Hi Bill - I have the reverse situation in my family.....my wife's sister was raised Baptist but married a CoC guy - his dad was an itinerant pastor with CoC. They stayed CoC......they are non-evangelical, which I find odd, but they have a lot of the don't drink, don't dance, etc. type rules.

Their particular sect within CoC would not take this hard-line of a stance with a couple that would want to go to another church - especially if the couple were moving to a denomination like SBC where believer baptism by immersion is viewed as a command from scripture.

So it sounds like the group you're dealing with may be part of the Boston based CoC (but hopefully not) which believes that if you are not baptized in a CoC church, you are not saved. That strand has some cult-like tendencies. The lack of grace you alluded to definitely fits their style. They were very active and cult-like on some of the campuses I worked on with Campus Crusade.

So, I'd find out which strand of CoC you're dealing with. If it has any affiliation with the Boston CoC, I'd treat it as I would Mormonism or JW.

But if its just the strand that holds to the Jesus + immersion (in any church) view.....I would call that unfortunate, but I'd tread much more lightly. My experience is that the more mainstream CoC folks can be reasoned with.

The key is to ask "do you believe that baptism must take place in a CoC church?".....or can it be any church? - then at least you know what you're dealing with.

I hope this couple holds fast to their position, in either case.

I don't know that I have much advice. I wanted to voice, however, that I do understand her situation. I'm CoC myself. I attend a CoC congregation anyway, as I have my whole life, but my theology has shifted away from how I was brought up.

This is unfortunately not an issue with the Boston movement--they controlled through typical cult tactics. The CoC just has a theology that says most of the rest of you aren't really Christians: premils aren't Christians, Calvinists are Christians, and if you use instruments in your worship, the lowest level of hell is reserved for you. The CoC doesn't use cult-tactics to keep people in, it just draw up rules to keep the rest of Christianity out.


To Laura herself, I don't know what to say. This is a huge thing, and much of it is less theological and more relational: a conflict between parents and daughter. To that effect, I just want to say I'm sorry. This is hard, and I know some of it, for my parents are rather fundamentalist themselves, and since I have shifted from that, and thus away from them, it makes things uncomfortable.

I don't know that I have any advice save to let you know that you're not alone: I, for one, know of the issues of fundamentalism and legalism in the CoC. I know both sides of it: I was brought up in that and believed that, yet through reading sites such as Thinklings and Michael Spenser's works (and other blogs and books too, but the Internet was young back then), my theology shifted, and I too learned about grace. It doesn't come up as often as it should in the CoC.

If I have any advice, it's that: hold on to that teaching--grace, the gospel. Hearing the gospel on a weekly basis is worth so very much. Other than that, all I have to say is that I know what you experience, in some measure anyway, and I feel for you, and may God bless you and John.

I think the advice mentioned here is appropriate. The only other possible suggestion I could make is to perhaps find a COC church that might jibe with their theology.

For example, I've heard that Lucado's church in San Antonio does not hold to the extreme leaning of the COC movement, but is still a COC church (they use instruments in at least one of their service, I think). I'm not certain that this is true, but I have heard that it is so.

Perhaps there is a church similar to Lucado's near them? Perhaps they reach out to a church like Lucado's, even if it is not nearby, for advice and counseling.

Tears. I'd recommend tears. People who love each other (I mean daughter and parents as well as daughter and fiance), wrestling with how one gets right with God. Do that wrestling bathed with tears, with frequent communication of love for one another.

Interesting that some of the posters recognize the potential pitfalls. But should we not call what it is? Most of the New Testament epistles flowed from the church wrestling with those who attempted to impose "Jesus plus". Gal 1:6-9's "Let him be accursed" gives a clue about the seriousness of the issue.

Truly "if you're saved and you know it, your life will surely show it". Jesus said, "Ifr you love me, you will keep my commandments." The whole idea of church discipline rests upon the reality that Christians do have identifiable behaviors hinging ultimately on their hearing and responding to the Word. But "Jesus plus something", no matter the something, must be resisted.

