Church of Christ hatred for Baptists.

[rsc2a]

Ozzy - with all the attention you give me, I'm beginning to think you have a crush. *bats eyelashes*

 

[AmazedbyGrace]

One thing I love about no longer being an IFBxer...

My church actually gets along with the different Christian churches in the area. If another church is holding an adoption seminar, we might even  post an ad about it in our church bulletin. We are not scared of people dumping our church for another. Many of  the local churches participate in a big fundraiser for the local crisis pregnancy center  too (On Mother's Day they send all interested attendees from all participating churches home with a baby bottle and ask them to return it on Father's Day with "spare change collection" donation inside.)

Fellowship is a beautiful thing.

We're talking about people who preach another gospel, saying that water washes away sins, which reminds me of my favorite Adrian Rogers quote:  It is better to be divided by truth than to be united in error.

Or the Bible says it even better...

I Cor 6:14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

If I remember correctly you are now part of a reformed church.  Go ask your pastor/elder if it is appropriate to fellowship with baptismal regenerationists and report back here what he tells you.

Our church has different levels of fellowship. Only with more like-minded churches do we have combined services or activities. So we will not do joint evangelism or services with a CoC church.

However, we have no problem advertising for things that benefit the christian community in general, like the adoption legal seminar held at another church or the pregnancy counseling center's fundraiser.

Also, my pastor meets with a group of local pastors for lunch monthly (I think there are 9 in the group) . One of the pastors in the group  was what you previously described as a "waterdog". He and my pastor had spirited debates over the order of baptism and developed a friendship. Eventually the CoC pastor began attending one of my pastor's weekday Bible studies. Not long afterward he gave up his CoC position (after changing his position on baptism) and began the process of becoming a Baptist pastor. Our church helped support him and his family during this transition.

So no, I am not a staunch separatist and think those who hold the truth benefit all from engaging them.

 

[brianb]

Which Church of Christ is this? Is this the infamous Boston Church of Christ and not the original Church of Christ from early 1800's?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Our church has different levels of fellowship. Only with more like-minded churches do we have combined services or activities. So we will not do joint evangelism or services with a CoC church.

However, we have no problem advertising for things that benefit the christian community in general, like the adoption legal seminar held at another church or the pregnancy counseling center's fundraiser.

Also, my pastor meets with a group of local pastors for lunch monthly (I think there are 9 in the group) . One of the pastors in the group  was what you previously described as a "waterdog". He and my pastor had spirited debates over the order of baptism and developed a friendship. Eventually the CoC pastor began attending one of my pastor's weekday Bible studies. Not long afterward he gave up his CoC position (after changing his position on baptism) and began the process of becoming a Baptist pastor. Our church helped support him and his family during this transition.

So no, I am not a staunch separatist and think those who hold the truth benefit all from engaging them.

You originally said that you were glad that your church fellowships with other churches not like yours (implying that your church would fellowship with the CoC baptismal regenerationists).  Would you describe the process of the CoC preacher in the above scenario as "fellowship"?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Which Church of Christ is this? Is this the infamous Boston Church of Christ and not the original Church of Christ from early 1800's?

Just some simple errors that they hold to (though not all CoC hold to all of these oddities/errors):

1) They are the restored church, and no other church is a true church
2) Must be baptized in order to wash away sins (be saved).
3) No instrumental music
4) A distorted view of grace, law, and obedience.
5) A flawed view of the work and person of the Holy Spirit

 

[rsc2a]

Which Church of Christ is this? Is this the infamous Boston Church of Christ and not the original Church of Christ from early 1800's?

Just some simple errors that they hold to (though not all CoC hold to all of these oddities/errors):

1) They are the restored church, and no other church is a true church
2) Must be baptized in order to wash away sins (be saved).
3) No instrumental music
4) A distorted view of grace, law, and obedience.
5) A flawed view of the work and person of the Holy Spirit

Because the various flavors if IFB don't hold to any oddities/errors, right?

 

[Castor Muscular]

Which Church of Christ is this? Is this the infamous Boston Church of Christ and not the original Church of Christ from early 1800's?

