The CoC's view of baptism

[2PhiloVoid]

The Community of Christ (CoC) church is a restoration church, and would be regarded as "Christian" by CF, as they accept the 4th century Creeds. They are also part of large Christian organizations.

They don't really have much to do with the LDS church, other than a few basic beliefs (like that a believer's baptism is needed for salvation) and some 1800's historical background. Other things like books of scripture, views of scripture, LBGT, priesthood, governorship, etc are VERY different than LDS views.

If you got any other questions, feel free to ask. I'm obviously not a member of CoC, but have studied them pretty thoroughly just to understand folks better.

Jane, you might want to cite from where you're getting your information. Please. As far as I know, the only Restorationist Churches are the Church of Christ, the Christian Church, and the Disciples of Christ, and these groups have nothing to do with LDS.

Thanks.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Jane, you might want to cite from where you're getting your information. Please. As far as I know, the only Restorationist Churches are the Church of Christ, the Christian Church, and the Disciples of Christ, and these groups have nothing to do with LDS.

Thanks.

In the early nineteenth century there was a broad movement within Protestantism to restore the Church to its first-century purity. This movement took on many faces. Through men such as Alexander Campbell sprang the Churches of Christ, the Christian Churches, and the Disciples of Christ. Within the Methodist arena there arose Primitive Methodists, with the same goals. Likewise, there are Primitive Methodists. In England the Plymouth Brethren came to life and subsquently splintered into multiple groups (the primary division being Open verses Closed Brethren). There were also Bible Christians in England at that time. On the Continent there was the Nazarene (not to be confused with the American Nazarene denomination) movement with the same goals.

Back in upstate New York a young man named Joseph Smith started a movement to restore the Church, not through study of the Bible, but through direct revelation from God Himself. He named his church the Church of Christ. That did not last very long because of the obvious confusion it created. He soon changed the name to the Church of Jesus Christ (of Latter-Day Saints). That movement splintered after his death in Carthage, Missouri.

The fact is that none of these groups can claim (although many do) to be the only Restoration movement in the world.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In the early nineteenth century there was a broad movement within Protestantism to restore the Church to its first-century purity. This movement took on many faces. Through men such as Alexander Campbell sprang the Churches of Christ, the Christian Churches, and the Disciples of Christ. Within the Methodist arena there arose Primitive Methodists, with the same goals. Likewise, there are Primitive Methodists. In England the Plymouth Brethren came to life and subsquently splintered into multiple groups (the primary division being Open verses Closed Brethren). There were also Bible Christians in England at that time. On the Continent there was the Nazarene (not to be confused with the American Nazarene denomination) movement with the same goals.

Back in upstate New York a young man named Joseph Smith started a movement to restore the Church, not through study of the Bible, but through direct revelation from God Himself. He named his church the Church of Christ. That did not last very long because of the obvious confusion it created. He soon changed the name to the Church of Jesus Christ (of Latter-Day Saints). That movement splintered after his death in Carthage, Missouri.

The fact is that none of these groups can claim (although many do) to be the only Restoration movement in the world.

Restoration Movement - Wikipedia

 

[Albion]

That's the thing I like about the CoC stance; it combines the necessity of baptism for salvation with believers' baptism at the same time. I don't see any other Christian group doing this. I'm actually baffled that I don't.

If I may, those traditionalist churches that practice infant baptism do not say that it is necessary for salvation. If you set aside that mistaken idea, wherever it came from, doing so might help in framing your own thoughts about which church best accords with your own convictions.

 

[bbbbbbb]

If I may, those traditionalist churches that practice infant baptism do not say that it is necessary for salvation. If you set aside that mistaken idea, wherever it came from, doing so might help in framing your own thoughts about which church best accords with your own convictions.

Sadly, you are mistaken here. The Roman Catholic Church clearly states this in its Catechism -

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

 

[Lady Bug]

I came across a problem and I don't want to cause problems but it's a stumbling block for me. Some people say that in Acts 10, a group of people (including Cornelius) received the Holy Spirit before baptism and I've been trying to find a good rebuttal to this.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I came across a problem and I don't want to cause problems but it's a stumbling block for me. Some people say that in Acts 10, a group of people (including Cornelius) received the Holy Spirit before baptism and I've been trying to find a good rebuttal to this.

Why do you need a rebuttal? The fact of the matter is that salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ, as exhibited in Cornelius and his household having received the gift of the Holy Spirit apart from any work, including baptism.

Christian theology becomes extremely complex and difficult to reconcile with scripture when works are intermingled with faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Lady Bug]

Why do you need a rebuttal? The fact of the matter is that salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ, as exhibited in Cornelius and his household having received the gift of the Holy Spirit apart from any work, including baptism.