He told them that was going to be a decision they would make as a family

Perfect answer. It follows what Gen 2:24 states about leaving and cleaving. A marriage creates a new family and the parents should respect that. If there is no leaving and/or parents/in-laws are sprinkled into the cleaving part, it will be a recipe for a poor marriage / family unit.

I would give them the benefit of the doubt and have the sit down talk but be ready to confront and stand your ground.

I'm Cof C and proud of it. We stand on traditions when others toss them away. Now with that being said I do attend a CofC that is more open then others. We are know as "That church" Their are other Cof C that are very liberal, the one my brother went to. Wonderful folks but I do think we need a few lines not to cross. We are not a cult. Yes we believe in getting full into the water as Jesus did.

I tremble to think that one of my kids might marry some one with no faith or to be honest catholic.

Question for John: When is someone truly saved then? At moment of accepting the gift of Jesus Christ? or at moment of Baptism?

what happens if someone accepts God's gift but dies before he is baptized?

If there is a fear of not truly being saved until baptism, isn't there a very high risk that a person will trust in his baptism to save him, and not the finished work of Jesus Christ?

No, no matter how much spin you put on it, baptism is not a requirement for salvation.

This story is a little ironic because I have a brother named Jon who was raised Baptist and he married a girl named Laura who is CoC.

John, I have to disagree with you that baptism is required to be saved. The thief on the cross was saved but did not have a chance to be baptized before he died. Do you believe Jesus would make an exception for one and not all?

I believe baptism is required the same way all obedience is required. Not because we must do it to be saved but because saved people must do it.

Those without opportunity to be baptized are excepted. They have not had the chance to disobey, much less obey.

Bill, please forgive me. Taking over this thread has not been my intention. I feel I need to answer some of these questions. And it may be hard for me to without creating more.

Jared,

I think you are probably right. It is clear to me since I've done a lot more study on the subject than probably the average person since I am writing a book on it.

I believe with WHOLE heart that I am saved 150% by Jesus' completed work via His death, burial and resurrection upon the cross and that ALL my works are an appreciation based RESPONSE to what has already been done.

That establishes WHAT has been done but not when. When was the work done? It was done close to 2000 years ago by Christ. I believe the Bible teaches that He died for ALL men. Yet, ALL men will not be saved. What is the difference between those who are and those who are not since He died for all? Some will accept that gift and some will not.

I believe that accepting His gift though my act of will involves me. In faith and repentance, confessing my acceptance of Him as Lord I submit to Him as Savior. I would imagine we are more or less together so far.

Unless you believe that anyone could believe, repent or confess Christ in my place then logically it follows that these are things I do to come to God, works. It is in effect me reaching to Jesus to accept His free gift. Did my act of reaching out for salvation mean that I was attempting to work to be saved? I say no. I was not attempting to work my way in nor has my dependence upon God lessened because I was willing to come when He said I should come.

So I actively came in faith, repenting of living for myself, confessing Him as Lord through my actions and my words.

This next is important. Then I was GIVEN the bath in baptism. I did NOT baptize myself. Someone else baptized me! This is NOT a matter of semantics! The person who lowered and raised me out of the water did the work. While I was in the water I was washed by SOMEONE ELSE, I did NOT wash myself. It was NOT by the chemical compound of H2O or anything in it but by God's Holy Spirit that I was washed within the act.

I personally believe, though I cannot prove, that what Jesus said to Peter at the famous foot washing was itself a symbol for baptism. Jesus told Peter that what He was doing now Peter would not understand now but WOULD later. Then He said, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with Me." Then Peter said, in essence, give me a bath.

Unless Christ washes us, we have no part with Him. By One Spirit we were all baptized into one body (1 Cor 12:13), Jesus took away our sins with a circumcision made without hands at baptism (Colossians 2:11-12), He saved us by washing us NOT by righteous deeds we have done (Titus 3:5, yes, I know you contest this, granted), Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word (Ephesians 5:25-26, the water stood for the work of the Holy Spirit).

