The Church of Christ [Archive]

A. believer

26th January 2004, 02:49 PM

Has anyone heard of the Church of Christ?

I hear that they believe that they are the one true church. Is this true?

What are their beliefs like?

Thanks,:wave:There's the mainstream Church of Christ, and then there's a movement within the Church of Christ first called "the Crossroads movement,", then "the Boston Church of Christ movement," and eventually, "the International Church of Christ movement." My first exposure to evangelical Christianity in the early to mid-70's was in the mainstream Church of Christ, and even they did seem to pretty much regard themselves as the "true church," although not so stridently as the International Churches of Christ do. For them, if one is not baptized into their church with a full understanding of, and assent to, what they teach about baptism and many other issues, one's status as a Christian is extremely doubtful at best.

When I was born again, I was attending the Berkeley Church of Christ, which was part of this new movement that holds to the same doctrines as the mainstream Church of Christ, but which also held to the essentiality of their "discipleship movement" that was based upon a book called The Master Plan of Evangelism by Robert Coleman. I've never read Coleman's book, and I'm not so sure the book, itself, is bad, but the Church of Christ leaders who adopted this book as their guidebook for church growth, founded a movement based on cultic domination of its members. Many ex-members of this movement classify it as "spiritual abuse."

One episode that fairly well epitomized the bizarrely legalistic mindset of the members was my baptism. I was baptized one night at Baker Beach in San Francisco, and when I was immersed under the frigid, salty waves and taken up out of the water, I remember that one "Bible talk leader" felt the need to verbally confirm that no square inch of my person had remained dry which would have, apparently, invalidated my baptism.

By the grace of God, I was providentially removed from that church after only a month or so, and only after I left was I able to recognize it for what it was. I remained in a mainstream Church of Christ for about a year after that.

One of the doctrines they're most well-known for is their insistence on no instrumental accompaniment to worship music. I even remember some people who were convinced that contemporary Christian music (as well as any other type of Christian music that used musical instruments) was forbidden, but who considered secular rock music perfectly acceptable. Apparently for these people, it was okay to glorify sex and drugs and rock and roll with electric guitars, but we could glorify God only with our voices.:rolleyes: (To be fair, I don't think that was a common view, but the spiritual environment in that church certainly did invite that sort of thinking.)

There's much more that I could go on about, but I don't feel like taking the time. There's information available on the web. CRI did an article on the International Church of Christ movement back in the late 80's sometime that's available on their website at www.equip.org (http://www.equip.org/).

Wilfred of Ivanhoe

26th January 2004, 02:55 PM

Bulldog

26th January 2004, 03:01 PM

According to your description, its sounds like the Church of Christ teaches a doctine of works. That you must fully understand their belief system in order to obtain salvation seems to claim that Christ did not finish his work at the cross. Rather we must finish that work for ourselves in order to enjoy salvation.

That's the International Church of Christ, which is in fact a cult. However, the ICOC should not be confused for Church of Christ(or Churches of Christ, they're the same thing) or the United Church of Christ, or for that matter the Church of God, which are not cults but rather just like any mainlne protestant denomonation. Understand?

Wilfred of Ivanhoe

26th January 2004, 03:10 PM

Understood :)

Bulldog

26th January 2004, 03:10 PM

I forgot to add the Church of God of Prophecy to the list.

BTW: If ypu need any links to these denomonations I can give them to you.

Wilfred of Ivanhoe

26th January 2004, 03:14 PM

That would be fine, thank you.

Bulldog

26th January 2004, 03:17 PM

That would be fine, thank you.

Does that mean you want the links or not?

Wilfred of Ivanhoe

26th January 2004, 03:18 PM

sorry for being ambiguous, yes please.

Bulldog

26th January 2004, 03:26 PM

International Church of Christ:http://www.icoc.org
Churches of Christ:http://www.churches-of-christ.org
United Church of Christ:http://www.ucc.org
Church of God:http://www.chofgod.org
Church of God of Prophecy:http://www.cogop.org

A. believer

26th January 2004, 03:36 PM

According to your description, its sounds like the Church of Christ teaches a doctine of works. That you must fully understand their belief system in order to obtain salvation seems to claim that Christ did not finish his work at the cross. Rather we must finish that work for ourselves in order to enjoy salvation.
The ICOC teaches a blatant works righeousness system. The mainstream Church of Christ is somewhat less so, but is still, in my experience, rigidly legalistic. This isn't to say that I haven't known some godly people there, and I think that many within the present day Churches of Christ don't hold any firm adherence to distinctive Church of Christ teachings.

middo

26th January 2004, 04:06 PM

Ok can i ask a question. Do any of you know much abou Churches of Christ in Australia? I am 99% sure they are totally different to the churches of Christ in America. I know in Aus they teach of salvation by Grace alone(in general, some members preach differently but thats the same in most denominations) but i am very unsure of how they relate to international "churches of christ" and if they have any relation AT ALL (i dont think they do) I have been to church of christ churches in Australia all my life thats why im interested.

Bulldog

26th January 2004, 04:13 PM

Bastoune

26th January 2004, 04:16 PM

A. Believer gave a great run-down on the different COC's.

The International COC (which I believed branched from the "Boston COC" given that they would sing in their hymns, "In 1979, the Lord..." -- I kid you not!) regards itself as the "true Church" Christ founded, restored to proclaim the Gospel. They believe in "sola scriptura", but not "sola fide"; they believe in baptism by immersion only (and infant baptism they find unscriptural).
I had my first experience with them in Marseille, France. They target youth, 18-30 (the elders of the church would stop only people in this age range on the street, even when NOT evangelizing), and believe if you are not part of their church, you're more than likely not a real Christian because if you WERE a real Christian, you'd obviously be part of their church (since the Holy Spirit leads them, so He would lead you to them). This is from the mouth of the pastor, who was a new Christian (of only 5 years) -- I'm fuzzy on their "ordaining" process but it is very lax. They rarely have a church building; they mainly believe in "house churches" like in Acts.

I attended their congregation for a time when I befriended them when I first moved to Marseille. Needless to say, since I out-debated the pastor at theology, I was "excommunicated."

They have no "hierarchy" per se, but are very organized internationally and meet frequently for big "conferences" in major cities.

One of my friends in Kentucky was a pastor of this branch. He has since become a Catholic Christian.

A. believer

26th January 2004, 04:16 PM

middo

26th January 2004, 04:18 PM

A. believer

26th January 2004, 04:22 PM

Yeah i have visited that sight. What i was more hoping for was some one from say America viewing it and saying how it sounds like it differs, or if it sounds to same as the American one. I am quite sure it is different but dont know where or how it originated, nor what "denomination" you would classify it as(not that i want to declare myself as a certain denomination, just like to know where this one stands)
So then you're referring to a Church of Christ in Australia that isn't affliated with any of the churches listed on that site? If so, then sorry, I don't know anything about it.

middo

26th January 2004, 04:26 PM

nah the Churches of Christ in Australia(apart from the ones listed) arent linked it appears. The ones there arent part of the "Australian Churches of Christ" that i can see on the church of christ website. Thats ok though, i see they DO have a Perth Church of Christ and i know where that one is, now i know its not the same as the other churches of christ in Perth:)

Blessed2003

26th January 2004, 04:38 PM

Hey. I grew up in the Church of Christ, I don't know any other name other than simply Church of Christ. I know as a child I was taught that if you were not a member of the "one true" church you were doomed to hell! I was told by someone close to me when I was 7 that only "we" the COC were going to heaven. I must state now, I have learned so much more now, and have "broken away" from these legalistic practices! I was grieved to the point of turning away from their "god" because I could not "do" the things required of me, so I rebelled from anything to do with God for a long time. (I still prayed to the one true God everyday, but that was not "their" "god." It was not a cult, but it was a doctrine of very strict what I call "Pharisseeism" (?) if misspelled forgive) anyway, as I got older I began longing for a relationship with the One True God. I picked up my Bible and began reading, I have been on a very hard journey every since. It is so hard to get over "traditions" and please let me say this, most of those people have had that doctrine hammered into their heads and simply don't know any better, pray for them, please don't have hard feelings against them for their ignorance! Anyway, the lack of instrumental music, and the emphasis on baptism is basically their way of "following" the example of the N.T. church as it is understood in the N.T. (by them) I must confess my own ignorance, I simply know only Jesus, and Jesus crucified for my (our) sins, and the Bible which I believe to be the inspired written word of God, but It has been SOOOO HARD for me to "overcome" being bound by the law!!! I wish I could say what the universal or otherwise "Church of Christ" truly believes as One Body, but in the Church of Christ there is not one group of people who set the standards, each "group" sets it's own ways of doing things and as far as I know that is it! May God Bless you all, and I mean that!
Reformed Church of Christ 'er
B

Bulldog

26th January 2004, 05:02 PM

Sorry, I don't know anything about the Church of Christ outside of the ICOC movement. Here's a link (http://www.icoc.org/home/locator/index.htm?country=AU) to the various ICOC churches in Australia.

Look at he 13th post in this discussion.

