should i watch out for this teaching and the Church of Christ

Today i was at work reading my Bible and a young guy came up to me and talked with me for almost a half an hour and invited me to one of his bible studies. He is apart of the Church of Christ and he gave me their website to look at. He was a very enthusiastic and knowledgeable when it came to scriptures, but i know that they believe you must be baptized as the completion of your salvation. I was talking to him about it and one thing is you can take a few scriptures and seem justify what he is saying and on the other hand their our other scriptures that say something else. If you take the context of all the scriptures on how to be saved you would get basically repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and the good news about him. Their is various scriptures on how we are to respond, but to be honest it is kind of confusing to me, and with this person coming to me it made me wonder is he wrong and how can we understand all of this rightly? Any information would be great. Here is the link
http://www.chicagochurch.org/resources/resource-group/study-series

Hi Brother. I came across this group of believers in the 1980's in Leicester England. I also had a concern which I did not understand for a few weeks of visiting with the elder who was running the ministry in the local community centre. After some efforts I finally got this brother to acknowledge that he did in fact believe in what is called baptismal regeneration. In other words, as their teaching on salvation shows in the link you suppled, believing the good news is not believing into Christ unto eternal life, but water baptism is being regenerated through death into Christ and only then results in eternal life.

It is a profound distinction, though given that they do teach a centrality of the gospel sufficient for anyone to believe into Christ, nothing said thereafter would make for such a great loss. The difficulty comes when a person has merely mental ascent to the gospel and has no real faith at all. Such a person would be vulnerable to taking baptismal regeneration literally and may not have truly believed, yet reckoning that they are saved from the consequences of their sins. The saying which I coined at the time to remember this event was that it is "a gospel for nice persons". Obviously given their teaching on baptismal regeneration is in reality central to their ambitions, one would have to ask oneself whether participation in a bible study would not inevitably lead to a tension. I always keep my own concerns well hidden until they need stating plainly, and so these lovely brethren invited me to go to their bible college here in the UK, which I declined. I can't see the need to unnecessarily provoke tension.

I was looking for a teaching by Watchman Nee which covers this meaning and benefit of water baptism, but have not been able to find it. If I do then I will post it separately for you.

Are you sure they did not mean baptism of the Spirit = salvation?

Are you sure they did not mean baptism of the Spirit = salvation? Brenda

________________________________________________________________
THE CONVERSION OF SAUL — Acts 9:1-19, 22:6-13


Note: Make a list of everything Saul (Paul) did on the way to salvation

Saw a light


Heard the voice of Jesus.

Believed in Jesus.

Confessed Jesus as Lord.

Obeyed Jesus’ command

Fasted three days

Prayed three days.

Had a vision. Received a miracle.

Got baptized

What do we see here that demonstrates Paul’s repentance?

o Paul immediately changed from being a persecutor and murderer of Christians to a faithful Christian himself—he turned back from his sin.
o He was obedient to the instruction he received from Jesus.
o He fasted and prayed for three days—Saul’s conversion was a deeply spiritual
event and he took it seriously.

When might people say that Saul’s sins were forgiven and he was saved?
o Read Acts 22:14-16. In both accounts, the culmination of Paul’s conversion to Christianity was his baptism.
o Paul’s sins were forgiven (washed away) at baptism.
__________________________________________________________________

The above is taken from the web site the brother posted a link to. It is entitled “The Way of Salvation”. It is Teaching Lesson Number 6. As is often the case with believers we almost never say plainly what we mean. We almost always say something which is sufficiently ambiguous to allow for doubt as to what is being intended. Only then do we say what we really mean. Sometimes not even then. This is where discernment is essential as believers often lie against the truth by distorting its meaning. An unbeliever cannot lie against the truth because they do not have the truth.

In this case the saying is “Paul immediately changed from being a persecutor and murderer of Christians to a faithful Christian himself—he turned back from his sin. He was obedient to the instruction he received from Jesus. He fasted and prayed for three days—Saul’s conversion was a deeply spiritual event and he took it seriously”.

To one who comprehends that they are saved unto life from the moment they have believed such a saying appears to mean the same thing. However it is qualified by the following statement which directly contradicts the claim that a believer is saved unto eternity the moment they believe and are born again. As it is the spirit which is born of the Spirit the point of “being saved” is either separated in time from conversion to newness of life, or else "believe and be saved" it is simply a lie. It would also mean that countless millions of soundly born again believers are deceived into thinking that they were saved and made alive the moment they believed into Christ.

“When might people say that Saul’s sins were forgiven and he was saved? Read Acts 22:14-16. In both accounts, the culmination of Paul’s conversion to Christianity was his baptism. Paul’s sins were forgiven (washed away) at baptism”

There can be no ambiguity to these words “”Paul’s conversion to Christianity was his baptism”. Again this is emphasised by the words “Paul’s sins were forgiven (washed away) at baptism. So what does the saying “Saul’s [first] conversion was a deeply spiritual event” mean, given that this [first] conversion preceded his baptism [second conversion] by three days obedient fasting and prayer.

One can either see it or not. It took me several weeks to press this point without being contentious in my dealings with these brethren. In the end it was stated plainly to me that baptism is regarded as the point that a person is actually saved. Isn’t this the difficulty and the blessing of believers. We are often the least of men yet because of our confidence in Christ we know how to comprehend an independent mind of reason, even if it is predicated on a wrong emphasis. Of all people, believers are the most difficult. Yet loving one another is the evidence of our new life. Only believers have the power to cause men to truly stumble because we alone have the words of eternal life. It is for this reason that Paul reserved such difficult words for those who twist the truth.