Now, those things having been said, let me SUPPOSE for a moment that you are right, that baptism is ONLY done as a symbol after the fact of an inner conversion; that it is by grace accomplished when we have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior in prayer.

If you think that a person could POSSIBLY come to the OTHER conclusion (that you don't agree with or believe in) with a loving, grace-filled, NON works based heart of love for God. THEORETICALLY SPEAKING, if I hold that belief, could I or would I be saved EVEN IF I turned out to be wrong?

If not why not since I am motivated ONLY by love and desire to please Him?

And if you think I would be condemned because I think it is binding upon ALL Christians, why would not another person be condemned for the same thing in declaring without ANY qualification that the sinners prayer must be done to be saved?

Finally, most believe the sinner's prayer is essential for salvation, which if true, it could not be done by anyone else, therefore by definition would be a work that is done. You having heard my rationale for what I believe of baptism, why would the sinner's prayer be said to NOT be a work when it surely seems to be and baptism NOT be considered a work when it surely seems NOT to be?

I think EVEN IF I turned out to honestly be mistaken that it would make no difference to my salvation. While In hope the other to be the case regarding the sinner's prayer, I take no comfort unless I preach and teach what I know in scripture that has been presented here (which is not even the hem of the garment for the information that is available in scripture in Old AND New Testaments on this issue).

Whether you or I think the other is saved is immaterial, neither of us would feel comfortable standing before God saying "But he said I should not," or "But he said I should."

This is a 100% bible resolved issue and the answers are there in spades but ONLY if we come willing to be changed by God's Word (not to say you are not). God bless.

But I think we split the atom at this point: Can somebody be saved without being baptized?
I say yes.

I say MAYBE, I hope or perhaps on this. I know where my heart leads me but I also know that just as Jeremiah said that the "Heart of man is desperately wicked" I agree and hold to this concerning myself. I absolutely know better than to lean on my own understanding unless I am left with nothing else.

We know that people in the Old Testament times were saved by faith prior to baptism becoming a requirement. We also know that the Mosaic Covenant overlaid the covenant that was still in place with Abraham.

Though the sacrificial system with Moses is no longer in place, I have not been able to definitively rule out the possibility that the ability of a person to be saved via an imperfect faith, like Abraham was, has ceased. In those times they were acting the best they knew to act in response to God's voice and it was counted as righteousness for them just as our more informed faith brings us to the same point of salvation, through Christ alone.

We know there are times when God changed the rules and made allowances. For instance: when they did not have enough priests consecrated to do the passover they were able to perform it a month later by God's permission. When people had touched dead bodies God made a way for them to take it on a day other than normal. So YES, He can change the norm. Does He? It is quite possible but UNPROVABLE so I prefer to stay away from it for the most part.

We know that the ONLY way to God is through His Son Jesus Christ. The normal way that occurs TODAY is at the act of baptism. If someone is fully willing and desiring and is prevented, this COULD be a case when this might happen. I have heard some call this a baptism of desire. BUT it IS EXTRA-Biblical and nothing I could preach or teach. The best I could do if someone died under such a scenario is to let it hang out there as a possibility for hope's sake and preach to comfort the family.

I think that for ANYONE who is IN Christ who is pursuing Him in love with heart, soul, mind and strength that they have no fears REGARDLESS that they may have a lot of issues wrong.

It is amazing to me that we can grant God's having saved such incredibly flawed people as Samson, Barack, Jephthah and Gideon (ALL through the cross of Christ) YET suppose that people today would be lost when their heart is in the right place but are getting some of the outward things wrong. This is simply UNIMAGINABLE to me. We are not talking about one who is ignoring what the book says because they want it there own way, but people who are honestly following their shepherds voice and stumble while following. There is NO WAY that is so.

My biggest concern for making the exception a YES rather than a maybe is that it cannot be proven in scripture beyond a personal hunch. Following closely along with that is we are such lazy wicked creatures that if we thought there could be another way other than coming to Him in loving obedience MANY if not MOST would hold out for it. For many, many people if an exception is granted A RULE is created, sadly. Nice discussing with you.