Just some simple errors that they hold to (though not all CoC hold to all of these oddities/errors):

1) They are the restored church, and no other church is a true church
2) Must be baptized in order to wash away sins (be saved).
3) No instrumental music
4) A distorted view of grace, law, and obedience.
5) A flawed view of the work and person of the Holy Spirit

So are they unbelievers or not?  Do you want to retract that scripture quote or do you stand by it? 

 

[ALAYMAN]

So are they unbelievers or not?  Do you want to retract that scripture quote or do you stand by it?

If they believe their salvation is due to their sins being washed away in the baptismal font then they are unbelievers.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Because the various flavors if IFB don't hold to any oddities/errors, right?

He asked for some clarification, I gave him some.  I didn't want to write a book.  Now go buzz in somebody else's ear.

 

[rsc2a]

Because the various flavors if IFB don't hold to any oddities/errors, right?

He asked for some clarification, I gave him some.  I didn't want to write a book.  Now go buzz in somebody else's ear.

Don't worry. I really wasn't expecting any sort of consistency.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Don't worry. I really wasn't expecting any sort of consistency.

Don't worry, I seriously could not possibly care less about your opinion, especially on anything theological.

 

[Castor Muscular]

So are they unbelievers or not?  Do you want to retract that scripture quote or do you stand by it?

If they believe their salvation is due to their sins being washed away in the baptismal font then they are unbelievers.

I don't know if that's what they believe or not, in case you're wondering. 

I know you and I disagree on some very basic tenets of salvation.  I subscribe to supralapsarian views.  I'm pretty sure you do not.  And this is fundamental to salvation, since it is about God's motivation for the plan of salvation. 

I also believe pretty much the same as Luther, Calvin and Spurgeon when it comes to predestination/election.  I'm pretty sure you do not (correct me if I'm wrong).  This issue is THE pivot, the key turning point of salvation, and we most likely disagree. 

However.  I would not call you an unbeliever, an infidel, or a follower of Belial, which is what you're calling baptismal regenerists, just because you disagree with me on theological points. 

By the way, this is why I (and I think rsc2a) see Gnosticism in your views. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

First, let me sincerely say that I very much appreciate the civil tone you employed here in stating your objections.  I don't mind messin' around and sporting/sparring with somebody on the opposite side of the octagon once in awhile, but I don't prefer that as the ordinary means of communication, and I don't desire it to be the majority of the material within the body of a response.  You took the time to identify some key points of disagreement, giving me the opportunity to clarify whether your characterization of these differences were accurately portrayed.  Again, kudos for fighting the urge to pigeon-hole me and create an adversarial impasse between us.  Now onto the substance of your post...

I don't know if that's what they believe or not, in case you're wondering.

Doctrinally, the root of their origins certainly is baptismal regeneration as a core tenet.  If you mean you don't know if any one individual congregant believes that way or not until you talk with them,  and therefore don't condemn them without ascertaining their position on baptismal regeneration, I agree with you.  But keep in mind the nature of the beginning of the discussion with AmazedbyGrace was of an ecclesiastical nature.  As such, if a church's official position is that of baptismal regeneration then we wouldn't be able to partner with them in fellowship nor evangelical outreach efforts.

I know you and I disagree on some very basic tenets of salvation.  I subscribe to supralapsarian views.  I'm pretty sure you do not.  And this is fundamental to salvation, since it is about God's motivation for the plan of salvation. 

I also believe pretty much the same as Luther, Calvin and Spurgeon when it comes to predestination/election.  I'm pretty sure you do not (correct me if I'm wrong).  This issue is THE pivot, the key turning point of salvation, and we most likely disagree. 