In the end it makes no difference to some one who has in reality believed into Christ with a real gift of faith. There eternal salvation isn't lost because of a wrong emphasis. I would say heresy, as it ought to be said, but I remember these brethren very well and I found them to be sound in every other way. If you feel that I have got this wrong I would of course be happy to hear why?

Churches of Christ have historically had the most conservative position on baptism among the various branches of the Restoration Movement, understanding baptism by immersion to be a necessary part of conversion.[60]:61 The most significant disagreements concerned the extent to which a correct understanding of the role of baptism is necessary for its validity.[60]:61 David Lipscomb consistently argued that if a believer was baptized out of a desire to obey God, the baptism was valid, even if the individual did not fully understand the role baptism plays in salvation.[60]:61 Austin McGary argued strongly that to be valid, the convert must also understand that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins.[60]:62 McGary's view became the prevailing one in the early 20th century, but the approach advocated by Lipscomb never totally disappeared.[60]:62 More recently, the rise of the International Churches of Christ has caused some to reexamine the issue.[60]:66

Churches of Christ consistently teach that in baptism a believer surrenders his life in faith and obedience to God, and that God "by the merits of Christ's blood, cleanses one from sin and truly changes the state of the person from an alien to a citizen of God's kingdom. Baptism is not a human work; it is the place where God does the work that only God can do."[60]:66 Baptism is a passive act of faith rather than a meritorious work; it "is a confession that a person has nothing to offer God".[61]:112

While Churches of Christ do not describe baptism as a "sacrament", their view of it can legitimately be described as "sacramental".[59]:186[60]:66 The term, "sacrament" comes from the Latin, sacramentum which means "a thing set apart as holy".[62] The New Testament does not differentiate certain acts of obedience from others as to bestow a special sort of grace. An Augustinian cleric, Hugo of St. Victor (1096-1141) from Italian Catholicism is responsible for classifying seven "sacraments".[62] They see the power of baptism coming from God, who chose to use baptism as a vehicle, rather than from the water or the act itself,[59]:186 and understand baptism to be an integral part of the conversion process, rather than as only a symbol of conversion.[59]:184 A recent trend is to emphasize the transformational aspect of baptism: instead of describing it as nothing more than a legal requirement or sign of something that happened in the past, it is seen as "the event that places the believer 'into Christ' where God does the ongoing work of transformation".[60]:66

from wikipedia

-----------------------------------------------------------

From what I can understand, they believe that Spirit baptism will takeplace during water baptism. Correct me if I`m wrong. I agree with them over Spirit baptism = salvation.

My answer would be "yes and "yes" to the questions posted in the OP. From ny own discussions with the COC they regard baptism much as the early Judiasers regarded circumcision for the Gentile Christians. They must be circumcised to be saved and required to obey the law of Moses. If a COC person is honest they will acknowledge that baptism is necessary for salvation in their system of belief.

One other thing. The COC do not place great dependence on the work of the Holy Spirit in one's life. Much as the Pharissees were in Jesus day, COC are very polemic in the word. But there is no Spirit of Jesus in them. In other words they have the letter of the word. But do not have the Spirit of him who is the Word. Thus the fruit of the Spirit are not seen in the COC. Also the COC holds to cessionism believing the sign gifts do not operate in this age.

My thoughts from the bear den.

From what I can understand, they believe that Spirit baptism will takeplace during water baptism. Correct me if I`m wrong. I agree with them over Spirit baptism = salvation. Brenda

Yes from a reading of the post you have made sister it would appear that the position taken is that regeneration takes place during baptism by reason of a hidden work of simultaneous baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is very similar to the Thirty Nine Articles…..the last sentence of the Article affirms that both sacraments [baptism & communion] have a “wholesome effect or operation”. Again, they are not merely empty signs. However, they operate in a wholesome and positive way only in those who receive them “worthily.” Those who do not, “purchase to themselves damnation.” Of course the thirty Nine Articles are not seeking to assert an especial claim to baptismal regeneration.

In short their spiritual efficacy is conditional. This would appear to be the basis for David Lipscomb and Austin McGary's difference of opinion. McGary taking the latter view more literally.

Personally I agree that water baptism is an inherent part of salvation, but not unto eternal life. It is I believe reflective of its true meaning that of being both a symbol in water on the one hand, but an act of obedience formed out of a true faith in Christ on the other. That act of faith as well as the meaning given in scripture, concerning the death of Christ, and baptism being thereto a grave, results in a similar exercise of faith…..resulting in walking in newness of life having taken recognition of the means of continued obedience [the resurrection of Christ] and a walking in the spirit [wherein is the life of Christ]. To that extent its true outworking is not eternal life in the regenerative sense, but rather a pressing into the kingdom of heaven in obedience.

I cannot see any justification for claiming that the effect of water baptism has any regenerative substance, even if we craft a form of clever words to say that hidden within the outer garment of water lies a work of God which cannot be gazed upon. This is just plain heresy if that is intended to mean new birth. In my own experience of heresy there is always a grain of truth in the root of the thing which then divides. In this instance it has to do with the fuller meaning of salvation and not an issue of regeneration or eternal life. It is not difficult to see why we need to focus on Christ Himself if we are to hold fast to a sure foundation.

thanks everyone

Hey brother that is exactly the phrase the young person used on me to. It is the same as with Jehovah Witnesses when they say believing in Jesus is the starting point, but they actually mean more than that for salvation.