coC require rebaptism?

[MrJim]

Does the church of Christ require a rebaptism if person had received a believer's baptism in name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

[Tranceformer110]

Not that i know of...but my only experience is in the Christian Church.

[youngministers]

I suppose it depends on the various churches...but most Churches of Christ do not require any sort of re-baptism. If you have been immersed, that's what is important.

[MrJim]

Thanks for the info.

[WesWoodell]

Does the church of Christ require a rebaptism if person had received a believer's baptism in name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Some do some don't.

You can't really expect a solid answer from anyone about this that encompasses everyone. Since every church is autonamous (each church governs itself), every church is different.

I can safely say that most would rebaptize a person who had been baptized as an infant. Some would rebaptize a person who had been baptized apart of a denomination, others wouldn't.

In my opinion the CoC traditionally focuses waaaay too much on baptism.

[constance]

In my opinion the CoC traditionally focuses waaaay too much on baptism.

That's possible?

Oh.

I always like to remind my Restoration Movement folks that they're baptists in disguise.

:)

Constance

[MrJim]

That's possible?

Oh.

I always like to remind my Restoration Movement folks that they're baptists in disguise.

:)

Constance

Do elaborate on this thought. Do you think restorationists are just independent baptists and they don't know it?:scratch:

[WesWoodell]

That's possible?

Oh.

I always like to remind my Restoration Movement folks that they're baptists in disguise.

:)

Constance

Haha ... yes I believe its possible to focus too much on baptism. People need to convert to Christ, not to baptism. :)

And Menno - here are a couple of stark differences from Baptist folk and CoC folk.

1) No instruments used in worship with the CoC.

2) Most baptists teach people to "pray Jesus into their hearts" to be saved. Most CoCs teach people to repent and be baptized in water (Acts 2:38)

[constance]

This is not a post. :)

[constance]

The restoration movement was begun by Alexander Cambell, a presbyterian who joined the baptists because of his strong commitment to believer's baptism; and Barton Stone, a presbyterian (who was not a baptist).

Stone died younger and was not the theologian of the two.

If you read Alexander Campbell's writings, they are not "Calvinist" (he was intensely opposed to the concept), and he embraced what I'd consider to be some of the central points of "baptist/anabaptist thought" such as:
- Restoration of New Testament Church
- Believer's Baptism
- Priesthood of all believers
- Autonomy of local churches
- Religious Liberty/Separation of Church & State
- Open Communion
- OSAS (we think)

Campbell said that Baptism was done for the remission of sins, likening it to an oath of citizenship in a new country (he was an immigrant) - before the oath, you are not a citizen. Afterwards you are. It's not the oath, it's the stepping forward.

I don't agree with Campbell completely (I'd gladly be amish!) but he makes good points...

[FOG]

Haha ... yes I believe its possible to focus too much on baptism. People need to convert to Christ, not to baptism. :)

And Menno - here are a couple of stark differences from Baptist folk and CoC folk.

1) No instruments used in worship with the CoC.

2) Most baptists teach people to "pray Jesus into their hearts" to be saved. Most CoCs teach people to repent and be baptized in water (Acts 2:38) I am a member of the church of Christ, and one of the only things i disagree with is the "instruments in worship is a sin" type mindset, or the "if you use instruments its not really worship"
I still fail to see why having instruments stops you from praising God. saying that instrumental music is a sin is completely unbiblical. I also agree that the church of Christ focuses waaaayy too much on baptism. Its a good thing to be baptized, yes, but baptism alone will not get you salvation.

[youngministers]

You have to keep a few things in mind:

First of all, not all CoC refuse instruments in worship. I am the minister at a CoC and we use instruments in our services. We have to be careful of the sweeping labels and assumptions.

Instruments were a vital part of worship in the Old Testament. Because they are not mentioned in the New Testament is why many non-instrumental CoC don't use them.

Remember...just like there are many types of baptists or other groups, there can be differences among Christian Churches and Churches of Christ.

[FOG]

You have to keep a few things in mind:

First of all, not all CoC refuse instruments in worship. I am the minister at a CoC and we use instruments in our services. We have to be careful of the sweeping labels and assumptions.

Instruments were a vital part of worship in the Old Testament. Because they are not mentioned in the New Testament is why many non-instrumental CoC don't use them.

