I recently attended a church retreat with my friend, who attends a Church of Christ. I knew that they erred on several doctrines, and I personally discussed baptismal regeneration with the adults there, trying to convince them that physical baptism by immersion is not a requisite for salvation. In all this, however, I never thought that they were damned heretics for believing such a thing, as outlandish as it was.

I have read elsewhere that the Church of Christ is referred to as a cult and a group of heretics. Is it true that belief in baptismal regeneration is a damnable heresy?

__________________
Ben
First Presbyterian Church (PCUSA)
Ada, OH

"What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ." - Philippians 3:8

Yes, because it turns baptism into a requisite work in order to be saved. If I can point to my baptism as securing my salvation, I turn the finished work of Christ into a lesser part of the gospel.

Is it damnable? Only if a person places their faith in their baptism and not Christ alone. Like any other sin it can be repented of and forgiven.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Grace Baptist Church
Anne Arundel County, Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Luckily for us they can also be just plain forgiven.

__________________
Mike
London City Presbyterian Church
London
England

"Surely, we wish to be orthodox, but we must first learn what real orthodoxy is. Surely, we wish to be progressive, but we must first have a basis to progress from."

What do you mean? (Forgive my density)

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Daddy
Member of TRBC, Attending CCRPC. My Blog
The Puritan Pub (Team Blog)
Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I mean that forgiveness is not necessarily dependant on repentance.

__________________
Mike
London City Presbyterian Church
London
England

"Surely, we wish to be orthodox, but we must first learn what real orthodoxy is. Surely, we wish to be progressive, but we must first have a basis to progress from."

I'm going to start a new thread, and I would like (if you're so inclined) for you to build on this assertion biblically.

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Daddy
Member of TRBC, Attending CCRPC. My Blog
The Puritan Pub (Team Blog)
Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I can tell you one thing for sure, from personal experience. THEY think that those not in the Church of Christ are damned, as they believe themselves to be the only true church. (At least, a good majority of them believe this, though it is not as high of a percentage as it used to be 20-30 years ago.)

__________________
Randy Harris
Heritage Church (Independent)
Oklahoma City, OK

From what I have read, the less conservative Church of Christ proponents believe that it is not the physical act of baptism that absolutely saves (at least, not this guy), but that a desire to be baptized is a sign of saving faith. Of course, they still believe that faith itself is not a gift, but they do not see the physical act of immersion as saving. Rather, a desire to be baptized (that may or may not result in the actual, physical baptism) is a sign of saving faith. In this regard, I see them as similar to Arminians. Although, it seems that a consistent adherence to Church of Christ doctrine would require the former view.

This more extreme view is held by the church which sanctioned the retreat. One night, we had seven baptisms (it was quite a night). During the first one, after the girl was immersed and resurfaced, it was re-done because her knee didn't go completely underwater.

__________________
Ben
First Presbyterian Church (PCUSA)
Ada, OH

"What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ." - Philippians 3:8

I certainly hope not. If it is, then there are going to be about 500 people in heaven.

__________________
DAVIDIVS DOCTVS VTRIVSQVE LINGVAE
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Currently in the process of transferring membership to an as-yet-undecided church in Chapel Hill
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Daddy
Member of TRBC, Attending CCRPC. My Blog
The Puritan Pub (Team Blog)
Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Yes, definitely damnable.

I'm not convinced that an explicit belief in salvation by faith alone is always necessary to be saved (key word being explicit.) However, it is necessary that one trusts solely in the finished work of Christ alone. If anyone who adds baptism as an act which they perform which contributes to their salvation, then Christ has become as nothing to them.

I don't believe damnable heresy can be forgiven without being repented of. One might sometimes have doubts, or confusion, about the true gospel, and still believe and be forgiven, but any who believe and trust in a false gospel are unforgiven and unsaved.