Be careful. Milly, if you look carefully, he was saying that there is a sect WITHIN our movement (or used to be) that IS very cult like, the Boston/Crossroads Movement. That is true. I looked through this thread and did not find where we were being called a cult at large.

As to defending the honor of God lets make sure we don't unwittingly besmirch it more than we stand for it. Part of following God is following His Word, such as: 1 Corinthians 13:5 Where love is not rude, is not provoked and does not take into account a wrong suffered (let alone imagined).

We can't stand for one part and not stand for all. But I DO admire your passion.

First, that's a very good series of questions. A little back-ground is in order here.

There is the Church of Christ (so named) and then there is the Body of Christ.

The Body of Christ encompasses all believers who have been bought by the blood of Jesus Christ. Those who are in good standing and clearly saved by the continuing sanctification of Jesus as their High Priest are those who work for God with their motive being love and gratitude. Their work is done not as a means to salvation but as a response to it.

Though there may likely be a point of disagreement here, I believe that the moment that a person has experienced the re-birth as an accomplished event is when they come up out of the waters of baptism.

Romans 6:3-4 (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.

I know that many other believers believe that this scripture is talking about some kind of dry baptism of the Spirit but don't think logic and the scriptures will support that view. I believe the scripture overwhelmingly and with great redundancy points to it being the latter, EVEN IN the Old Testament.

There are many groups with many different practices and beliefs, some of which I believe are not biblically sound. Yet, I believe that as long as Christ is being pursued and admired in love and sought with all the heart, that the fact that someone is getting the OUTER aspects wrong does not disqualify them from grace.

ANYONE who has entered into a relationship with Christ (as defined above) is a part of that Body no matter what it is called if the whole group practices the proper way of accepting Christ.

If an individual experiences this as a member of a group who is in questionable practice regarding becoming saved, the fact that they are a part of this group does not of necessity disqualify them.

Some members of the churches of Christ, probably at least half, but thankfully dwindling, define the ONE CHURCH as any person who has been baptized and follows ALL the doctrines within the churches of Christ. For example, we have a group that is nearly identical to ours but which practices instrumental music. MANY within the legalistic half of the churches of Christ will not regard them as faithful and ready to enter Heaven and may well regard them as not a Christian at all due to their practice. These people may well say something like, "If you are not a member of the church of Christ (so named) you cannot be saved." What they will mean by that is that you must be a follower of all the doctrines in the New Testament as a form of law to be considered faithful.

This obviously is DEAD WRONG. They are as guilty as those in the Apostle Paul's time who said believe, repent, confess, be baptized AND follow the Law of Moses to be saved. They think that Paul is addressing the Law of Moses only and do not see that Paul is saying that NOBODY trying to be justified by keeping a moral check-list, no matter how good or well thought out can meet the demands of that righteousness. They are severed from Christ and fallen from grace. It is NOT Jesus AND it is Jesus ALONE that allows us to be saved.

With that back-ground, I want my daughter to marry someone within the Body of Christ who believes what I am quite certain is the truth regarding baptism and approaching God through grace alone in Christ. If she were considering marrying someone that this did not describe I would discourage it. It isn't that I think that they are lost, I'm not sure. But I know that scriptural baptism is a MUCH more solid model of WHAT IS then the so-called "sinner's prayer."

If the choice were between a legalistic Church of Christer and a grace and God pointed person who had accepted Christ by what I view to be questionable means I would CERTAINLY choose the latter, hoping for the best. I hope this helps.

These people may well say something like, "If you are not a member of the church of Christ (so named) you cannot be saved." What they will mean by that is that you must be a follower of all the doctrines in the New Testament as a form of law to be considered faithful.

I read back over my comment and thought it would be good to clarify one thing a little better.