Remember...just like there are many types of baptists or other groups, there can be differences among Christian Churches and Churches of Christ.
Yeah, I guess its just been that most CoC i have been to and the one that I regularly attend are really conservative in a lot of ways.
I understand why they do not use instrumental music, but some of the elders at my congregation say that it is a sin.. and I just think that is unbiblical. I know some congregations who do not beleive it is a sin, but they dont use instruments because acapella is more unifiying. I had never heard about instruments in CoC services, but of course, there is always more for me to learn :D

[youngministers]

No worries.

I agree with you. I see the use of instruments in worship to be very biblical. If you prefer them without, that is fine. If you prefer them with, that is fine too.

It is not a heaven and hell issue.

[constance]

I attended an acapella CoC in college, and I loved it (I grew up Baptist). When DH was looking for a denomination to convert to (from Catholicism), I suggested CoC but he went on some rant about Baptismal Regeneration and so we ended up with the Disciples of Christ (the liberal Restoration movement people) who, well, I can't complain about, I guess, because they don't have any theology at all.

:)

Constance

[WesWoodell]

I am a member of the church of Christ, and one of the only things i disagree with is the "instruments in worship is a sin" type mindset, or the "if you use instruments its not really worship"
I still fail to see why having instruments stops you from praising God. saying that instrumental music is a sin is completely unbiblical.

Agreed.

No worries.

I agree with you. I see the use of instruments in worship to be very biblical. If you prefer them without, that is fine. If you prefer them with, that is fine too.

It is not a heaven and hell issue.

Agreed again. I believe the way we live our lives is the ultimate act of worship before God. Just like we have traditionally focused too much on baptism, I believe we traditionally focus too much on 1 hour of our Sundays rather than the rest of our week and lives.

well, I can't complain about, I guess, because they don't have any theology at all.

And that was funny. ^_^

[MrJim]

On a side note:

Having been part of the mennonite church for a while I got into some plainer churches that sang a cappella. One of the things the older folks lamented about the changing over to instruments is that the art of singing was being lost.

Does "non-instrumental" CoC churches have a rep for excellent singing like the mennonite folks?

(No, I don't sing well-wasn't brought up mennonite. Got jabbed in the ribs once by my wife in church once because my singing was so bad--not my fault---we were visiting a rather liberal mennonite church that was run by women and the music was just pitched too high.)

[constance]

On a side note:

Having been part of the mennonite church for a while I got into some plainer churches that sang a cappella. One of the things the older folks lamented about the changing over to instruments is that the art of singing was being lost.

Does "non-instrumental" CoC churches have a rep for excellent singing like the mennonite folks?

(No, I don't sing well-wasn't brought up mennonite. Got jabbed in the ribs once by my wife in church once because my singing was so bad--not my fault---we were visiting a rather liberal mennonite church that was run by women and the music was just pitched too high.)
Menno: They are the only churches where you can consistently hear 4-part hymns sung in 4 part harmony.

Much like the Mennonites. Much. I keep trying to talk my husband into becoming Mennonite. I don't think I will win. (but he's not Catholic any more, so I guess we met half way)...

Constance

[MrJim]

Menno: They are the only churches where you can consistently hear 4-part hymns sung in 4 part harmony.

Much like the Mennonites. Much. I keep trying to talk my husband into becoming Mennonite. I don't think I will win. (but he's not Catholic any more, so I guess we met half way)...

Constance

Would you go to a plain church? That's about the only ones out there that are consistent to historical anabaptist beliefs (as well as that especially good singing). That MennoniteUSA thing is a real trainwreck (sort of like derailed threads^_^ )

[MrJim]

Haha ... yes I believe its possible to focus too much on baptism. People need to convert to Christ, not to baptism. :)

And Menno - here are a couple of stark differences from Baptist folk and CoC folk.

1) No instruments used in worship with the CoC.

2) Most baptists teach people to "pray Jesus into their hearts" to be saved. Most CoCs teach people to repent and be baptized in water (Acts 2:38)

So if these are the two distinctives, and if the first one is lost is the second one far behind? I'm hearing "too much focus on baptism". Sounds like if these two are lost then it is in essence a baptist church calling itself CoC?

[constance]

Would you go to a plain church? That's about the only ones out there that are consistent to historical anabaptist beliefs (as well as that especially good singing). That MennoniteUSA thing is a real trainwreck (sort of like derailed threads^_^ )

I'd go to a Beachy church, living the life I live now, although I think I would thrive living old ordnung.