WesleyJohn

26th January 2004, 07:43 PM

WesleyJohn

26th January 2004, 07:54 PM

Bulldog

26th January 2004, 08:04 PM

WesleyJohn

26th January 2004, 08:08 PM

Blessed2003

28th January 2004, 12:35 PM

Good summation of COC WesleyJohn, I would agree #22 pretty much describes the COC I grew up in.
Love to all
B

Bulldog

28th January 2004, 01:13 PM

The Church of Christ, in my experience, are a group of churches which are loosely bound together around the following beliefs:

They believe that the Early Church as recorded in the New Testament best knew how to worship God.

They only allow those things in worship that were specifically authorized by the New Testament (instrumental music in worship is out, because even though it was used in the OT, there is no recorded occurence of instrumental music in the New Testament)

They believe that you must be baptized for the remission of sins in order to be 'saved.' They do practice re-baptisms for those who were baptized in other traditions.

While there are Churches of Christ, schools (colleges), and publications which are affiliated together, they do not consider themselves a denomination, nor do they have a denominational hierarchy.

You will often come across a member of a COC who will tell you that s/he is a member of the church that Jesus started in the New Testament. From my research the CoC really has come out of the work of Stone & Campbell in the US during the late 1800s.

However, since the CoC movement is so loosely defined, it is very difficult to state authoritatively what the CoC teaches. And so, I want to be sure to clearly state that these statements are what my experience tells me. (And, I have a reasonable amount of experience, as my wife grew up attending a CoC, and I have an open invitation to preach in the CoC which her parents attend.)

Grace and Peace,

WJ

I thought Stone and Campbell founded the Disciples of Christ church, no?

WesleyJohn

28th January 2004, 05:09 PM

reformedfan

28th January 2004, 11:59 PM

WesleyJohn

29th January 2004, 12:04 AM

La Bonita Zorilla

29th January 2004, 03:38 AM

Please do not confuse "Church of Christ" or "Churches of Christ" with the "United Church of Christ."

UCC (in New England often referred to as Congregational Churches) have virtually no relationship to the Stone-Campbell renewal movement which brought about the "Church of Christ"

Peace,

WJWesleyJohn, good work trying to make sense of a confusing situation. There are indeed several church bodies known as The Church of Christ.

In the South and Southwest, most CofC churches are of the body known as The Church of Christ which is called "Campbellites" by people who don't like them after their founder Alexander Campbell. It is a very conservative Protestant body which I believe was a spinoff from Southern Baptists. They do not allow instrumental music based on an alternative interpretation of one verse of scripture. They are large in North and Northwest Texas and have as institutions Abilene Christian College and Lubbock Christian College. It was said at one time they believed if you were not Church of Christ you would go to hell. I don't believe they say that anymore.

The inspirational writer/pastor Max Luchado is a CofC pastor. I've seen some of his books and he seems fairly mainstream evangelical. His works sell well in Christian bookstores which exclude books from Catholic and liberal Christian writers.

The Christian Church or Disciples of Christ is a liberal Mainline denomination not unlike Methodists or Presbyterians. Congregationalists are of this type too.

A mostly African-American church is called the Church of God in Christ or COGIC.

puriteen18

29th January 2004, 07:20 PM

This post doesn't really have to do with what the Churches of Christ actually believe, but I thought it was funny.

Where I live there are A LOT of Churches of Christ (Campbell types) so I hear stuff about them and from them all the time.

In the neighboring town, where I attend services, all the churches are on the main street. The Baptist Church had a bell at the time (this was a few years ago). The bell would play the Doxology when service was starting. Anyway, the bell could be heard all through town, and the Church of Christ found it a little disturbing. One of their preachers at the C of C had a little rhyme for when the bell went off:

"Brothers, hear that bell,
Calling all those Baptists to Hell!"

Sorry if you find that inappropriate, but I always get a laugh out of it.

I had a Baptist friend who married a Church of Christ lady, and they insisted he convert. He argued about it at first, but finally gave in on the night after Christmas and called his fiancee to tell her. Anyway she told her dad (a CoC elder) and he went over to my friends apartment that night and told him if he had converted he had to be baptized, and now.

My friend told the dad that he had already been baptized, to which the dad responded that the Baptist's rite wouldn't do. It had to be CoC and tonight.

The congregation was rounded up, the baptistry was filled up with cold water (did I mention this was Dec. 26), and in went my friend. They sang a hymn. A sermon was given. And then the dad of the fiancee got in the baptismal pool and proceeded to baptize my friend, who happened to hold on to the side of the pool sohe didn't slip. He was held under untill a deacon released his hand and EVERYTHING went under the water.

Not all my CoC experiences are bad though. Where I live you're either CoC or some type of Baptists. Alot of my friends are Church of Christ and I get along with them fine, sometimes even better with them than the other Baptists. But I know our ideas of how we are saved would not at all be compatible.

Philo

29th January 2004, 11:18 PM

I go to a Church of Christ. I might ask my preacher to look at this, and possibly give his opinions on the matter.

Jocky

3rd June 2004, 12:57 PM

I was in the London Church of Christ in 1991 for a few months. PM if you want any info...

Philo

3rd June 2004, 01:45 PM

WesleyJohn, good work trying to make sense of a confusing situation. There are indeed several church bodies known as The Church of Christ.

In the South and Southwest, most CofC churches are of the body known as The Church of Christ which is called "Campbellites" by people who don't like them after their founder Alexander Campbell. It is a very conservative Protestant body which I believe was a spinoff from Southern Baptists. They do not allow instrumental music based on an alternative interpretation of one verse of scripture. They are large in North and Northwest Texas and have as institutions Abilene Christian College and Lubbock Christian College. It was said at one time they believed if you were not Church of Christ you would go to hell. I don't believe they say that anymore.
For what it's worth, the Campbells were presbyterians. And they still say that if you are not a member of the Church of Christ, you aren't going to heaven. But, as tey don't view the CoC as a denomination, it makes perfect sense.

R.James

4th June 2004, 04:33 AM

I was in the ICoC for a grand total of 4 months. Control is their game, but God's word is mightier than any man's power, so I escaped unscathed for the most part. I know God let me have that experience for a reason, so if anyone has questions or needs help let me know!

Cary.Melvin

4th June 2004, 12:19 PM

For what it's worth, the Campbells were presbyterians. And they still say that if you are not a member of the Church of Christ, you aren't going to heaven. But, as tey don't view the CoC as a denomination, it makes perfect sense.
Exactly how do they back up their claims?

They claim that they are the true Church of Christ and then you come to find out their church was founded by a couple of guys named Campbell and Stone. Their preachers arn't even commisioned by the apostolic church.

Why should anyone believe their claims?

aggie03

4th June 2004, 05:33 PM

Exactly how do they back up their claims?
Well, I'm a member of the Lord's church, and the things I believe are because they are found in the Scriptures. I do not back up what I believe with the Bible, but I believe what the Bible teaches.

They claim that they are the true Church of Christ and then you come to find out their church was founded by a couple of guys named Campbell and Stone.
The church of which I am a member, the church that belongs to Jesus Christ, was founded by Jesus.

Their preachers arn't even commisioned by the apostolic church.
Considering that all of the Apostles are dead I don't understand what you mean. I can neither find any ordination or commission commanded in the New Testament for Christians to follow.

I believe that the Bible makes it clear that we should all be a light in a world of darkness - in fact, I know of at least three different congregations where there is no "preacher" but different men take turns preaching lessons from the Scriptures.

Why should anyone believe their claims?
If the things that they claim are not found in the Scriptures then no one should believe them. When I preach I do not ask people to believe what I say, but I ask that they would search through the Scriptures to see if the things that I have said are true. If they can be found in the Bible, then believe God, not me.

Philo

4th June 2004, 05:48 PM

Exactly how do they back up their claims?

They claim that they are the true Church of Christ and then you come to find out their church was founded by a couple of guys named Campbell and Stone. Their preachers arn't even commisioned by the apostolic church.

Why should anyone believe their claims?
Well, it's kinda like how the Catholic Church maintains that every Christian is a member of the Catholic Church because it's Catholic (as in, consisting of all Christians). It's a tautology, not a doctrinal stand. That many CoCers believe that all Christians happen to congregate in buildings with "Church of Christ" on the sign outside is a sad commentary on the state of the Restoration.

As Alexander Campbell once said, "We are not the only Christians, but we are Christians Only."

Pinkynail of the Body,

Philo

Gruvx3

4th June 2004, 06:32 PM

Has anyone heard of the Church of Christ?

I hear that they believe that they are the one true church. Is this true?

What are their beliefs like?

Thanks,:wave:

i am a member of the Church of Christ...here in dallas. i would be more than happy to answer any questions about the church...but please read the provided page first.

just to go ahead and point out...the CoC is NOT a denomination nor founded by men. The 'Boston Movement' is NOT when the CoC began. People have this misconception. The CoC was started in 33 A.D by Christ Jesus, and i will be more than happy to provide scripture for this..