I'm not a Calvnist (or Arminian) of any sort, unless you count Amyrildianism as a form of Calvininsm (which most folk rightfully wouldn't).  That said, I'll run with your point, and use Spurgeon as common ground.  When somebody (presumably another staunch Calvinist) asked Spurgeon whether Wesley would be in heaven or not (and keep in mind I'm not advocating Arminianism with this reference) Spurgeon purportedly said something to the effect that throngs of people would be waiting in line, including Spurgeon himself, behind Wesley worshipping at the throne of God.  First, that really spells out the great humility that Spurgeon embodied.  Second, I think it shows the proper view of the Cal/Arm debate (an "in-house" one).  But last, it does NOT say that there are no doctrines that serve as that threshold that people cross which place them in danger of hell if they believe them.  Certainly if the Bible says there are false Christs, wolves who preach them, and gospels which are another, then they certainly existed then and most undoubtedly exist now.  Those false gospels are things which we must distance ourselves from if they are not repented of, and adding anything (like baptism) to the work of Christ as a grounds for justification certainly qualifies as a false gospel.

However.  I would not call you an unbeliever, an infidel, or a follower of Belial, which is what you're calling baptismal regenerists, just because you disagree with me on theological points. 

I'll keep this one short (which makes you breathe easier I bet ).  I agree with you that mere differences of theological opinion don't serve a legitimate rationale to declare somebody else a heretic/apostate/wolf, as I wouldn't call somebody with a differing eschatological perspective than my pre-mill dispy tendency a heretic (unless you're a full-blown preterist ).  But we aren't talking about paedo vs credo, or covenant vs dispensational, etc.  We're talking about hard-core pelegianism and a host of other serious doctrinal issues (anti-Trinitarian heresy).

By the way, this is why I (and I think rsc2a) see Gnosticism in your views.

I don't follow.

We saw Willy (Duck Dynasty) baptize a young 20 something. Before he dunked the kid, he said that he had counseled with the young man and he accepted the gospel.

So, it does appear that, in this CoC example, that they want to confirm acceptance of the gospel prior to the dunking.

He did not say, we are dunking him to receive Christ.

Ask Willy if the dude refused to be baptized right away, then died before being dunked, where he would be.  This will tell you how steeped in the heresy he really is. 

FWIW, I posted a link to some videos where he and Phil speaks of the gospel elsewhere on here, and will dig them up if you like, but in those videos they clearly use language that indicate they believe in the baptizing by water into Christ (which saves).

Off to bed now, talk more tomorrow.

 

[AmazedbyGrace]

Our church has different levels of fellowship. Only with more like-minded churches do we have combined services or activities. So we will not do joint evangelism or services with a CoC church.

However, we have no problem advertising for things that benefit the christian community in general, like the adoption legal seminar held at another church or the pregnancy counseling center's fundraiser.

Also, my pastor meets with a group of local pastors for lunch monthly (I think there are 9 in the group) . One of the pastors in the group  was what you previously described as a "waterdog". He and my pastor had spirited debates over the order of baptism and developed a friendship. Eventually the CoC pastor began attending one of my pastor's weekday Bible studies. Not long afterward he gave up his CoC position (after changing his position on baptism) and began the process of becoming a Baptist pastor. Our church helped support him and his family during this transition.

So no, I am not a staunch separatist and think those who hold the truth benefit all from engaging them.

You originally said that you were glad that your church fellowships with other churches not like yours (implying that your church would fellowship with the CoC baptismal regenerationists).  Would you describe the process of the CoC preacher in the above scenario as "fellowship"?

I am glad our church fellowships with other churches, but I also indicated we had different levels of fellowship.

We will do combined church services/activities with like-minded churches - even if they are not SBC. We sometimes hold combined youth activities with a non denom church, for example. We have never done that with the CoC, but would be willing to advertise a community event they are hosting (like a finance seminar or something).  Community prayer breakfasts could also happen.  In addition, our church accepts kids from other churches into AWANA, as many of these churches are too small to run their own program.

The CoC pastor was fellowshipping with the whole group of local pastors. The CoC pastor extended that fellowship by attending our pastor's mid-weekday Bible study, where he came to have a better understanding of Scripture.  Another (Lutheran, I believe) local pastor from that group sent his kids to our AWANA program for a while.

Unlike the IFBx position: We are not their enemy, but fellow laborers.... even if we do not agree on every little thing.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Castor Muscular]By the way, this is why I (and I think rsc2a) see Gnosticism in your views. [/quote]

That would be one of the major reasons, yes.