My husband likes the plain worship style, but he believes that the church should not wall itself off from the world. At the Menno-hof (in Shipshewana, IN) they have a nice movie presentation which begins by saying "Anabaptists believe that good fences make good neighbors" - he really believes in bringing in everyone who wants to proclaim their faith, even if they're flaky.

Constance

[WesWoodell]

So if these are the two distinctives, and if the first one is lost is the second one far behind? I'm hearing "too much focus on baptism". Sounds like if these two are lost then it is in essence a baptist church calling itself CoC?

I don't understand exactly what you're asking - could you explain more fully?

And please don't misunderstand my saying that the CoC focuses too much on baptism as saying "baptism isn't important."

I believe baptism to be very important, but not more important than faith in Christ or dying to self and living your life for Him.

[MrJim]

I don't understand exactly what you're asking - could you explain more fully?

And please don't misunderstand my saying that the CoC focuses too much on baptism as saying "baptism isn't important."

I believe baptism to be very important, but not more important than faith in Christ or dying to self and living your life for Him.

It's a progression observed in the mennonite church during the late 19th and 20th centuries. Distinctives of doctrines were slowly put aside in favor of less "barriers" until much of the mennonite church resembles the methodist church. A "Downgrade" so to speak.

[WesWoodell]

It's a progression observed in the mennonite church during the late 19th and 20th centuries. Distinctives of doctrines were slowly put aside in favor of less "barriers" until much of the mennonite church resembles the methodist church. A "Downgrade" so to speak.

Ahh, I understand. I certainly don't support a "downgrade" as you call it, but neither do I support sinful legalism or the generalization of large groups of people into an "you're all going to hell" social category.

[murple_kitty]

Ahh, I understand. I certainly don't support a "downgrade" as you call it, but neither do I support sinful legalism or the generalization of large groups of people into an "you're all going to hell" social category.
I am a member of a CoC and I was baptized when I was 12 and then because I myself didn't feel that I had made the right commitment I was rebaptized almost two years ago. I am one of the people who believe that instruments in worship is wrong. I think it takes our thoughts from worship of God and puts them on how good the insruments sound. Oh and in answer to the question, Yes, we have some of the most beautiful singing I have ever heard. My group, the college group and the youth group are very talented in that. :)

[WesWoodell]

I am a member of a CoC and I was baptized when I was 12 and then because I myself didn't feel that I had made the right commitment I was rebaptized almost two years ago. I am one of the people who believe that instruments in worship is wrong. I think it takes our thoughts from worship of God and puts them on how good the insruments sound. Oh and in answer to the question, Yes, we have some of the most beautiful singing I have ever heard. My group, the college group and the youth group are very talented in that. :)

I was rebaptized as well a couple of years ago.

I agree that instruments could cause you to take your mind off worshipping God because you were focused on how good they sounded, but couldn't that beautiful singing you mentioned do the same thing? :)

[murple_kitty]

I don't find it so. Why? because everyone participates in the singing. It is hard for most people's minds to wander when they are doing something so interactive as to sing outloud. :P At least in my knowledge

[WesWoodell]

I don't find it so. Why? because everyone participates in the singing. It is hard for most people's minds to wander when they are doing something so interactive as to sing outloud. :P At least in my knowledge
Its not possible then?

[Frame1520]

I guess I'll throw in my two cents worth...for what its worth!

Baptism (immersion): Essential for salvation. Not the only necessary component, but very important. Do we overemphasize it? Sometimes. But it MUST be presented as a part of the total plan of salvation. No one will be saved thru baptism alone.

Instruments: Most of that's been gone over already, but I do not see any biblical evidence that instruments used in worship is considered a sin.

Accapella singing: I have no problem if people want to sing without instruments of with them. No matter what you are doing, if you are glorifying the Lord, and worshipping His majesty, you are doing the right thing. Only you and God know your heart. If you get up and play the guitar in church because you want to hear the praises of the congregation, well then you might want to consider your motives for playing in the first place. Are you doing it for God, or your own "feel good-pat-on-the-back"? Either way, I am for instruments or singing accapella, as long as it is for God.

coC = baptists?: I would disagree. A lot of baptist doctrine teaches once saved always saved. That you cannot lose your salvation. However, I think the bible tells us differently, and in the church of Christ, I have never heard once saved always saved doctrine. (Nor have I read it in the bible).