Gruvx3

4th June 2004, 06:44 PM

A mostly African-American church is called the Church of God in Christ or COGIC.
incorrect...that is a denomination associated with the Penecostal or Holiness church...not the CoC...that is something totally different. i am black and attend a CoC...and we are not a cult...nor a denomination...it seems ya'll have the wrong answers here. I'm sorry to say that Max Lucado has fallen from his teachings, and have strayed away from the CoC...so he would not be a good example. Mack Lyon, who produces a televison show entitled 'in search of the Lord's way" would be a great example of a CoC minister, or visit Southwestern Christian College's website [google it] and hopefully get an understanding, it is a Coc college. ACU has also fallen in some of what they used to teach. Not every CoC has stuck witht the "Word" but i have provided a link in an earlier post that should help...any questions will be happily answered with scripture.

Cary.Melvin

4th June 2004, 07:12 PM

just to go ahead and point out...the CoC is NOT a denomination nor founded by men. The 'Boston Movement' is NOT when the CoC began. People have this misconception. The CoC was started in 33 A.D by Christ Jesus, and i will be more than happy to provide scripture for this..Wasn't the "Church of Christ" founded in 1906? Based on the preaching of Alexander Campbell, an Irish born immigrant (and a man) who gatherered followers in 1810 shortly after coming to America? How can the "Church of Christ" be not a denomination? How could they have been founded by Jesus Christ when nobody has heard of them prior to the 19th century?

Where was the "Church of Christ" in the 15th Century? 10th Century? 5th Century?

I still don't see how they can back up all of the claims that they are making about being the true Church of Christ.

R.James

4th June 2004, 07:45 PM

I see a flaw in the idea that one church with a title and men in leadership is a denomination and another is not. I was part of the International Church of Christ, which was an offshoot of the Boston Movement which broke from the mainstream Church of Christ. The ICoC insists that they are not a denomination, just the one true church, the Kingdom of God, a restoration of the Church started by Peter in Acts. While the splintering of God's church into denominations is one trap by the devil, another trap is for one segment to declare all other Christians are somehow bad (or even not Christians at all, as believed by the ICoC), while your group of Christians is good. There are differences in the interperetation of scripture, and no individual or group or denomination has it all together. I believe someday all truth of scripture will be revealed and the body of Chirst will be fully united, but until that time anyone who thinks their interperetation is superior to all others is deeply mistaken.

Gruvx3

4th June 2004, 09:06 PM

Wasn't the "Church of Christ" founded in 1906? Based on the preaching of Alexander Campbell, an Irish born immigrant (and a man) who gatherered followers in 1810 shortly after coming to America? How can the "Church of Christ" be not a denomination? How could they have been founded by Jesus Christ when nobody has heard of them prior to the 19th century?

Where was the "Church of Christ" in the 15th Century? 10th Century? 5th Century?

I still don't see how they can back up all of the claims that they are making about being the true Church of Christ.
no it was not 'founded' in 1906. the CoC is not a denomination because it was not founded by man, it did not branch off some other church. What do you mean nobody heard of the Church before the 19th century? Nobody who? Because it has always been here. And in the context of using "Church of Christ" i don't go around saying i'm "Church of Christ" as a person that attends the Baptist church says they are Baptist or Catholic or what have you, but simply a Christian, and a Christian only. I attend worship with a group of believers that are going by God's Word, his inspired Word only found in the Bible. the ICoC and th UCoC are no where near related to the Coc. Will be back later...God Bless!

aggie03

4th June 2004, 10:21 PM

I've posted this in another thread already, but I think that it might help to clarify some things :)

*********

I am a Christian, therefore I am:

a disciple of Christ (Matthew 28:19)
a member of Christ's body (Ephesians 5:30)
a branch on the vine (John 15)
sanctified in Christ Jesus (1 Corinthians 1:2)

Because I am a Christian I am a member of:

the household of the faith (Galatians 6:10)
the household of God (Ephesians 2:19)
the house of God (1 Timothy 3:15)
Christ's church (Matthew 16:18)
the church (Acts 8:3)
the church of God (1 Corinthians 1:2) (also translated 'assembly of God')
the church of the Firstborn (Hebrews 12:23)
the church of the Lord (Acts 20:28)
the church of Christ (Romans 16:16)
the church in College Station, Texas (Revelation 2:1, application of principle)
God's elect (Titus 1:1)
an elect race (1 Peter 2:9)
a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9)
a holy nation (1 Peter 2:9)
a people for God's own possession (1 Peter 2:9)
the Way (Acts 9:2)
the beloved of God (Romans 1:17)
the called (Ephesians 4:1)
the children of God (John 1:12)

Gruvx3

4th June 2004, 10:51 PM

Acts Chapter 2 should help, the day of Pentecost. That is when the church was started...first called Christians.

Gruvx3

4th June 2004, 10:53 PM

i can't copy in paste from another site till 15 post...!?!?!:sigh:

Cary.Melvin

5th June 2004, 10:32 AM

no it was not 'founded' in 1906. the CoC is not a denomination because it was not founded by man, it did not branch off some other church.

Wern't the Campbell's former Presbyterians?

What do you mean nobody heard of the Church before the 19th century? Nobody who? Because it has always been here. And in the context of using "Church of Christ" i don't go around saying i'm "Church of Christ" as a person that attends the Baptist church says they are Baptist or Catholic or what have you, but simply a Christian, and a Christian only.
Perhapse I am mis-understanding you. But I don't see how the "Church of Christ" can say it was not founded by a man any more than a say a Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc. could say that they wern't either.

Historicaly, there are only 2 churches that can make the claim that they were founded by no person other than Jesus himself and those are the Catholic and Orthodox churches becuase they stem from the original apostles.

Does the "Church of Christ" believe that some how people in denominations are not Christians? If so, what are they?

Gruvx3

5th June 2004, 12:26 PM

Wern't the Campbell's former Presbyterians?

Historicaly, there are only 2 churches that can make the claim that they were founded by no person other than Jesus himself and those are the Catholic and Orthodox churches becuase they stem from the original apostles.

i beg to differ...the Catholic church was started in 606 A.D by Boniface III in Rome. So their 'claim' is incorrect. And the apostles do not have a church. Christ died for HIS church. He did not die for the Catholic church, nor did he die for the Orthodox church. He died for one. And Peter is not the founder of anything, nor the first 'Pope'. MOD EDITand as far as saying 'historicaly' so sorry that all that above information is incorrect. show me where the Catholic church or it so called doctrine is found in the Bible.

Cary.Melvin

5th June 2004, 01:05 PM

i beg to differ...the Catholic church was started in 606 A.D by Boniface III in Rome. So their 'claim' is incorrect.I don't understand this. You say that the Catholic Church was founded by Boniface III, but wasn't he the successor of the Bishop of Rome Sabinian who was the 65th successor of the Apostle Peter? How could such a claim be made credibly?

And the apostles do not have a church. Christ died for HIS church. He did not die for the Catholic church, nor did he die for the Orthodox church. He died for one. And Peter is not the founder of anything, nor the first 'Pope'.
Where did that come from? I never made such claims. :scratch:

Gruvx3

5th June 2004, 01:30 PM

Did you also read the scriptures provided? The Catholic church and its 'teachings' or 'doctrine' are found NO where in the Bible....their claim to be the church Christ died for is incorrect. Ask me a specific question and i would be more than happy to provide scripture, if you are going to read it, and go at this with an open mind. You say we are trying to immitate the NT church...isn't that what needs to be done. To stick to scripture, and keep it as the Apostles taught, from what Christ wanted. All this branching out is not right. Yes we are that church, because we are still teaching and worshipping the way Christ and his apostles taught. Can any other church prove that they are doing as Christ commanded? Where in the Bible can you find any other church, other than the Church of Christ?!? But i will be gone for the rest of the day, this discussion can be finished later on tonight. Until then...may God bless.

Gruvx3

5th June 2004, 01:32 PM

once i get 15 posts...i will post links...so i wont' have to type out so much....15 posts...who would have 'thunk it'... :)

Cary.Melvin

5th June 2004, 02:57 PM

Philo

5th June 2004, 03:52 PM

Some Christians who congregate at buildings with "Church of Christ" on the sign out front have forgotten Christ's teaching about judging.

They seem rather intent on judging the Christianess of everyone not in their specific CoC camp, but become rather irate when the same standard is applied to them. Maybe that's why Jesus said "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

Not the only Christian but a Christian only,

Philo

Philo

5th June 2004, 03:56 PM

I'm sorry to say that Max Lucado has fallen from his teachings, and have strayed away from the CoC...so he would not be a good example.ure.
Max Lucado fell away from Christianity? Since when?

Please, do inform.

Curious,

Philo

ischus

5th June 2004, 04:06 PM

Hello everyone. I am a faithful member of the Church of Christ, I grew up in this denomination, and my father is a minister in this denomination. I do not overlook our history, which has caused much division, but rather I look at our history and our roots in Campbell as something to learn from and to grow from.