I know a woman on another discussion board who belongs to the Church of Christ. I asked her once if her church believed that baptism was needed for salvation. She pointed me to a website where 2 CoC pastors were arguing the point, one saying it was necessary, another that it was not. They were having a semi-formal discussion on the issue; I was amazed, two pastors in the same denomination openly disagreeing as to what the Gospel was, the same way two Presbyterians might disagree about pouring or sprinkling to baptise babies. This was about 5 years ago, and I don't have a link to the website any more.

__________________
T W Hopper
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church
Currently between churches since PRC closed here - attending Crossroads Christian Church.
Canberra, Australia.

Perhaps we should define "baptismal regeneration" because I didn't think that the popularity of something similar to this view throughout history was debatable. *shrug* I thought that the view of the majority of the Church throughout the last two millenia has been to place a much higher efficacy on baptism than we do today. This is one of the reasons why we sometimes have difficulty marshalling the early Fathers for our causes (I was recently reading Pelikan on the early Church regarding the sacraments). Even today, the Lutherans and Anglicans (?) teach that something actually happens at baptism, not because the water is magical, but because the Spirit is there. For our own tradition, I think many people would be shocked by reading the last few chapters of book IV of the Institutes re: baptism and the children of believers, or some of the things he said in his reply to the canons of Trent. I posted some quotations some time ago here and the responders said he wasn't talking about water baptism, even though it's obvious (to me at least) that he is because he's responding to Roman Catholic doctrinal statements regarding baptism. Using that as a segue...obviously the Roman Catholics and Orthodox believe in some kind of baptismal "regeneration" also. The Baptists and modern Presbyterians seem to be an anomaly. This, of course, doesn't mean that we're wrong, but it means that we are in the minority.

__________________
DAVIDIVS DOCTVS VTRIVSQVE LINGVAE
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Currently in the process of transferring membership to an as-yet-undecided church in Chapel Hill
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

Confessional Lutherans, if I understand their position correctly, believe that baptism imparts saving faith and is a regenerating ordinance. And while believing this, they wouldn't say that their faith is in baptism -- they still confess that their salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ and that baptism is the means of receiving this faith from God as infants. Of course we disagree with the Lutheran view of baptism, but their view is clearly to be distinguished from that of the Romanists.

__________________
Casey Bessette
Westminster OPC • West Suburbs of Chicago • My Blog: Paradise Regained

"It is part of the calling of the ekklesia to learn to know the love of Christ that surpasses all knowledge and also to make known within the world of science 'the manifold wisdom of God' in order that the final end of theology, as of all things, may be that the name of the Lord is glorified. Theology and dogmatics, too, exist for the Lord's sake." — Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, p. 46

I understand that there is a severe problem in believing that a certain act, i.e., physical baptism by immersion, is necessary for salvation, and I can never hold to such a stance, but I'm not sure if it's as heretical as it seems. At least, it's not trying to say, "Be a good person and go to heaven" -- it's not as bad as Catholicism. Yes, I realize that by making a specific act required for salvation, the Church of Christ advocates a mild works-based salvation, but as I said earlier, I see this as very similar to Arminianism.

The analogy that Al Maxey (the "this guy" in my previous post) used for the doctrine is the following:

Suppose I place a million dollars in a bank in your name and then inform you of this fact and tell you it is a gift from me to you, and that you don't need to work for me to earn it. It's free! I then inform you as to the conditions for accessing this GIFT. You must go down to the bank next Wednesday at 4 p.m. and see the Vice-President who will have a simple release form for you to sign which transfers the money over to you. Will you comply with these conditions, David? If you don't will you be able to draw from those funds?

Of course, he follows this by claiming that accepting this gift is not worth any merit, with which I respectfully disagree, but it is clear from this analogy that the sensible Churches of Christ are only Arminians.

Of course, if you believe that all Arminians are damned, then it's a different story.

__________________
Ben
First Presbyterian Church (PCUSA)
Ada, OH

"What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ." - Philippians 3:8

I would not agree with this. To the best of my understanding, most Arminians simply believe that it is man's responsibility to choose to believe, but not that they believe in works salvation/justification as framed by Catholics or those who profess baptismal regeneration, which would be far different. As a Calvinist, I could be in communion with an Arminian but I could not be in communion with someone who believes that they must accomplish specific works outside of faith in order to secure their salvation.