This is a good topic, btw. Glad to post on topics where people don't ridicule and become downright nasty to those who have different beliefs than themselves. :)

[Frame1520]

Its not possible then?

Most certainly it is. Its hard when the person next to you sounds like a dying mule, and is so loud it hurts your ears. Hard to focus on God when people become distracted. It's just as easy for someone to be showy in their singing as it is for someone on the guitar. All depends on what people are worshipping; praise to God or praise of men?

2 funny side stories, then I'll relinquish:
A lady in a former church I went to was running sound in the back. The pianist was playing softly during communion. The lady running sound, then picked up a mic in the back and began belting out the song the pianist was playing, very softly! It was the most awkward, obnoxious, "look at me" moment I have ever witnessed in church. Quite disheartening.

At this same church, we had some people leave the church (my wife's grandparents, and others among them), because the pianist was playing the piano incredibly loud. She opened up the top, and just banged that keyboard like she was Billy Joel. It was too loud, and she was doing it for who knows what reason. I personally think it may have been to make people sing louder...But in essence, her loud piano playing made people less focused on God, and consequently, was distracting. Things need to be tastfully done!

That's it! :D

[murple_kitty]

Yes, it is possible to get distracted. I just meant that singing you can't watch a person play a tuba, wonder how it's done and all it's mechanisms and sing at the same time. It is very hard to do. Possible yes, but you are most definitly not focusing on God, you are focusing on how the tuba player is playing his tuba! *grins*

I like the mule example earlier. It made me laugh.

[Frame1520]

I like the mule example earlier. It made me laugh.

It was a bit harsh, but that's what it sounded like. A braying mule getting punched in the side. I couldn't pay attention the the words on the screen, all I could think of was, "is this person ok?".:o:help:

[MrJim]

It was a bit harsh, but that's what it sounded like. A braying mule getting punched in the side. I couldn't pay attention the the words on the screen, all I could think of was, "is this person ok?".:o:help:

"words on the screen"? Don't tell me you were singing off the wall?^_^ I didn't know there were charismatic CoC's out there...

[ParsonJefferson]

"words on the screen"? Don't tell me you were singing off the wall?^_^ I didn't know there were charismatic CoC's out there...
Hey now...

We use PowerPoint every Sunday. It has actually been a wonderful ministry tool! ;)

[MrJim]

Hey now...

We use PowerPoint every Sunday. It has actually been a wonderful ministry tool! ;)

:P

As I get older my eyesight gets a bit dimmer

Got my first bifocals last week:sigh:

[constance]

Uck. I can't stand Power Point. Hey, do acapella churches use Powerpoint? They didn't have it in the Bible... I miss the acapella church I went to.

:)

Constance

[murple_kitty]

Some do. It just depends on the congregation really. We don't at my church at least for singing. But for missionary presentations and christmas parties and other things we do. I like it. but I am glad we don't use it that often

[Tranceformer110]

I think the projector is the best thing since drums were allowed in church. Tilting my head down and "singing" the words from a hymnal is not that natural. Singing with my head up is more natural and easier to focus.

[MrJim]

I think the projector is the best thing since drums were allowed in church. Tilting my head down and "singing" the words from a hymnal is not that natural. Singing with my head up is more natural and easier to focus.

I visited a mennonite church that had the full ensemble: Drums, guitars, keyboards. It was entirely too loud for me and my family. My oldest son had his hands over his ears whenever the music played. Didn't care for it at all and never went back.

[Frame1520]

We actually use Mediashout. Its a very useful multimedia tool. A lot better than powerpoint, at least as far as versatility.

[Tranceformer110]

I visited a mennonite church that had the full ensemble: Drums, guitars, keyboards. It was entirely too loud for me and my family. My oldest son had his hands over his ears whenever the music played. Didn't care for it at all and never went back.That would be more on the sound guy and less on the ensemble. We have a keyboard guitar and drums at my church and it sucks horribly and it's not the musicians fault.

[Mrs. Enigma]

Thanks for the info.


The ones in this area would require that you be immersed "for the forgiveness of sins", and I think you have to be thinking that while being dunked, you might wanna ask some people from your area.