I am very much ashamed of those in my denomination who still are so ignorant of the fact that we do many, many things which are not found in the NT. It is a sad thing to watch the people I grew up with still make the same old arguments that were from the 50's and before. They have yet to look at the bible from a different perspective. There are many efforts being made in the Chruch of Christ to become a loving, non-judgmental, non-exclusive fellowship. I am a part of this group. Perhaps you will all be making different associations in your mind in 5 or 10 years when you hear the name, church of Christ. I pray that this is so.

because of His grace,

ischus

aggie03

5th June 2004, 10:54 PM

Philo

5th June 2004, 11:18 PM

Make no mistake, there is a denomination called the "church of Christ".

However, there are also congregations of Christians who, when they are assembled together, call themselves the church of Christ at a particular place. There are also congregations that call themselves the assembly of God at a particular place - or the church of God, or the Lord's church, or the church of the Lord...the list goes on.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=8131431&postcount=44

If the names that I have listed out in this post above are unacceptable, then why did the Holy Spirit choose to use them?

Another critical point that should be made is that the congregation of believers where I worship is autonomous. There is no council or earthly governmental system that dictates how or when we worship - we follow the word of God.

Coming into this discussion with the idea of judging everyone by what you have heard or seen at a single place, then, is erroneous. I am not accountable before God for what the Christians in Wabasha, Minnesota are doing no more than they are for what goes on here in College Station, Texas.
Well, if you are realistic, I'm sure you recognize that most of us who congregate at places with "Church of Chirst" on the sign out front happen to share the same basic beliefs, many of which are different from other groups of Christians. The word "denomination" doesn't imply centralized leadership. To "denominate" is simply to give a name.

A good arguement could be made that the Church of Christ, those congregations that adhere to the Campbell model of speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where the Bible is silent, are a denominated group of Christians. The name "Church of Christ" is associated with congregations who are generally presbyterian (elder-led), autonomous groups who put a great deal of emphasis on baptism, meeting and taking communion on the first day of the week, and vocal music in the worship service. Ask anyone who doesn't attend a CoC, and they will tell you that the CoC is a denomination.

Denomination is not a bad thing. Everyone and everything is denominated. Sectarianism is a bad thing.

Unfortunately, there are a great number of Christians out there who could be best described as belonging to the Church of Christ sect.

Campbell is a really good writer,

Philo

aggie03

5th June 2004, 11:25 PM

Main Entry: de·nom·i·na·tion http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?denomi04.wav=denomination'))
Pronunciation: di-"nä-m&-'nA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : an act of denominating (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=denominating)
2 : a value or size of a series of values or sizes (as of money)
3 : NAME (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=name), DESIGNATION (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=designation); especially : a general name for a category
4 : a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body

If there is a denomination, then there should only be one, and the single legal administrative body would actually be a single person: Christ.

Christ is not divided. Why do we insist on doing so, then?

Philo

5th June 2004, 11:49 PM

Main Entry: de·nom·i·na·tion http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?denomi04.wav=denomination'))
Pronunciation: di-"nä-m&-'nA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : an act of denominating (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=denominating)
2 : a value or size of a series of values or sizes (as of money)
3 : NAME (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=name), DESIGNATION (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=designation); especially : a general name for a category
4 : a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body

If there is a denomination, then there should only be one, and the single legal administrative body would actually be a single person: Christ.

Christ is not divided. Why do we insist on doing so, then?
Main Entry: de·nom·i·nate http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?denomi02.wav=denominate'))
Pronunciation: di-'nä-m&-"nAt, dE-
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Latin denominatus, past participle of denominare, from de- + nominare to name -- more at NOMINATE (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=nominate)
1 : to give a name to : DESIGNATE (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=designate)
2 : to express or designate in some denomination (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=denomination) <will denominate prices in U.S. dollars> http://www.m-w.com/images/pixt.gif

;)

Well, I think the reason member of Christ's body tend to gather under certain names is because people have different beliefs about what the Bible says about things. For instance, someone who believes in vocal worship couldn't congregate with people who use instruments in thier worship and still have a good conscience. So, those who use music and those who don't meet in different places and have different names out in front of their buildings (In this case Church of Christ and Christian Churches, respectively). Is the Body of Christ thereby divided? I don't think so. If both congregations love eachother, respect eachother, treat eachother as brothers and sisters, then there is no split.

I treat all who call on Christ as their savior as if they are my brothers and sisters in Christ. If I disagree with them on issues, I will talk with them about it. This doesn't make them any less my brothers and sisters. Our faith is in facts, not the opinions of men. And, lets be honest: All we can have is our opinions on what the Bible says. We can have a well-informed opinion, a non-informed opinion, and everything in between. But, as we are only human, our perspective remains confined to the area behind our own eyes.

<3<3<3,

P-dizzle

ischus

6th June 2004, 12:01 AM

I treat all who call on Christ as their savior as if they are my brothers and sisters in Christ. If I disagree with them on issues, I will talk with them about it. This doesn't make them any less my brothers and sisters. Our faith is in facts, not the opinions of men. And, lets be honest: All we can have is our opinions on what the Bible says. We can have a well-informed opinion, a non-informed opinion, and everything in between. But, as we are only human, our perspective remains confined to the area behind our own eyes.

Amen, brother. Well said.

aggie03

6th June 2004, 12:17 AM

Philo

6th June 2004, 12:52 AM

You or I do not have the power to "denominate". Also, when one does "denominate" they have a "denomination". See my previous post.

I did think, however, that you're also using m-w.com was hilarious :D

I appreciate that, thanks :)
I agree that we have no right to divide. Christ's body is not divided, after all. But I think there is a difference between being divided in spirit and divided in opinions. I can believe things that you don't, and not believe things you do, and still work with you as a fellow member of the Body to further the cause of the Kingdom. I could have a different name out in front of my church and still serve the same God and Christ that you do. I'm confident this is the truth of most of the Christian world. I'm united in Spirit with everyone who claims Christ as their savior.

I refuse to judge Christians on doctrine, lest I be judged on mine.

Egalitarian Superstar,

Philo

aggie03

6th June 2004, 01:46 AM

I'm not trying to make any kind of point yet - this really just a question.

With what you have just said, what do you think about the following?

1 Timothy 6:3-5 ASV

If any man teacheth a different doctrine, and consenteth not to sound words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; (4) he is puffed up, knowing nothing, but doting about questionings and disputes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, (5) wranglings of men corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth, supposing that godliness is a way of gain.

aggie03

6th June 2004, 01:48 AM

sorry just wanted to add this:

There are other verses that talk about similar things like the one from 1 Timothy. What do you think about those?

Philo

6th June 2004, 04:18 AM

I think that we should avoid "morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction" and focus on "sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness."

This is very good advice as it concerns Christian unity. We can all unite under the banner of the Cross. There is no controversy there. We can unite in love for one another, because nothing about love engenders strife. Basically, there is only one universal, undeniable creed for everyone who calls themselves a Christian: Christ. Everything else is up for interpretation, because nothing but Christ makes us Christians.

Now, there are some weighty issues among the brethren. I know this. I don't think that anyone would deny this. I believe these issues should be discussed toward a greater understanding of the God we serve. And by discussed, I do not mean we should throw prooftexts at one another until we are blue in the face. There is a thing called "analysis to paralysis" that can occur in situations such as these. When I say discussed, I mean talked about humbly and with a listening ear.

If you are right, your rightness will prove itself in the way you live. Your own life, your own walk with Christ, is your best arguement. If you are in fact right on some key doctrinal issues, the way you live your life should bare out the truth of the matter. There is no more effective tool for teaching than your testimony. You can discuss the Bible, but chances are the person who disagrees with you has read it too and come to different conclusions.

We are united by the doctrine of Christ.

As John wrote, "who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father."

So we know that one that confesses the Son has the father also. We also know that we should abide in that which we have heard from the beginning:

"Beloved, I am not writing a new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard. On the other hand, I am writing a new commandment to you, which is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true Light is already shining. The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now.The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him. But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes."

"Now I ask you, lady, not as though I were writing to you a new commandment, but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another. And this love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it."

So, I know that Christians confess Christ and love one another. This is as deep as I will ever get as far as my personal judgement as to who is a Christian and who isn't. It's not that I don't have opinions about what it actually means to be a Christian. It's just that I don't think it's profitable to build walls around certain people, declare them anathema, and treat them as though they were somehow inferior. As soon as I do that, I invite others to do the same to me.

I know it was something of a lengthy post, so here's the cliffnotes version:

The basis of our faith is Christ. If someone confesses Christ, I will consider them a brother or sister, because everything else is a matter of opinion. The death, burial, and ressurection (the Gospel) are facts that must be either agreed with or denied upon their hearing. If someone believes on Christ, accepts Him as savior and intercessor, I cannot judge him. I can teach him, talk with him, love him, edify him, admonish him, and accept him as a member of the Body. Only God knows whether someone is saved. It's not my place to make that determination, except for the qualification that "there is no codemnation to those who are in Jesus Christ."

I fear I could type all night on this, so I will stop while there is still room on the CF server.

<3<3<3,

Philo

Celticflower

7th June 2004, 04:35 PM

The "Church of Christ" is one that seems to be everywhere around here. Most of them claim to be independent non-denominational churches. They are almost indistinguishable from the Christian Churches in this are which also claim to be independent non-denominational.