In a discussion like this I am always drawn to Galatians 5:1-12, where in part Paul says "I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love." (vv.3-6). This passage calls out circumcision simply because that was the nature of the false teaching afflicting Galatia at the time, but I do not think it would be too far to say that this passage can apply to any "Jesus-plus" belief, such as we would see with requiring baptism (Of course, to our Presbyterian friends, they read this passage and see baptism already, since "baptism" and "circumcision" are just synonyms. Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

All that said, it seems to me that if people are putting any amount of their faith for salvation in their own work of baptism then I would have trouble myself in believing that they are truly saved, and would not be able to stand by knowing this without trying to correct them.

__________________
-Todd Burus
North Central Baptist Church (Member)
Gainesville, FL
ToddOnGod.com

"Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured. For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come." -Hebrews 13:13-14

As I said, Maxey seemed to be a little more sensible (only in a relative sense, though ), in that he proposed that the physical baptism is not crucial. For example, in his article, he denounced other Church of Christ views that believed that a person who dies an instant before being immersed will be eternally damned, stating that as long as one has the intent to be baptized, one has saving faith. I view him to be akin to Arminians.

However, it needs to be said that I think he believes this only out of inconsistency -- he is trying to reconcile his Church of Christ teachings with their absurd corollaries. He is trying to say that physical baptism is not required (since it's ridiculous to say so) while maintaining the Church of Christ belief that we must repent and be baptized by immersion in order to be saved. It is clear here that the truly logical action would be for him to do away with this belief completely, in favor of a Reformed approach.


I do appreciate the Galatians passage. Even though the Church of Christ does not adhere to paedobaptism (obviously), it should be obvious from the passage that any covenant sign, apart from faith, is absolutely useless. Faith, and faith alone, is what truly counts (and I do not intend to say that faith is an act of man). I only fear that, in bringing that up, the Church of Christ proponents will bring up a red herring about Jesus's abolishing of OT law, solely because the word "circumcision" is brought up. Oh well, can't hurt to try. I would love nothing more than to share the truth with these people, for they are all my friends.

Also, it's worth noting that Churches of Christ do not believe that baptism by immersion, apart from anything else, is necessary for salvation. They believe that it, along with faith in Christ, justifies. It is weird, but it only demonstrates a minor aberration from Arminianism in regards to soteriology.

__________________
Ben
First Presbyterian Church (PCUSA)
Ada, OH

"What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ." - Philippians 3:8

Davidius,

I believe that your assessment of Calvin's statements in the Institutes about baptism would require some extensive comparison with his statements on 1. Sacraments in general (which he takes up prior to the sections on baptism and the holy supper), 2. Augustinian semantics / epistomology, and 3. his teaching on the relationship between the visible and invisible church.

Calvin's section in the Institutes on the sacraments generally helps to clarify his statements that baptism is regneration, etc. I have no doubt he was speaking of the sacrament of holy baptism, but if taken in the framework of Augustinian realism, there is nothing objectionable with what he says. The WCF says the same thing. It is compared by Calvin with the hypostatic union of Christ, and the theanthropic terms used of Him in Scripture (for instance, that God shed his blood, etc.). In other words, by synechdoche, the sign may be called by the name, or ascribed the effects which belong properly to the thing signified. I believe scripture employs this figure of speech, which Calvin himself explains in the Institutes.

That said, I think the departure from Augustinian and orthodox sacramentalism may be marked from Chrysostom, whom I do not consider to have partaken of the same doctrinal maturity as Augustine. I don't think Augustinianism began with Augustine either, but dates back to Moses and beyond.

Chrysostom's view began to prevail the more ignorant and superstitious (and less Augustinian) the clergy and people became.

Cheers,

Adam

__________________
Adam Brink, Livermore Wine Country, California
Grace Church of Pleasanton, PCA

Attorney: Chicolini, when were you born?
Chicolini: I don't remember. I was just a little baby.
~Chico Marx in Duck Soup