I personally, think you are fine. I have been baptized like 3 times, or something. So, either I am a super Christian or a dork.....

[murple_kitty]

I can't stand praise teams or instruments or anything like that. It simply bugs the life out of me. Even clapping. Just drives me nuts. I like plain accapella. No matter how bad people's voices. At least I can hear them praising God.

(I know, I'm odd)

[WesWoodell]

So praising God is about what you like or don't like?

LoL - Just playing the part of the devil's advocate :P

Seriously though - people setting their personal preferences as too high a priority is what has caused so many churches to split over little things.

[Frame1520]

Seriously though - people setting their personal preferences as too high a priority is what has caused so many churches to split over little things.

Sadly, in this case you are all too right. Everyone will never be totally satisfied with music, or other things. There will always be someone who has a different PREFERENCE than someone else. And that's all it is. Preference.

I'll give you an example. Today we did a song as part of our service that I did not like, nor think was appropriate for church. (It was a camp type song), but I didn't say, "This song is blasphemus (it wasn't, the lyrics were all scriptural), I refuse to worship, and I'm going to sit here and pout or leave while the song is being sung." That's my preference. And who would I be proving anything to? Men? Let's all remember that its not about us. I have to tell myself that sometimes. "HEY! :eek: Its not about you, dummy!" :o <inner voice speaking to self> :doh:

[murple_kitty]

I completely agree. I am sorry if I cam across differently. I just find things that others do distracting and when I am praising God, I feel that I should not be distracted. That's what I meant. :)

[Frame1520]

It's easy to be distracted. It's a lot easier to focus when are are just singing from the pews, and not being concerned with other things. I would think it would be difficult to be a song leader, and be up in front of everyone leading. I don't know. In any event, I know what you meant. :)

[Theophorus]

The restoration movement was begun by Alexander Cambell, a presbyterian who joined the baptists because of his strong commitment to believer's baptism; and Barton Stone, a presbyterian (who was not a baptist).

Stone died younger and was not the theologian of the two.

If you read Alexander Campbell's writings, they are not "Calvinist" (he was intensely opposed to the concept), and he embraced what I'd consider to be some of the central points of "baptist/anabaptist thought" such as:
- Restoration of New Testament Church
- Believer's Baptism
- Priesthood of all believers
- Autonomy of local churches
- Religious Liberty/Separation of Church & State
- Open Communion
- OSAS (we think)

Campbell said that Baptism was done for the remission of sins, likening it to an oath of citizenship in a new country (he was an immigrant) - before the oath, you are not a citizen. Afterwards you are. It's not the oath, it's the stepping forward.

I don't agree with Campbell completely (I'd gladly be amish!) but he makes good points...

I believe it was Campbell's dislike of the "mourners bench" that led to his views of baptism. The Prebyterian practice required for the one being saved to sit on a bench until by some direct revelation they were convicted in their hearts and accepted the gospel. They were usually required to confess this conviction they had arrived at before the congregation.

Cambell felt it was too subjective. Baptism for him became the point of obediance and proof of this conviction, and per his interpretation of scripture the point at which one received the Holy spirit. His baptism was accomplished by a Baptist minister.

[ChurchofChrist]

Some do some don't.

You can't really expect a solid answer from anyone about this that encompasses everyone. Since every church is autonamous (each church governs itself), every church is different.

I can safely say that most would rebaptize a person who had been baptized as an infant. Some would rebaptize a person who had been baptized apart of a denomination, others wouldn't.

In my opinion the CoC traditionally focuses waaaay too much on baptism.
well we better because according to John chapter 3 its the only way to enter the Kingdom of God

[WesWoodell]

I'd say Christ is the only way. ;)

[MrJim]

I can see why people would be rebaptized. The question has to be "Why were you baptized"?

If done for the wrong reason, is it possible that I am not even a Christian?

[Frame1520]

I can see why people would be rebaptized. The question has to be "Why were you baptized"?

If done for the wrong reason, is it possible that I am not even a Christian?

You make a good point. As the bible says, repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Many would argue against that, but hey, thats on them. I simply believe that you do what the bible commands.

I'm not all the familiar with other reasons for baptism? What do various churches teach baptism as being for? I know about catholics and others who "sprinkle" but I'm thinking along the lines of real full immersion baptism. Any thoughts?