The Church of Christ I attended for awhile was very us vs them oriented. One pastor's favorite saying was "over at the denominational church--you know, the non Christian one". Needless to say, this is part of the reason I left. There was also a lot of anti-Methodist sentiment in the church.

The saddest part was the church's refusal to do anything to help it grow. Recently the preacher was trying to do things to bring in new people. Some members got upset and had him kicked out. Other members got upset at that, left with the preacher and started a new church.

Pslm274

7th June 2004, 04:36 PM

Hi all!

Just wanted to put in my two cents. I grew up in a DoC church but didn't really get anything out of it, went to a Baptist church in high school and found a lot of hypocrisy (not making generalizations by any means!!) and started going to a coC in college. I have to say that from my study of the Bible that the coC which I am attending is more closely following what is noted in scripture than any other church I've regularly attended. We had a glancing experience with the Boston movement, but thanks to leadership who were focused on Christ and listening to the Spirit, we QUICKLY dissociated ourselved from them. We are a congregation of loving, caring, serving brothers and sisters. We are not perfect, but we are perfectly loved. I have never heard anyone say anything about being the only ones going to heaven. As far as people in other denominations, my personal feeling is as long as it's a Bible believing and teaching church, then amen! It doesn't have to be a coC in my opinion. As far as I am concerned, only God is in a position to judge anyone. I'm doing what I believe is right, but God will make the final determination.
And as far as the instrument 'issue', I'm part of our praise team, and I love the a capella tradition. There is nothing like hearing praises sung this way! But I also listen to contemporary Xian music (with instruments) and I'm okay with that, too.

<><

Gruvx3

7th June 2004, 05:29 PM

again the CoC is not a denomination...but moving on from there. i'm sorry that your experiences with some of the churches...and no where near the majority have not been all that good. the CoC is a body of Bible believers who are striving to do Christ's will. It is our mission to go by scriptures and do Christ's inspired Word. You can't judge the CoC on one or two experiences. and you must also be open-minded to teachings. thats like me saying i don't want to go to a certain college becasue i met two or three people that gave the school a bad rep. you have to look at it as a whole. the Coc, is not affilated with the ICoC or the UCoC or the Boston Movement. Not started by man, contrary to what you might have read. i'm sorry but to dismiss those claims. if i were given your location i'm sure i could point you in the direction of a 'sound doctrine' CoC in your area. and another thing i would like to make clear, we do not use the CoC name as you would in a denomination. i would not say 'i am church of Christ' i'm simply a Christian who attends services with those who believe in Jesus Christ and do his will by going by the Bible. i pray that you will inquire more about the CoC before making such a quick judgement. In the end Christ is the one that will judge...but i just know i would want to be in the right place...where i was commanded. God Bless! [leaving for the weekend]

WesleyJohn

7th June 2004, 05:41 PM

Plan 9

7th June 2004, 05:58 PM

Max Lucado fell away from Christianity? Since when?

Please, do inform.

Curious,

Philo

Max Lucado has said that he's no longer welcome in many CoC churches. I see that that's all too true.

Gruvx3

7th June 2004, 07:18 PM

i am a CoC member because i have placed membership at a local church. so therefore i am a member...a member of that church...

and was added to the LORD's Church when i was baptized [acts 2:47]

Philo

7th June 2004, 07:25 PM

Max Lucado has said that he's no longer welcome in many CoC churches. I see that that's all too true.
Having an open mind often shuts doors.

And that's all I need to say about that.

Campbellite,

Philo

Cary.Melvin

7th June 2004, 09:43 PM

ischus

7th June 2004, 09:51 PM

aggie03

8th June 2004, 12:24 AM

That is what I am talking about. Thank you for saying this. Many of my fellow CoC family disregard the history of our denomination. We grow up hearing that we are number #1, the only true church, started in 33 AD (which is amusing in itself) and some people just never investigate for themselves.I've done the research, at least as much as I have been able to do at this point, and I've come to a conclusion that is very different from your own :). It's very easy in a time when denominations are so numerous and so set on a particular name to get caught up in that as well.

I've been doing some serious studying and thinking on this very thing lately, and I've come to the conclusion that God never named His church in a way that we are used to naming them today. I believe that there have been a great deal of metaphors and descriptions, but none of these are really names. If you'll refer back to one of my earlier posts in this thread, you'll see a great deal of those there.

One of these descriptors is "church of Christ". Notice the lower case 'c' - because this is not a name, but a description. As far as I can tell, there was never a name given to a local congregation, but there was a name given to the individuals who make up a particular assembly: Christian.

Christian is a name; it is not a descriptor, adjective. One cannot have a good christian attitude, but one can be a Christian (notice the capital 'C').

With this in mind, it's not very difficult to look through history and find Christians - those who were born again by water and the spirit (John 3:5), who were begotten of an incorruptible seed, through the word of God (1 Peter 1:23). Just because they didn't assemble in a building on the first day of the week that bears the same descriptor that my assebly uses on their sign in no way means that individuals from a congregation in the 1500's are not my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Don't look for the descriptor, that's a very denominational thing to do ;) (an attempt at a joke late at night) -- and, btw, something that I have been very apt to do in the past. Instead, we need to look at what they believed.

Does this make any sense?

ischus

8th June 2004, 12:53 AM

a03,

That was a great post. Amen, brother.

One question though: given your view on church "names," why do we have signs at all, and why do we choose "church of Christ?"

Harry the Heretic

8th June 2004, 02:29 AM

I am a member of the Church of Christ (mainline). And i concur with Ischus. The mainline CoC has a historylessness (what a word) about their orgin. The standard reply is really just semantics.

To the best of my knowledge the CoC began with a Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist and another church which I can't recall (maybe it was 2 Presbyterian churches). It all began in the early to mid 1800s. Philo you are right in stating that Cambell was a Presbyterian. (There were 2 involved Father and son)

The goal was to restore the 1st century church by focusing on unity. They regarded division as sinful. The movement was very ecumenical. Mow what is left of this union is, CoC mainline, Christian Church, United CoC. The IoC was a combination of to growth movements that branched from the CoC,(the boston movement, and crossroads) The mainline CoC quickly withdrew their fellowship from them.

The CoC is very sound scripturally in my opinion, except they have forgotten their roots. Each congregation is autonomous so from church to church you will find small differences though. Many CoC have begun to change radically however in recent years, Max Lucado is one. Many now include instrumental music. I have been a member for 21 yrs, and what I just told you would be considered as unsound, and teaching false doctrine by some.

aggie03

8th June 2004, 12:54 PM

That was a great post. Amen, brother.
Thanks :)

One question though: given your view on church "names," why do we have signs at all, and why do we choose "church of Christ?"
I actually have no problem with a group of people who would choose to call themselves "assembly of God" or "church of the Lord" or "church of the First Born" or even just "the church". All of these are adequate, and to the best of my knowledge, Scriptural descriptions of Christ's church.

I think that it would indeed be wrong for us to expect every congregation of Christians to choose the descriptor "church of Christ" because that is actually against the pattern we find in the New Testament. There wasn't just one descriptor that was used. Any effort, then, I believe to try and make a universal descriptor necessarily makes that the "name" of a denomination.

In the New Testament and I can find no provision for a government that controls the actions of any single congregation other than the elders for that particular assembly. This also means that I don't find any provision, example, or command for some group of people to go around and make sure that everyone has the "right descriptor" for their assembly.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that it's wrong to use the same descripor for various congregations - that makes it easier to find an assembly when you're out of town, or for other visitors.

I would have no problem with a sign that said "church of the Lord" or simply "the church meets here". When we attach ourselves to a particular name besides the new name that we have been given, Christian, then I believe that we have in effect established or attached ourselves to a denomination.

Does any of this make sense?

Philo

8th June 2004, 09:39 PM

Does this make any sense?
Yup!

I second that AMEN!

Amen,

Philo

Philo

8th June 2004, 09:47 PM

I am a member of the Church of Christ (mainline). And i concur with Ischus. The mainline CoC has a historylessness (what a word) about their orgin. The standard reply is really just semantics.

To the best of my knowledge the CoC began with a Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist and another church which I can't recall (maybe it was 2 Presbyterian churches). It all began in the early to mid 1800s. Philo you are right in stating that Cambell was a Presbyterian. (There were 2 involved Father and son)
Man, the crazyness of the beginning of the Restoration has to be divine. I've done an extensive study recently, and let me tell you... It's interesting. The early membership had everyone from Calvinist presbyterians to Universalists all camping out under the cross.

Alexander Campbell once remarked that given enough time, bad doctrine will shrivel up and die. This was often the case with "new converts" to the Restoration movement. They'd come bearing their particular denominational hangups, and by the end of it all, be just happy to be in fellowship with so many like-minded Christians.

Many people don't know this, but the Restoration movement headed up by Barton stone was actually started as a result of a charismatic revival. And not pentacostal charismatic, either.

History today, Gone tomorrow,

Philo

Harry the Heretic

9th June 2004, 02:05 AM

Many people don't know this, but the Restoration movement headed up by Barton stone was actually started as a result of a charismatic revival. And not pentacostal charismatic, either.