Christian theology becomes extremely complex and difficult to reconcile with scripture when works are intermingled with faith in Jesus Christ.

I am frustrated beyond words because the sentence "he who believes and is baptized shall be saved" is such a basically structured sentence that it's not possible to misinterpret that verse. It doesn't say "he who believes and is saved shall be baptized." I don't understand how anyone who reads the Bible interprets this sentence any other way. It's a basic sentence.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Why do you need a rebuttal? The fact of the matter is that salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ, as exhibited in Cornelius and his household having received the gift of the Holy Spirit apart from any work, including baptism.

Christian theology becomes extremely complex and difficult to reconcile with scripture when works are intermingled with faith in Jesus Christ.

The problem is that many folks fail to read the verse in its entirety.

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Why are people condemned? Does Jesus say that whoever is not baptized will be condemned?

 

[Lady Bug]

If you don't believe, you aren't going to make a decision to get baptized anyway.

 

[Lady Bug]

p.s. I'm sorry I appeared angry; I'm just having problems with this subject and one thread may not solve it...I hope one day I solve this issue.

 

[Lady Bug]

I do have a question if you're still willing to talk to me lol.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I do have a question if you're still willing to talk to me lol.

I am willing. One of the problems is that there are multitudes of people who are baptized who don't believe. These would include all of the babies being baptized in Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, and Anglican churches. These churches do a weird spin on the verse and say that because a baby can't talk doesn't mean it can't believe. Thus, they say that babies have faith through baptism and all is well.

 

[Lady Bug]

I completely disagree with infant baptism. I do not find it scriptural. All the examples of water baptism in the NT show that it is predicated on belief.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I completely disagree with infant baptism. I do not find it scriptural. All the examples of water baptism in the NT show that it is predicated on belief.

I agree entirely.

 

[Brokenhill]

I completely disagree with infant baptism. I do not find it scriptural. All the examples of water baptism in the NT show that it is predicated on belief.

You are correct, but you may see people trying to use Acts 16:15 where it mentions an entire "household" being baptized...they unnecessarily infer that to possibly include young children because young children are common in families.

But obviously that is not a necessary conclusion from the text but just wishful thinking.

 

[Thedictator]

Hi, I'm not officially in the CoC (or related Restoration Movement group), but I've been looking around at what other denominations teach about baptism, it really vexes me because of how unscriptural their teachings are.

Hello, welcome to the Restoration forum
First you make the Statement "other denomination" Churches of Christ are not a denomination we are a fellowship of independent autonomous congregations. The others in the Restoration movement maybe denominations I'm not sure. The reason for so much confusion about baptism is because many would rather follow man-made doctrines than clear biblical statement of the Bible.

you have the teaching that baptism is not necessary at all for salvation, has nothing to do with it, and is an "outward sign of an inward grace." .

Yes, a clear example of man- made doctrine over stated doctrine of the Bible. Nowhere in Scripture is this quote: "outward sign of an inward grace." It is a man-made belief.

About Baptism being necessary for salvation, I ponder the thieves on the cross. "Truly I tell you today you will be with me in Paradise." How does that fit in with such a belief?

Jesus Christ while living on Earth had the Authority to forgive sins. Today he is not on Earth but in heaven, and gave us a process by which we can be saved by the Blood of Christ. He was saved by a direct administration of Grace from Christ that is not available to us today.

 

[Thedictator]

Thanks. Some folks have done a great job in providing the history of Campbellitism. Here is the Latter-Day Saints take on Restoration - Restoration (Latter Day Saints) - Wikipedia

Do not come on this site (The Restoration forum) and call Restorationist names that demeaning and derogatory. We are not Campbellites. The Campbells where not the only leaders of the movement, and for that matter about 75% of Restoration members don't know who they are.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

You are correct, but you may see people trying to use Acts 16:15 where it mentions an entire "household" being baptized...they unnecessarily infer that to possibly include young children because young children are common in families.

But obviously that is not a necessary conclusion from the text but just wishful thinking.

I think it also comes from the understanding of what baptism represents. Some churches seem to adopt the theology that it replaces circumcision, which then would make sense that infants are baptised on the faith of their parents. Other churches understand it as a totally new covenant sign (being immersed into Christ with his burial, and then resurrection), which doesn't make sense with infants (as they are unable to believe on Him).

One thing I do understand, but don't like, about infant baptism is that its not really baptism at all. Baptism is supposed to be immersion, and on infants (for good reason), they are sprinkled, rather than immersed. As I understand, Christ is not sprinkled onto us - we are immersed in Him, as per Colossians.

Colossians 2:11 - 17
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If you don't believe, you aren't going to make a decision to get baptized anyway.

Billions of people could get baptized without believing - like joining a club ..