Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The International Church of Christ, as I understand, teach the idea of "Disciples Baptism", which is distinct from both "Believer's Baptism" and "Infant Baptism". It teaches that people who are just believers can not be baptized, but only believers who have attained to a certain level of discipleship where they can be considered disciples.

What, is the argument against this specific teaching?

share|improve this question
up vote 13 down vote accepted

There are two main arguments against it. One is that it is fairly arbitrary to decide how far advanced in discipleship someone needs to be in order to be baptized. Whatever level you set, there will be some who never attain that level of discipleship - however normal Christian doctrine would say that those people are nonetheless true Christians and members of the church. Likewise some may attain that level of discipleship and then fall from it.

The main one however is that the Bible is full of examples of people who were baptized as soon as they were converted. Acts 2, Philip and the Ethiopian in Act 8, and a whole host more.

share|improve this answer

There are two main arguments against it. First, the ICOC leadership explained to me that Matt. 28:19–20 establishes that one must be a “disciple” before one is baptized on the following basis. Matt: 28:19 in the NIV reads, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father . . .” Note the italicized “them.” It is said that the “them” refers to “disciples” in the phrase “make disciples,” and therefore one must be a “disciple” before one is baptized and becomes a Christian. However such an interpretation is based on entirely on one English translation and with a total ignorance of the Greek behind English translations.

Notice the Young’s literal translations doesn’t say go “make disciples,” but go “disciple all the nations.” If we are to “go and disciple all the nations, and baptize them,” who is the “them” referring to? Is it disciples? “Them” is a pronoun and its antecedent must be another pronoun or noun. It can’t be a verb. There is one Greek word to connote the verbal idea of discipling, which NIV translators have expressed as “making disciples.” So here “disciples” is part of the action of disciple making expressed as an imperative, so the ‘them’ cannot grammatically refer to “disciples.” Interestingly, the “them” is a masculine pronoun and “nations” is a noun in the neuter, so “nations” is not the antecedent because in Greek a pronoun will agree in grammatical sex with its antecedent. You don’t baptize nations, but people who comprise a nation. So the pronoun is silent but understood. Greeks often abbreviate their thought, as writing was expensive and time consuming. The implied sense is, “make disciples of (the people) of all nations, baptizing them (the people of the nations).” That is, people of nations become disciples by being baptized and being taught all the commands to be obeyed. This verse is describing how a disciple is made, and it occurs by a two-step process of (1) being baptized and (2) being taught to observe all God’s commands.

Secondly, the ICOC's requirement that one becomes a "disciple" before one is baptized is to force people to live righteously by their own strength before they receive the power of the Holy Spirit to overcome sin, and therefore such actions of proving one is a disciple before baptism amounts to having to obtain holiness through one's own works rather than depending on the Spirit. Notice that the Great Commission reads that it is AFTER baptism that people are to be taught how to observe or obey the commands, not before, as the ICOC teaches.

The ICOC's doctrine of 'baptizing disciples" is incompatible with the "sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit" (2 Thes. 2:13). The Spirit gives us power over sin by giving us another way to feed ourselves rather than through the flesh. In baptism, we don't put to death our flesh, but our "old self" (Rom. 6:6) that used to rely on the flesh to satisfy ourselves. Because we have another way to feed ourselves, and one that will actually meet our deepest needs, we are able to deny the flesh daily and live off the Spirit. Thus, this crucifying the "old self" is not a one-time event that occurs at baptism, but is to be ongoing in a person's Christian walk.

Those who do not have the Spirit have no other way to feed themselves and so their denial produces a starvation in which they eventually revert back to an enslavement in sin or swap sinful addictions. People can choose not to avail themselves of living by the Spirit after receiving it in baptism, and in doing so will not live any different from those who are unbaptized. I believe this has largely occurred because many in the church walk around in ignorance about the relationship between the Holy Spirit and sanctification. Historically, far more attention has been given to discussions of God the Father and the Son, and very little on the work of the Holy Spirit in regard to sanctification.

Once people have the Spirit it baptism, which itself is an action of trust, their actions of holiness after baptism are not works, but actions of trust--ones that are dependent upon and made possible by the Holy Spirit who came to indwell people from that point forward. If a church insists on baptism, but has no teaching about the Holy Spirit in regard to sanctification, then structures to control sin must be achieved through human regulations imposed by church leaders on members through tactics of guilt, peer pressure, or psychological manipulation, and/or through members’ own self-imposition of will power. This is where much of the church abuse in the ICOC has historically arisen.

share|improve this answer
Welcome to the site. Great post. – fredsbend Jun 8 '15 at 3:07
Yes, a good post but it seems to imply that the Holy Spirit comes only after baptism. Acts 10:47 shows that the Holy Spirit can come to an individual PRIOR to baptism. – FernOfTheAndes Aug 30 '15 at 1:34

It took me a while to find but, as far defining Disciples Baptism (since you did not supply):
Only a disciple of Christ can be baptized into Christ.

Not much can be saved against a doctrine. It pretty much stands by itself and respected.
Based on these readings: The Holy Spirit dwells in human to save Romans 8:9.
The catch is HUMAN CONSCIENCE: 1 Peter 3:21
Basically saying that I don't know if he/she is saved - only his/her conscience and God.
That is where preachers come in - to state a doctrine.

I think that is why is site does not answer who is saved or what is sin or give Pastoral Advise --- because if anybody has to scream at my conscience it has to be a Pastor of Christ.

thanks for reading

share|improve this answer

For argument's sake, look at how Jesus chastised the Pharisees who paraded their religion around and made a relationship with God the exclusive possession of themselves, the self-proclaimed 'devout'. The Bible is pretty clear on the 'sainthood' of all believers- you can't get much higher than a saint.

Religious leaders used their social position to elevate themselves as somehow closer to the Father than everyone else. These were people who claimed holiness, because they spent so much time studying and practicing the so-called disciplines of the faith. Of course, they could afford to do this by living off the contributions of those who had to spend the majority of their time working in order to eat (the same people the devout placed themselves above).

This was offensive to Jesus Christ, who did not appear as one of their ilk but as the son of a carpenter. Baptism was originally a public form of joining/acceptance into a community of people who were different than that. There were no rules or prerequisites. You could be a total stranger and you were welcomed. Jesus was welcoming. Baptism should rightfully be an act of welcoming. When it gets forbidden on certain grounds, delayed pending evaluations by elders, or reserved for special types of Christians, its generally offensive to the tenets of the Way. However, it's widely used as a method of exclusion in religious institutions, to make sure the "wrong types" of people aren't getting in.

This isn't a small point. Jesus was basically put to death because of he was threatening this way of thinking. Early Anabaptists, Manz, Blaurock, and the long list those who followed were executed specifically for baptizing people, thus challenging the power structures of their day who were using the issue to maintain authority and to 'administer' religion to people through false authority. Of course, it didn't take that long for their movements turn around and start doing the same thing.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.