History today, Gone tomorrow,

Philo
That's fascinating. I'll have to google that one up for sure.

I've never understood the touchiness of some when talking about CoC history. I always looked at the restoration (and other periods of Christian history) as akin to Hezekiah's removal of the high places and groves, or Josiah's rediscovery of the law.

aggie03

9th June 2004, 02:42 AM

I've never understood the touchiness of some when talking about CoC history. I always looked at the restoration (and other periods of Christian history) as akin to Hezekiah's removal of the high places and groves, or Josiah's rediscovery of the law.
Well, this is the exact reason that Christians today can claim that they are members of the church that Christ founded. It's not that I can trace the lineage of the church here in College Station back to the days of Christ, but rather that the church here is composed of Christians who do the things that Christ's church has always done in the same ways (as much as is necessary or possible at least :) ) as was done when Jesus founded the church.

In this way, anyone who has become a Christian in the same way that Scriptures teach is a member of the church that Christ founded - and as a result a member of the church of Christ.

Does this seem right?

Philo

9th June 2004, 12:45 PM

Does this seem right?
Yup.

I think by necessity all Christians are members of the church Christ founded... As opposed to, say, the church that Joseph Smith founded or the church that David Koresh founded. Bad times.

I'll stick with the original,

Philo

Harry the Heretic

9th June 2004, 01:25 PM

.

In this way, anyone who has become a Christian in the same way that Scriptures teach is a member of the church that Christ founded - and as a result a member of the church of Christ.

Does this seem right?Exactly, The word testifies, bears witness to the church and its high priest. It is God's testimony, not ours. And that testimony of the Lord's "congregation"(church) begins with Abraham, not in 29 or 33 AD, of which congregation i was but a stranger, but now by Christ i am annointed t a royal and holy priest.:clap:

Bizzlebin Imperatoris

9th June 2004, 02:13 PM

From my experiences with the ICOC, I found them to be somewhat legalistic, but I think they do have good points. Many people go get baptized then live their lives they way they want, without God. While they may be too legalistic, I will also have to say that many churches swimg MUCH too far the other way. Good place to go to see how you really are doing with following the Bibel, bad place if you aren't ready for some "hard-core" Bible study.

A. believer

10th June 2004, 01:50 PM

Saying that you are a Christian that attends worship services within a faith community that calls it self the "Church of Christ" is not a problem for me.

But it does disturb me that certain "Church's of Christ" are claiming to be the church Jesus Christ founded in Jerusalem in 33 AD just because the sign out front says they are, while they claim other denominations are not. Especially when historical facts easily point to the contrary.
Not to defend the Church of Christ's concept of "traditionless traditions," but what you're not recognizing is that the Church of Christ makes this claim on entirely different grounds and an entirely different ecclesiogy than the Roman Catholic Church does. As absurd as their claim is to you (based upon your criteria), your claim is equally absurd to them (based upon theirs.)

The Berkeley Church of Christ (part of the ICOC movement) was the first denomination I was affiliated with upon my conversion to Christ, and even as a brand new Christian, I recognized early on the striking similarity between it and the Roman Catholic Church. Although in some ways, they would be as far apart on the spectrum as any two denominations could be, ironically, they're ultimately two sides of the same coin. And both vehemently object to being labelled with the dirty "D" word--denomination.

aggie03

7th August 2004, 04:38 AM

Can you give me an example of a "traditionless" tradition? I don't think that I've ever heard that phrase before :)

BInC

7th August 2004, 11:59 PM

Hate to jump in the middle, especially, without anything important to say, but I just thought I'd express my confusion. ;)

I have a friend who belongs to the Church of Christ, and although I've never really talked to her about it I was under the impression that it was simply another non-denominational group, like the Disciples of Christ church that I attend. I did notice however that they can be pretty strict.

(BTW, if you missed the point of this post, it was just to make it clear that on the average I have no idea what is going on)

specialk

19th August 2004, 08:58 PM

Entertaining_Angels

20th August 2004, 01:25 AM

I don't know much about the Church of Christ, but my MIL, a catholic does attend one. Her fourth husband is a COC member and 'forced' her to get baptized in that church before he would marry her. She seems bitter about it and I've often wondered if forced baptisms are the norm. To me, a forced baptism seems to miss the point of baptism altogether.

daydreamergurl15

20th August 2004, 02:10 AM

I am a member of Pine Castle Church of Christ and we are non-denomination. We don't believe we are the one true church b/c the true church is the body of believers in Jesus Christ. Christ defines that as whoever accepts Him and does the will of His Father. :) We go only by the bible and no other source b/c it doesn't make sense if you are a christian and don't read the bible, study from it during worship and your daily studies. I don't know about those movements but I love Church of Christ. I have been to many churches before and this is the first time I have been to a church that is strickly centered on the bible and they are so warm and loving and you just want to exude that to everyone else. It helped me build a stronger relationship with Christ and a stronger walk with God. I truly can not believe how I have changed.

And yes, we are very strick on no instruments in the Lord's Church why? Well let me put it to you this way, find a scripture in the New Testament (b/c we are under the new law) and find where it says instruments are okay. God said sing with your voice (it doesn't matter if you are tone deaf) sing with a cheerful heart. :) We, try are hardest to go by the bible, we stay away from any traditions and realize that what "we want" comes second to what God asks, He said to not add nor take away (so if He didn't implement instruments (which by the way was only the Harp and older instruments at that time and not organs and pianos which was created 300 years ago....the Lord's church is over 2,000 years old :P ) then we shouldn't add them to be on the safe side, I don't know how He feels with instruments and I don't care to argue this point) so we are not going to add anything or take away something b/c "we don't like it" or "because we feel comfortable" we are there to praise God not ourselves. And at my church that will be the way it is...if I am there to praise God then what I want doesn't really matter b/c I know he will provide all I need.

And we are very big on Baptizing every inch of you, why...well baptismo means submersion in Greek (that means into the water) and well this world is 75% water, Christ got baptize in the Jordan river, I doubt only his head was wet. :)

And I don't understand why people keep saying "COC teaching" I agree some COC's movements and things like that are a little extreme but if we are Christians it should be the Lord's teaching and never an "church name here" teaching.

daydreamergurl15

20th August 2004, 02:44 AM

I know of three types of c of C around here, in the state I live in: one is so liberal & H2O'ed down it's more a social club than a true church of Christ.
One is so legalistic they say if you haven't been baptized by immersion you're going to hell. (Guess Jesus was wrong in His words to the thief on the cross, eh?)
One denies the Diety of the Spirit and the Diety of GOD!! ^_^
the last type are 'Jesus only' people. Very scary pastor, terrrrrifying run in with him. I thought the guy was possessed.

Forgetting the fact that Jesus didn't die yet so his Church and his commends did not come into full effect, but tell me how do you know that the thief on the cross wasn't baptist b/c we know John the Baptize was baptising people for the remission of their sins. And please tell me how do you know for sure that the thief on the cross did not repent for what he did when he was in his Jail cell or whatever it was at the time....I'm just curious everyone use this argument but I see no logistic in it. Obviously he believe in Jesus for sticking up for him when he was on the cross to the other people and the other thief. :P I don't know if the thief did but we also don't know if he didn't.

forgivenmuch

22nd August 2004, 10:11 AM

my mother in law is a memeber of the church of christ.. i on the other hand do not unsterstand thier beliefs... i went to chuirch with her one night.. i was wanting to see what it was like. there was a boy leading the congregation ... in song..without music.. he had a harmonica to note his keys to begin the song.. one day.. we went to my husbands moms house..she was having a farewell dinner at her house for the paster..he was leaving town him and his family to another church to pastor it.. he wanted to get into a discussion about our beliefs.. my husband wont say anything much to people like this..it really does not accomplish anything.. but he sit and listened. he ask why they believed in no music.. he said..because the bible speaks of it not in the church itselfs.. but it speaks of singing... his own daughter plays music in school.. and plays well he said. they do take up offerings and .. they dont beleive in tithes. i just could not take it anymore.. i said..i play piano in church there is nothing wrong with it... everyone looked at me... i said there is no difference .. of what you do outside the church then inside...we are the temple..not a building... there was silence in the place... he let his children listen to any kind of music they wanted to outside the church... it was obvious... they were in religion . they really dont want God..they want power over people. i dont go to church every sunday.. but i read my bible and teach at home... tc ... forgivenmuch

specialk

22nd August 2004, 01:11 PM

FGM,

The intent of the Churches of Christ is to pattern our worship service as close as possible to the worship service in the New Testament. And no where is there a musical instrument mentioned in the New Testament during worship.

Upon Christ's death, the New Testament became law. Tithes is a part of the Old Testament. The NT does not mention tithes, but it does give us instructions on giving: 1 Cor 16:1-2 and 2 Cor 9:6-7.