 

[ALAYMAN]

...Unlike the IFBx position: We are not their enemy, but fellow laborers.... even if we do not agree on every little thing.

Okay, I caught this post just before turning in, and have to say that though I agree with you in a general way that there's too much divisiveness and lack of ecclesiastical cooperation among many Baptists (and others), that the nature of the gospel is not an "every little thing" matter at all.


Now I'm really off to bed.

 

[AmazedbyGrace]

We saw Willy (Duck Dynasty) baptize a young 20 something. Before he dunked the kid, he said that he had counseled with the young man and he accepted the gospel.

So, it does appear that, in this CoC example, that they want to confirm acceptance of the gospel prior to the dunking.

He did not say, we are dunking him to receive Christ.

I do not doubt the salvation of the CoC pastor mentioned in my post. He did not have to be "resaved", but had the integrity to resign since he no longer agreed with his denomination.

 

[AmazedbyGrace]

...Unlike the IFBx position: We are not their enemy, but fellow laborers.... even if we do not agree on every little thing.

Okay, I caught this post just before turning in, and have to say that though I agree with you in a general way that there's too much divisiveness and lack of ecclesiastical cooperation among many Baptists (and others), that the nature of the gospel is not an "every little thing" matter at all.


Now I'm really off to bed.

What part of the fellowship mentioned in my post compromised the gospel?

 

[Agent P]

When somebody (presumably another staunch Calvinist) asked Spurgeon whether Wesley would be in heaven or not (and keep in mind I'm not advocating Arminianism with this reference) Spurgeon purportedly said something to the effect that throngs of people would be waiting in line, including Spurgeon himself, behind Wesley worshipping at the throne of God.  First, that really spells out the great humility that Spurgeon embodied.  Second, I think it shows the proper view of the Cal/Arm debate (an "in-house" one). 

Actually, that was Wesley's Calvinist partner in crime, George Whitfield, that made that statement.

 

[Castor Muscular]

I don't follow.

From wikipedia:

Gnosis (γνῶσις) refers to knowledge of the second kind. Therefore, in a religious context, to be "Gnostic" should be understood as being reliant not on knowledge in a general sense, but as being specially receptive to mystical or esoteric experiences of direct participation with the divine. Indeed, in most Gnostic systems the sufficient cause of salvation is this "knowledge of" ("acquaintance with") the divine. This is commonly identified with a process of inward "knowing" or self-exploration, comparable to that encouraged by Plotinus (c. 205 – 270 AD). This is what helps separate Gnosticism from proto-orthodox views, where the orthodox views are considered to be superficial. The inadequate take then requires a correct form of interpretation. With "gnosis" comes a fuller insight that is considered to be more spiritual. Greater recognition of the deeper spiritual meanings of doctrines, scriptures, and rituals are obtained with this insight. However, as may be seen, the term "gnostic" also had precedent usage in several ancient philosophical traditions, which must also be weighed in considering the very subtle implications of its appellation to a set of ancient religious groups.

You're not a Gnostic, but the similarity is in that the Gnostics believed that their secret knowledge saved them.  Many things you say imply that it is the correct (not necessarily secret) knowledge of something that saves.  You're basically saying the baptismal regenerists aren't saved because they don't know the "correct" facts of how salvation works. 

Someone might argue that certain denominations are worshiping the wrong Jesus, because they don't know the right Jesus.  But nobody has exactly the same view of Jesus as everyone else.  Like I said, you and I even believe differently as to WHY Jesus exists.  Yet I know we're both saved. 

Finally, I know saved Mormons.  I know saved Catholics.  I know saved members of Church of Christ.  I know unsaved Baptists. 

Salvation doesn't hinge on correct knowledge of theology.  It hinges on what Jesus did and who Jesus saves.  Now, I'll admit that if someone tells me she believes that Jesus is a alien time-traveler who teaches that when we die we resurrect at Paddy's Bar and Grill in Bayonne, NJ, I'll probably assume Jesus hasn't saved that person -- at least, not yet.  But when someone tells me Jesus is the Christ, I take that as evidence the person is probably saved, and I'm prepared to overlook just about all other evidence to the contrary.  Praise God it's not my decision to make.