[MrJim]

You make a good point. As the bible says, repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Many would argue against that, but hey, thats on them. I simply believe that you do what the bible commands.

I'm not all the familiar with other reasons for baptism? What do various churches teach baptism as being for? I know about catholics and others who "sprinkle" but I'm thinking along the lines of real full immersion baptism. Any thoughts?

This is what I was taught. I was baptized in a General Conference Church of God (Findlay OH). I've heard this same thing repeated elsewhere: You get baptized as an example to others and out of obedience to Christ. Sort of since Jesus did it we should do it to. There is no mention of sin in regards to this--it's just treated as an ordinance that is something that ought to be done when ever you are ready:doh: .

Absolutely no connection with salvation at all.

[Frame1520]

Here is something someone once posted about baptism.
It is very concise, and I have used it on many occasions.

I see a slight problem in the hermeneutics of this
discussion. You see, we cannot just take bits and
pieces from the Bible and make it our theology. We
must look at it from all angles and take the whole
Scripture. As 2 Timothy 3:16 says "ALL Scripture is
God breathed" I am going to take the position that
yes, water baptism (immersion) is essential to
salvation. I am also going to say that I am not God,
so I cannot judge eternally those who aren't baptized,
but I will say what the Bible tells us we must do.

Matthew 3:11 does say: "I baptize you withwater for
repentance. But after me will come one who is more
powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry.
He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with
fire.

But you have to read Matthew 3:12 also: His winnowing
fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing
floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning
up the chaff with unquenchable fire." ----I don't want
to be baptized with that fire, and I don't think
anyone else does; so we have to figure out what
"baptize with the Holy Spirit" means.

My position is that we are baptized to RECIEVE the
Holy Spirit. I get this from these verses:

Acts 2:38- Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized,
every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the
gift of the Holy Spirit.

This explains what Jesus meant about being baptized
with the Holy Spirit:

Acts 19:4-5 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." On hearing
this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord
Jesus.

After this the people recieved the miraculous gifts of
the Holy Spirit. But not before they were immersed.

A favorite conversion of mine is that of the Ethiopian
Eunuch in Acts 8. He was riding on his carriage and he
was reading from Isaiah. Phillip came along and the
Eunuch asked Philip what it means and the Bible says:

Acts 8:35-36 "Then Philip began with that very passage
of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
As they traveled along the road, they came to some
water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why
shouldn't I be baptized?"

If baptism wasn't intimately connected with recieving
Jesus, then why on earth would the Eunuch ask to be
baptized just after hearing Philip share the good news
of Jesus. Obviously Philip talked about baptism with
him.

You also must remember that EVERY New Testament
conversion is through baptism! No one ever recieved
the Holy Spirit until they were baptized except for
Cornelius. And the only reason for that was to show
Peter that Gentiles could be baptized. And they were
baptized immediately after Peter realized this.

One favorite verse of people who do not believe
baptism is essential for salvation is Romans 10:9:
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord,"
and believe in your heart that God raised him from the
dead, you will be saved.

What they don't show you is Romans 6:3-5 and really
the whole rest of that chapter:

Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized
into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 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. If we have been united with him like
this in his death, we will certainly also be united
with him in his resurrection

Romans was a letter, meaning it was meant to be read
in one sitting. If I were to write you a letter
telling you that I was going to come visit after
Christmas and then at the end of the letter I said
"Don't forget, I am coming to visit on your birthday!"
You would expect me to come visit twice! Thats how
letters are written. Paul did not have to mention
baptism over and over again because he had already
said it. Plus, Romans is written to people who are
already Christians. Chapter 10, if you read further,
is talking about preaching the Word!


I am not saying faith and belief are not important,
but all a part of it. I believe you must hear the
Word, Believe in it, Repent of your sins, Be baptized
by being immersed into water, and then you will
recieve salvation and the gift of eternal life.

I could discuss much further on this subject but I am
going to give you some brief verses to look at.
Remember, read them in context--don't just take my
word for it. Take God's.

1 Peter 3:21: And this water symbolizes baptism that
now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the
body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.
It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Romans 8:9: You, however, are controlled not by the
sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God
lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit
of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

Reference that back to Acts 2:38--how do we get the
Holy Spirit? AT BAPTISM.