A. believer

23rd August 2004, 02:12 PM

Forgetting the fact that Jesus didn't die yet so his Church and his commends did not come into full effect, but tell me how do you know that the thief on the cross wasn't baptist b/c we know John the Baptize was baptising people for the remission of their sins. And please tell me how do you know for sure that the thief on the cross did not repent for what he did when he was in his Jail cell or whatever it was at the time....I'm just curious everyone use this argument but I see no logistic in it. Obviously he believe in Jesus for sticking up for him when he was on the cross to the other people and the other thief. :P I don't know if the thief did but we also don't know if he didn't.
We know from the crucifixion account in Matthew's Gospel that, initially at least, both of the thieves mocked Jesus (27:44). In light of that, it seems fairly obvious that the thief who repented did so on the cross.

Nazarite

26th August 2004, 01:50 AM

Wow!!! This thread seems to have it all. Well I would like to add my two cents worth but tonight is not the night for me to do so. But I would like to refer you to my journal on this site. http://www.christianforums.com/t754000 It contains some of my writings. Of particular interest would be my first four postings. They contain the full content of a tract I wrote on "How to become a Christian."

I have a pretty extensive understanding of the history of the Church of Christ and would like to take some time to thoughtfully respond to all of this. If you have been on this thread for a while and are really interested in learning some stuff about our group please stay tuned.

I am a counseling minister with my church. I have a Bible degree from a university affiliated with the churches of Christ www.fhu.edu (http://www.fhu.edu) and I hold a Masters Degree in Marriage & Family Therapy from another university affiliated with the church as well www.harding.edu (http://www.harding.edu). I am very proud of my heritage. I've gotten over some of the bitterness that seems to be present with some of the subscribers to this thread. I guess I would describe my experience with the Church of Christ as an overall positive one. The church family that I worship with in Dothan, AL is a very balanced "middle of the road group" www.westgatechurchofchrist.org (http://www.westgatechurchofchrist.org). Maybe I can be used to share some things that will both enlighten those who are not familiar with the Church of Christ and challenge those who are.

God Bless You All,

Eric

Cary.Melvin

26th August 2004, 08:16 AM

Wow!!! This thread seems to have it all. Well I would like to add my two cents worth but tonight is not the night for me to do so. But I would like to refer you to my journal on this site. http://www.christianforums.com/t754000 It contains some of my writings. Of particular interest would be my first four postings. They contain the full content of a tract I wrote on "How to become a Christian."

I have a pretty extensive understanding of the history of the Church of Christ and would like to take some time to thoughtfully respond to all of this. If you have been on this thread for a while and are really interested in learning some stuff about our group please stay tuned.

I am a counseling minister with my church. I have a Bible degree from a university affiliated with the churches of Christ www.fhu.edu (http://www.fhu.edu/) and I hold a Masters Degree in Marriage & Family Therapy from another university affiliated with the church as well www.harding.edu (http://www.harding.edu/). I am very proud of my heritage. I've gotten over some of the bitterness that seems to be present with some of the subscribers to this thread. I guess I would describe my experience with the Church of Christ as an overall positive one. The church family that I worship with in Dothan, AL is a very balanced "middle of the road group" www.westgatechurchofchrist.org (http://www.westgatechurchofchrist.org/). Maybe I can be used to share some things that will both enlighten those who are not familiar with the Church of Christ and challenge those who are.

God Bless You All,

Eric
How did you get involved with the 'Church of Christ' church?

Were your parents members of the 'Church of Christ' church?

Qoheleth

27th August 2004, 04:48 PM

I am very much ashamed of those in my denomination who still are so ignorant of the fact that we do many, many things which are not found in the NT
What are these issues that are not found in the NT??

What did Max Lucado do????

I have been looking into the CoCs and have found them to be, well, diversified and changing. Overall and in the most critical points, they are orthodox in theology.

The "believe, repent, be baptised" legalistic view that many speak of, as it applies to the CoC, is scriptural. Though many seem to say that the CoC is claiming that if one doesnt repent, he will not be saved and this holds true for baptism.

This statement below is from a CoC type of publication about conversion/salvation. I gave it two 4 CoC Pulpit preachers and they all agree. I find it to be orthodox. Any thoughts

"The work effected by the Holy Spirit in the new birth is conversion. The whole process of conversion results from the influence of the Spirit. Our faith, repentance, change of heart, hatred of sin, love of God, turning to God in obedience--all are produced by the Spirit of the living God. The process of regeneration is begun, carried on, and consummated, by the Holy Spirit"

ischus

27th August 2004, 06:00 PM

hey guys,

I dropped out for a while, but now I think I will come back in. I would like to revisit the question of "why?" Why is it that the CoC believes that we must "do church" just like the 1st Century Churches did? While it is foolish to say that the CoC (which I am) does anything close to what the NT Christians did, What I am wondering is where this ecclesiological perspective comes from.

Even if you go by the classic CoC hermeneutic of Command/Inference/Example, all three of those methods, when applied to the NT, conclude to say exactly the opposite--we don't have to do church like they did. We are free to let the core Gospel penetrate our culture and context and grow into a 21st century worship.

You are right that the Bible says nothing in the NT about instruments in worship. It also doesn't say anything about gold or silver trays containing little plastic cups of grape juice or little crackers, nor does the NT mention those plates/trays sitting on an "altar" it the front of the church, nor does it mention a bunch of men dressed in suits marching down the aisles while the church sits in silence, etc., etc.

I think you get my point. We are not like them, so let's stop pretending we are. In Doctrine we should strive to be like the NT Church (for the most part). In practice, we should not. A Doctrine or a theology, when it becomes fixed as a specific transcultural form, is empty legalism, unless it was uniquely tied to the cross of Jesus from the beginning (ie. Baptism, Communion).

ischus

Nazarite

29th August 2004, 01:20 AM

Well, I'm back. I wanted some time to collect my thoughts on this rather diverse thread and I also wanted to do some other regular life things like mow my yard, go on a date with my wife, and play with my kids. Anyway, that's all done, I've had too much caffeine and I'm ready to write a bit.

There seem to be several questions on this site. So, I will try to take them in stages. I have observed the following interogatives from those who are unfamiliar with the Church of Christ (not to be confused with the United Church of Christ or International Church of Christ)

1) Where did the Church of Christ come from?
2) Is it an orthodox group?
3) What are some of the generally held beliefs?
4) What is up with those who seem to be so disgruntled with this fellowship from within?

These are some of the questions that seem to be inferred from those who might have been a part of our fellowship group for a period of time or continue to be.

1) Can't we all just get along?
2) Why is this bunch legalistic?

I want to take a look at a few things from the perspective of those who have had little contact with the Church of Christ first and perhaps provide some context for the other issues later. I do want to preface my remarks with this statement:

I do not and cannot speak for Jesus' church. I am merely making some observations that I believe to be generally true of the Churches of Christ. Obviously, in a fellowship that has only loose associations between the various congregations there will be a diversity of opinion on many matters.

First as to the matter of orthodoxy. Though the Church of Christ would not claim a creed other than the Bible (more about that later perhaps), I would say that none of our folks would or could argue with the Nicene Creed. However, our general interpretations of the creed might vary from other groups (i.e. the definition of the Catholic church or the definition of the one baptism for forgiveness of sins).
The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
So, this might help any who have questions to at least have some common understanding of our group.

As to the matter of where the Church of Christ comes from. Well that is a rather complex question. Why would I say that? Well because unlike the way things were within Christianity about the time of the Reformation, we are now fractured into so many different groups. As I read 1 Corinthians chapter one it seems apparant that the concept of denominationalism is forgein to the Apostle Paul. In fact, he's condemning factionalism within one local body. Imagine how he might respond to the circumstances of today as he observes Christians meeting in seperate buildings across the street from one another but refusing to speak. I believe denominationalism is wrong and that scripture backs me up on that (1 Corinthians 1).

Having said so, I also believe it was in the same epistle that Paul said , "For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God" (1 Co. 2:11). My point is that I do not know your thoughts or those of any other man or woman. Therefore, how can I presume to identify the body of Christ, His Church. I would suggest that it would be quite impossible for any man to accurately identify all who are part of the church today. Therefore the church is really only visible to God Himself. So in that sense I would agree with one of the men who is responsible for the group known today as the Church of Christ. His name was Thomas Campbell, father of the better known Alexander Campbell, and author a magnificent document known as the Declaration and Address.

In the Declaration and Address, Campbell said the following:

The Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every palce that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct -
Thomas Campbell
The Church of Christ in the biblical sense is a body of people that do not think denominationally. We understand that the Methodist Church, the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, the Church of Christ et al are not going to heaven. Heaven will be populated with the people who have trusted Jesus for their salvation as evidenced by their faith in Him not in Spurgeon, Wesley, Luther, Augustine, or Campbell!!!

Understand, I have deep respect for all of the men I have just referenced but my trust is in Jesus. That being said, I will post my next little piece of work on the history of the Church of Christ.

By Grace

29th August 2004, 09:26 AM

Having said so, I also believe it was in the same epistle that Paul said , "For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God" (1 Co. 2:11). My point is that I do not know your thoughts or those of any other man or woman. Therefore, how can I presume to identify the body of Christ, His Church. I would suggest that it would be quite impossible for any man to accurately identify all who are part of the church today. Therefore the church is really only visible to God Himself. So in that sense I would agree with one of the men who is responsible for the group known today as the Church of Christ. His name was Thomas Campbell, father of the better known Alexander Campbell, and author a magnificent document known as the Declaration and Address.

