.
The passage under consideration does not support the idea that there are devout Christians in denominations. To the dismay of those who would espouse this soul-damning doctrine, this passage destroys their convoluted thinking. There is no hint of such a doctrine taught in this passage, nor is it even possible that this passage could teach such. The New Testament knows nothing of denominationalism. In the first century, there was one church and only one church (Eph.4:4). Although the seeds of denominationalism were being planted during the first century, these seeds did not bloom until after the close of New Testament times. To claim that John 10:16 deals in any respect with denominationalism is to force a 21st century interpretation on a 1st century passage.
The latter half of the verse under consideration inflicts even more damage upon the idea that there are devout Christians in denominations. Christ proclaimed that the “other sheep” would be brought into “one fold” under the care of “one shepherd.” This one fold is the one church! And this one church is under the care of the Great Shepherd Jesus Christ! Those in denominations follow the voice of Luther, or Calvin, or Wesley, or Pope John Paul II, but they are not following the voice of the Great Shepherd! The other sheep to whom Jesus was referring were the Gentiles. Though there were some Gentiles who sought God, and anticipated the coming of the Messiah, the Jews and Gentiles remained separated. Through Christ’s death, he would bring both Jew and Gentile together in one body, one fold (Eph.2:14)! The Lord’s church today is a fulfillment of John 10:16—both Jew and Gentile in one body under the care of the Great Shepherd.
Are there devout Christians in denominations? No. Are there children of God in denominations? Yes, but only because they chose to leave the safety of the one fold, the Lord’s church, to follow the doctrines and commandments of men. Those who have done so must repent and return to the church of our Lord before it is eternally too late! PM
“i guess Peter was preaching another gospel when he gave “instructions” in Acts 2:38.
for that matter St Augustine must have been following another gospel as well.”
That’s your opinion not mine.
***If you point me to the place I made that statement, I would appreciate it. If you can’t, then you’re making things up and I see no need to continue our discussion.***
Are you then admitting that men who were Presbyterian and Anglican, and sprinkled for remission of sin can translate a bible that you will accept?
I have a full list of the KJV translators if you are interested. Won’t see a Campbellite in the group.
And if you are interested in the Genevea bible I can show you a printed prayer in the back against “the Papists and the Anabaptists”.
***However, I have appreciated the irenic spirit of your comments on this thread.***
I talked to a local CoC preacher I worked with a few years ago.
I asked, “The Eastern Orthodox believe in immersion baptism. Are they correct?”
He said..”Yes, they are correct.
I said...”Will you then accept them as brothers in the Lord?”
He said...”NO! because it was not done by one of our preachers!”
That told me what I wanted to know. Will YOU accept Eastern Orthodox as brothers in the Lord, and if not, why not!
Do you have a problem with baptism? Is it an offensive stumbling block for you?
Why is it so many people resist the clear instructions regarding baptism, yet will embrace all other commands?
Answer a question, PLEASE, instead of glossing it over. Look at Acts 19.
1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied. 4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.
Paul links receiving the Holy Spirit with baptism. His immediate question after learning these men did not have the Holy Spirit was “Then what baptism did you receive?” Getting dunked in water was not enough, or John's baptism would have been sufficient. Paul took it seriously enough to re-baptize these believing men in the name of Jesus.
Your mocking tone regarding Acts 2:38 is disturbing. God's Word is serious business and should be discussed with discovering His will for us, not with disdain for what others have concluded.
So here's the question: Have you been baptized? I find that people who resist baptism don't want anyone else to think it is a command or important.
Baptism is NOT a work BTW, it is an obedient response to God's clear command. IOW, I can't baptize myself, I must submit to it and demonstrate publicly that I have symbolically died to my old life.
1 Peter 3:21 is pretty clear:
21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
Baptism SAVES you??? Clearly not the act of getting wet, but appealing to God to save us by the resurrection of Jesus.
Baptism is a pledge and an expression of the believer to be joined into the resurrection. The act of baptism being our symbolic joining in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus is detailed in Romans 6:3 and following:
3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.
So, Ruy, is baptism necessary?