I hope this helps. I do not want to seem Pharisaical
but we have millions of people in America following
the doctrine of "I don't believe My God would do that"
God is a God of justice and He does what He says. If
the Bible says Baptism is essential for salvation,
then it is. It wasn't even until the 1300's that
baptism started being not "essential" If the church
was founded in AD 33-36, then that is over 1000 years
that people believed baptism was essential for
salvation. I think that holds up much stronger than
manmade religion.

[MrJim]

That's a good post.

[WesWoodell]

Mmm hmm.

He forgot about Acts 10. Those believers displayed miraculous gifts before being immersed.

I believe the baptism of the Holy Spirit was a one time event personally.

[constance]

I believe it was Campbell's dislike of the "mourners bench" that led to his views of baptism. The Prebyterian practice required for the one being saved to sit on a bench until by some direct revelation they were convicted in their hearts and accepted the gospel. They were usually required to confess this conviction they had arrived at before the congregation.

Cambell felt it was too subjective. Baptism for him became the point of obediance and proof of this conviction, and per his interpretation of scripture the point at which one received the Holy spirit. His baptism was accomplished by a Baptist minister.

The penitent/mourner bench developed from the presbyterian/puritan idea that a person had to be able to give clear evidence of their conversion. Traditionally, puritans assumed the conversion process took years, if not decades. Revivalists (starting about 1750) believed the conversion process could happen instantly, but still thought it was necessary.

A number of British reformers in the late 1700s raised problems with this similar to Campbell's, including the Haldane brothers and the Sandemanians. Campbell learned and developed their ideas about conversion.

Constance

[PatrickHanson1]

Does the church of Christ require a rebaptism if person had received a believer's baptism in name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
If the person is aware that baptism is for the remission of sins, no. So much emphasis is placed on baptism that many rush into the water without fully counting the cost or understanding of Jesus and the price that was paid.
Patrick Hanson

[Revenwyn]

I am a member of a Church of Christ, and I would say no.
The only issue with them is some do require you to be re-baptized if you originally were not baptized "for the remission of sins."

I don't agree with that viewpoint. Unlike a lot of CoC members, I don't believe that baptism is what saves you.

[PatrickHanson1]

I am a member of a Church of Christ, and I would say no.
The only issue with them is some do require you to be re-baptized if you originally were not baptized "for the remission of sins."

I don't agree with that viewpoint. Unlike a lot of CoC members, I don't believe that baptism is what saves you.
If I was ready to die to self and live for Christ, what would you tell me I needed to do?
Patrick

[Frame1520]

Its not a question of what you personally believe, but actually a question of what does the bible say? I don't understand how anyone could omit things from the bible just because it suits them.

[Revenwyn]

If you look at the story of Cornelius, even Peter says that he had already received the Holy Spirit... and then Cornelius was baptized.

I doubt this was a once in a kind phenomena.

[Frame1520]

removed.

[PatrickHanson1]

If you look at the story of Cornelius, even Peter says that he had already received the Holy Spirit... and then Cornelius was baptized.

I doubt this was a once in a kind phenomena.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit occured on two occassions: Pentecost and Acts 10. The first one is for the Jews and the second is an affirmation for Peter to show the inclusion of Gentiles. You say you doubt, but without proof of Scripture what do you have.
Patrick Hanson

[Theophorus]

The penitent/mourner bench developed from the presbyterian/puritan idea that a person had to be able to give clear evidence of their conversion. Traditionally, puritans assumed the conversion process took years, if not decades. Revivalists (starting about 1750) believed the conversion process could happen instantly, but still thought it was necessary.

A number of British reformers in the late 1700s raised problems with this similar to Campbell's, including the Haldane brothers and the Sandemanians. Campbell learned and developed their ideas about conversion.

Constance

Yes, from my readings of Campbell he stated that faith was an antecedent to repentance and basically took the position that baptism was a means of God's mercy.

In his opinion the former conversion process placed the emphasis on repentance first, then faith, which Campbell said was impossible.

Campbell stated that repentance was a part of mercy, not something that was manifested of ourselves, nor determined by us, but bestowed by God.

[ZiSunka]

Does the church of Christ require a rebaptism if person had received a believer's baptism in name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

When I joined Whitewater Christian, they accepted my water baptism and didn't require me to be baptized again. Whitewater is a Restoration Movement church.

Check with your pastor. From what I have read, immersion baptism after a profession of faith is all that is required.