They believe that you must be a follower of the New Testament Laws according to what THEY believe those laws are. They allow VERY little gracefulness for honest interpretive mistakes. If someone is trying with their whole heart to observe what God wants in love they make no allowance for another believer being honestly mistaken about a doctrinal "error" but will often brand them heretical and unfaithful for following whatever the practice is they consider wrong.

I'm going to give an example, if anyone wants to engage further on this example, please come through the Facebook link and we can do so further. Here is the example.

I believe that I can defend and prove with scriptures from Old and New Testaments and good reasoning that God wants and desires singing that comes from the heart and with no instrumental accompaniment. If we got further down on the priority list from the one priority that matters most, "AM I SAVED?", that is worth discussing as is ANY practice we do. In love any TRUE believer will strive to do ALL they can to see and put things into practice from scripture, right? What God wants should be important to us!

Though I believe it, think it should be believed, can argue it from scripture and think it should be argued from scripture I will not consider another person unfaithful to God or assume false selfish motives or assume them lost if they don't yield to the reasoning I present. But I do think we should ALL strive to have every practice according to what we believe God wants us to do, according to the truth, and work to be able to back that up scripturally. I'm sure we would all agree that we need to get out of God's way and let Him change us in ALL the ways that He wants to.

I am CERTAIN that we are ALL HONESTLY wrong about a LOT of issues, some of them may even be issues we hold tight and dear. God's grace will cover ALL forms of sin from His children when they are striving to please Him with WHOLE heart but fall short of the mark in so doing.

The legalists among us will in essence say "Accept Christ AND follow all of His teaching the right way to be saved." If they made the argument I was talking about above, they would insist that you conform or be branded "in error" (as though there is any believer who is not on something). "In error" means they consider you questionable at best as to salvation. There truly is NO GRACE apart from getting the outward things, they believe are biblical, correct.

To argue honorably we present the facts in love, We do NOT assume the other person WANTS to be wrong or is driven by selfish ambitions because their practice is OFF in some way

OK, I read the comments ...

Any discussion of the CoC usually comes around to a discussion of baptism. :-D

One of the strengths of the CoC, in my view, is their understanding of the role of baptism in salvation and forgiveness. One of their weaknesses has been their elevation of it's importance far above where it ought to where it defines them and for them it defines salvation, which is wrong.

God will save who He wants and how He wants. What I see in the scriptures is that He has said that he will save those who come to Him in faith in his son and accept the freely offered gift through the waters of baptism. To me the scriptures that talk of baptism make it clear that it is how we contact the blood of Jesus, where we participate with him in death and resurrection and where our sins are forgiven. Romans 6 is the most profound scripture on this.

However, God has also said that those who seek will find and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. He is sovereign, we are not, no amount of 'proper understanding' (assuming that's what one has :-P) trumps the will of the father. It is not our place to say who is saved and who is not, that honor belongs to God alone.

Does he save outside a 'proper' view and practice of baptism? I bet He does, and I know He can.

Milly - The 'cult' accusation is likely the ICoC. Were we ever a cult? I don't believe so, but we certainly did act like one at times. As I said, much has changed in the ICoC in the last 8 years. Some would argue (and have to me) that not enough has changed, and in some places perhaps. In my fellowship I am very pleased at who we are and where we are going. We are not perfect, of course no congregation is, and there is more we can do, but those days of control and judgement are thankfully behind us. In other ICoC congregations they may hold more closely to the past, I don't know.

There's a new group out there led by the same man who founded our movement and operating under much the same principals. He believes that the move away from the controlling discipling principals of the past were and error. I believe they call themselves the 'International Christian Church'.

One thing is for sure people fail to get the facts and point where no pointing should be. Their are several different churches with the Cofc kind of name not all of us are teh same. Years ago te church that I attend made a solid choice to state that they are not going to be governed by other CofCs. I stand firm with them. So we are a bit different. My brother attended a United Church of Christ. They are different, salgoud goes to the ICofC. The thing is that we all believe in a one true God.

Salgoud- Thanks old friend

What an interesting thread.

and salguod, you made my day with your testimony of grace and relationship with your sister.

Thanks!