***So, Ruy, is baptism necessary? ****
If baptism were so necessary why would the CoC not accept my baptism in a cold running creek? Why will they not accept other Baptist or pentecostal immersionism?
NO! It only has to be YOUR baptism. So the CoC has thrown up walls of it’s own making. Even “ remission of sin” baptisms are not accepted by your church. It is YOUR way or the highway. NO THANKS!
Even the Catholics will accept baptisms from converters that have been baptized in Protestant Trinitarian churches.
I knew a man who had been baptised by sprinkling, then he changed churches several times.
He was Sprinkled, immersed, immersed three times backward, immersed forward, immersed three times forward, sprinkled again... So, which was “correct”?
And another man I worked with who felt he was such a sinner he went forward in his church and got re baptized about once a month.
Like Cornelius, as Peter said, To him give all the prophets witness, that through HIS NAME whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
“Even to them that believe on his name...”
This is not a convincing argument. All of us were chosen before the foundation of the world, long before we knew sin. (Ephesians 1:3-14)
Read Paul's own account of his conversion in Acts 22:
14 “Then he said: ‘The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. 15 You will be his witness to all people of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’
Paul had been selected for sure, but he still had to have his sins WASHED AWAY.
I dunno, because that particular congregation lacked understanding? I can't speak for other people.
If your baptism was in accordance with God's word it is valid. Period.
There are several strains of Pharisaic people in the CoC (and other groups) but so what? My or your salvation does not ride on what other people think.
The point is, scripture is the only authority, hence God's command to 'work out your salvation with fear and trembling'
IOW, each of us will stand before God's throne and give an accounting for what we did with our 'talents' and how seriously we took God's commands.
And another man I worked with who felt he was such a sinner he went forward in his church and got re baptized about once a month.
This poor unfortunate also misunderstands God's grace and the 'once for all' sacrifice of Jesus. 'Getting dunked' in and of itself means nothing. We must understand that Jesus' blood CONTINUOUSLY washes us of our sins.
Baptism was nothing but a symbolic gesture of a change in life. Only the blood of Christ can remove sin. Water merely gets you wet and shows lookers on that you mean it. Even the American Indians did it when adopting a stranger into their tribe, they would throw him in a creek to wash the old tribe off so he became a member of the new tribe.
And the Hindus still do it quite often. "even to them that believe on his name."
Have you even read my posts?
Let's review.
1 Peter 3:21 clearly states much of what you just posted. Acts 19 links receiving the Holy Spirit with baptism. (So baptism is quite a bit more significant than 'nothing but a symbolic gesture') Romans 6 details how baptism is required to join in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus.
C'mon Ruy, quit dancing.
Is baptism necessary?
The Church was founded by Christ and will be extant till is return, at no time was it ever not in existence on the face of the earth after its founding.
As to can an unbaptized person baptize another a simple question arises Who Baptized John ?
If 2 persons whom had never been anything religion wise read and understood the bible could not one baptize the other, it is not a the act not the person performing the act that is of import I think.
“I went to the Bible Book Store today. I didn’t see any of the authors you mentioned, just the ones I listed.
Didn’t see any CofC authors there at all except Max Lucado and his powder puff books.”
Max Lucado no longer uses the name Church of Christ but only Oak Hills Church.
bttt
To me where Campbell was correct and in accord with the New Testament I will with out hesitation agree with his views, (as they are BIBLICAL VIEWS) where he differs I will differ.
I dont follow Campbell exept in that he tried followed the New Testament and I try to do the same.
I use the word TRY because none are perfect not one.
The CHURCH and congrations are not the same thing.
Rome
Corinth
Jerusalem
etc..
Were all Part of the Same CHURCH that being Christs Church but each had its own Elders and Deacons.. thus the turn of phrase.. the Church the met at Rome.
Then I would think him in error, as the Baptized person is of import not the Baptizer.
If the Baptized person was baptized for the remission of sin and to join Christ, who is any man to say it was not so ?
(this all assumes that the manner of baptism was in accordance with those shown to us in the new testament)_
***Romans 6 details how baptism is required to join in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus.***
Like all immersionists they see the word “baptism” and think water.
Read Romans 6 carefully;
Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized INTO Christ were baptized INTO his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism INTO DEATH: like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection.
***Now pay attention!****
Knowing this that our old man IS CRUCIFIED WITH HIM, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should no longer serve sin.
Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ, never the less I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me...
Ever notice how Paul references the Crucifiction of Christ? Did you ever notice that Paul also said, concerning water baptism, I Cor 1:14, I THANK GOD that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
Lest any should say that I baptized in my own name.
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas, besides, I KNOW NOT WHETHER I BAPTIZED ANY OTHER.
FOR CHRIST SENT ME NOT TO BAPTIZE, BUT TO PREACH THE GOSPEL....
If water baptism were so important why did God not include that in Paul’s commission? Paul did baptize but you can see he didn’t seem to keep too much track of it.
There are mentions of water baptism and baptism INTO Christ. Can you discern the difference?
Good discussion on baptism from the ancient Greeks here.
http://www.ucmi.org/ucmi/chap11.htm
***Were all Part of the Same CHURCH that being Christs Church but each had its own Elders and Deacons.. thus the turn of phrase.. the Church the met at Rome.****
Then why did James demand that Paul take a vow, go to the TEMPLE with other Christians with vows and pay for their animal sacrifices!
Was this part of the self governing of the CoC in Jerusalem as opposed to the CoC in Ephesus or Corinth?
***Then I would think him in error, as the Baptized person is of import not the Baptizer.***
Then why can one not just jump in a creek or swimming pool and declare himself self-baptized? Is it valid?
I can think of a false prophet who self-baptized himself before starting his cult.
Can a man and woman be self-married? Is it valid?
You lecture me on the meaning of baptism somehow NOT being an immersion in water, then you link to a page that lays out that baptism is clearly immersion in water.
("Baptism as was commonly practiced in the New Testament church was immersion baptism. The word "baptism" comes from the Greek word "baptizo" which means to dip.")
You are right that Paul did not make it his concern to 'close' the deal with baptism. His primary calling was to preach the gospel. Even in Acts 19, it appears he simply ordered that they be re-baptized, he doesn't appear to have done the act.
You have yet to deal with any of my questions, but I'll press on anyway, like Don Quixote.
Since you will not answer whether or not baptism is necessary, riddle me this; Why did Paul re-baptize those BELIEVERS in Acts 19?
Seems odd, doesn't it? If baptism is simply an outward sign to onlookers, why would a man of Paul's understanding insist that they be re-baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Let's think *Consistent* here
***Let’s think *Consistent* here ***
Ok. From the link...
“When used in the NT, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism.”
And this is what I am trying to get across. Paul is talking of our union with Christ, not water baptism. Paul also indicates that union happened ON THE CROSS. (I am crucified with Christ).
Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into WATER were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into WATER...
But then that is not what it says, does it.
And the link I gave shows that there is a difference between bapto and baptizo. One is an in and out dipping (bapto), like all immersionist churches do.
The important one is a baptizo in which a person is PERMANENTLY immersed, or drowned, or overwhelmed IN CHRIST.
So, were you temporarily bapto’d into water? Or permantly baptizo’d into Christ. There is a difference and the later one ain’t wet.
Further more, baptizo does not always mean WATER. It can be anything that permanently changes the person or thing being placed into it. Military people often talk of their baptism by combat.
In this case I showed how the Greeks used the words to make pickles. They bapto’d the cucumber (in and out), then they permanently baptizo’d it in vinegar to make a permanent change in it as it takes on the characteristics of what it has been permanently dipped into.
For BY one Spirit are we all baptizo’d into one body, whether Jew or Greek we have all been made to drink by one SPIRIT. Again, no water mentioned.
But then lets look at another one...
Mar 7:4 And [when they come] from the market, except they wash (baptizo), they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, [as] the washing(baptismos) of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables (or couches).
So, did the Pharisees bathe every time they came from the market, by immersion. and did they also immerse their tables or couches? (or did they sprinkle them for ritual cleanliness.)
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.