In the Declaration and Address, Campbell said the following:

The Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every palce that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct -

Thomas Campbell

The Church of Christ in the biblical sense is a body of people that do not think denominationally. We understand that the Methodist Church, the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, the Church of Christ et al are not going to heaven. Heaven will be populated with the people who have trusted Jesus for their salvation as evidenced by their faith in Him not in Spurgeon, Wesley, Luther, Augustine, or Campbell!!!

Having grown up in a COC, I agree with this part. But then, why do COC congregations (at least, the ones I've experienced, as well as several COC members of my family) give people such a hard time when they decide to worship at a different type of congregation? Just b/c someone may not believe exactly the same as you do doesn't mean they're necessarily going to hell. I realize not all COC'ers believe this, especially more recently (the majority of events I'm referring to happened in the 80's and early 90's), but the COC we're currently attending (which I want to leave) has just in the past year "excommunicated" a woman for choosing to attend a different type of church, which I got the impression was also nondenominational, btw. The elders actually got up in front of the congregation on multiple Sundays and requested that eveyone try to encourage this woman to return to our church b/c otherwise her soul was in danger of eternal damnation. B/c I had seen this sort of thing happen to someone else I was close to, and the church's view of the whole thing in that situation was so distorted as to be laughable, I actually called the woman up (I hadn't known her previously, since we were new to this congregation at the time) and asked her about it. She told me the reasons she was leaving (totally legitimate, IMO), and said she had found another local congregation (not COC) that she was very active in and attended loyally. And yet, the COC she was leaving was accusing her of turning her back on God. And this is not the first time I've seen this happen, by any means. It's simply the most recent.

Then there are also many, many occasions where I've mentioned to someone in one COC or another that a certain relative of mine doesn't attend a COC (usually in response to their questions about this person), and their immediate response is to say they're sorry and that they'll pray for this person's salvation! I've had to explain many times that this person is a very loyal Christian, anointed and admirable and totally in love with God. And yet they still just sort of look at me like, "okay, I'm sorry you're so deceived, but I'll let it go."

I don't mean to be a COC-basher. I've known many wonderful people in the COC, too. I know that they're just doing what they think is best, but I'm really fed up with their "holier than thou" attitudes and many members' beliefs that they're the only ones going to Heaven (whether they would actually state that or not, it's evident in their actions). And if anyone else happens to squeak through, it will be only because God is so merciful. But if someone is at some point enlightened enough to attend a COC, then they choose to move on to something else, then they've turned their backs on the Truth that God revealed to them.

I have to admit, I'm kind of in a bad mood today (fussy baby, too little sleep, etc.), and I considered not posting this after I typed it up. But I guess I'm looking for some encouragement that the little rural congregation I'm involved in is not the norm, and that when they start visiting us and calling us and basically harassing us when we eventually get the courage to leave, we can be assured that they're just narrow-minded and don't represent the majority of COC's.

Nazarite

29th August 2004, 02:46 PM

Jill I read your posting and I hope I can be used to provide you with some of the encouragement you are seeking. The Church of Christ as I noted in my previous posting consists of all of those in Christ. If, when you think, "Church of Christ" you imagine a group of people who have descended from the Stone-Campbell Restoration movement (a well reasoned and thought provoking movement), then you are limiting yourself. The Church of Christ which I am describing and belive that Campbell and Stone were as well is comprised of those who are, "In Christ."

Now I do hold to a conviction of immersion baptism for the adult believer into the body of Christ is the way we demonstrate our faith in what Jesus has done for us and accept that gift of salvation and while I do not stand in judgement of those who hold different convictions, I feel obliged to share my conviction with them.

So I believe that all of those added to the church by God are in the church of Christ. And I am of the conviction that that group is a much larger group of people than those who occupy buildings with the name "Church of Christ" written over the doorframe.

Let me take this occasion to share a bit of the history of our movement. When Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone were living, they too held to the very convictions that I am expressing. They did not cast stones at the other groups of Christians saying that they were the only Christians. Instead, they held to a conviction of seeking to be, "Christians only." That is a much different goal indeed. It is a call to seek unity in Jesus Christ and to reject the sectarian spirit of denominationalism. No longer should we be divided asunder.

However, as is the case with many other, "back to the Bible" movements (i.e. Martin Luther, Zwingli, the Puritans, the Quakers, etc...) the movement begun by Campbell and Stone solidified into a monument. The admirable goals of those who sought to go back to the Bible and, "speak where it speaks and remain silent where it is silent," became for some an end in and of itself. That is, zealous but misdirected people sought to capture the essence of this movement by defining what teachings are right and which are wrong and excluding from fellowship those who would differ on these teachings. An example of this would be an address delivered by Daniel Sommer who stated the following:

"It is, therefore, with the view, if possible, of counteracting the usages and practices that have crept into the churches, that this effort on the part of the congregations hereafter named is made, and now, in closing up this address and declaration, we state that we are impelled from a sense of duty to say, that all that are guilty of teaching, or allowing and practicing the many innovations and corruptions to which we have referred, that after being admonished, and having had sufficient time for reflection, if they do not turn away from such abominations, that we can not and will not regard them as brethren."

The above quotation was made in August of 1889. That was not very long after Alexander Campbell had died. It didn't take long for the movement to take on a life of its own and become a monument - a monument not built on Jesus but on the particular interpretations of what Jesus and his apostles taught by those in the movement. Therefore, the movement began to fracture. And fracture it did over the next century into three major denominations with several sectarian groups within the larger groups.

However, when I speak of the Church of Christ I do not refer to a denomnation as denominations of every sort will always splinter and divide because they are of man. When men stand up and start making judgements on one another's soul salvation (i.e. you will go to hell if you believe and teach....xyz) that is a dangerous position. Isn't that sort of like speaking "ex-cathedra" - that is a Catholic term used of the Pope who according to the Catholic teachings can speak infallibly when on his throne.

That means there is a very dangerous ditch known as legalism that would not distinguish between the gospel of Jesus Christ and the doctrine or teachings of Jesus and his apostles. Gospel is the seed of life and the doctrine or teachings are what assist us in our growth. But, you can see with that analogy that the gospel and doctrine are quite different.

Now, does this mean that because we might not have all the correct understandings or have everything figured out that we should not "reprove, rebuke, and exhort" as Paul told Timothy? I don't believe so. In fact having no conviction and saying, "well I can't figure this out so every teaching is ok as long as a person just believes in Jesus," can be a dangerous alternative to legalism known as liberalism. From this end of the continuum we have people suggesting that the Bible "contains the word of God but is not the Word of God" This is the line of thinking that is causing serious damage among believers in the Episcopal and Methodist Churches today because it opens the door to approving such things as the homosexual agenda.

So there are two ends on this contiuum with dangerous sharks on both sides. That's not new. In fact Paul the apostle was writing to combat legalism in the Galatian churches, hence the emphasis on Grace and James the brother of Jesus was writing to combat antinominism (No Law) hence the emphasis on a faith that works.

I believe in the simplicity of the arguments made by men such as Stone and Campbell who called us back to the Bible and who differentiated between gospel and doctrine. I believe that on balance the Churches of Christ today are moving toward that call once again and finding some common ground with long lost brothers and sisters in Christ. At the same time, we do have some strongly held convictions and rightly so if you would investigate the Biblical basis of such claims - taking the Lord's Supper every first day of the week or immersion into Jesus for remission of sins or the doctrine of amillenialism as opposed to the more currently popular view of pre or post millenialism - to name a few.

As for your specific situation, I can understand your angst. Perhaps your elders have some genuinely held convictions - and Biblical ones at that - as to why it would be a poor choice for this individual to worship with another group. If that is the case maybe you could sit and discuss this with them. Also, its possible that they might be Lording it over this person and acting in an unhealthy way. If that is the situation you still have a responsibility to them to speak with them out of love for your sister and them as well.

I suspect though I am far removed from where you are that this could be an issue that is more complicated. Though you are sympathetic to your sister, remember that she is a fallen human just as much as your elders. She may have some issues as well. And, lastly, remember that we are to speak the truth but also to do it in love. We need to be people of GRACE and TRUTH and not slip off either side of the slope into the ditches of legalism or liberalism.

Hang in there because maybe God will use you and your gracious heart to bring a new breath of fresh air into your assembly. If you are set on finding a particular end rather than simply enjoying your daily journey with Jesus you will likely be disappointed. I'm praying for you, you sister, your elders, and your whole assembly right now.

God Bless,
Eric

By Grace

30th August 2004, 11:19 AM

Jill I read your posting and I hope I can be used to provide you with some of the encouragement you are seeking. The Church of Christ as I noted in my previous posting consists of all of those in Christ. If, when you think, "Church of Christ" you imagine a group of people who have descended from the Stone-Campbell Restoration movement (a well reasoned and thought provoking movement), then you are limiting yourself. The Church of Christ which I am describing and belive that Campbell and Stone were as well is comprised of those who are, "In Christ." Actually, I understand that that is what COC claims, that they are the group of people that make up the body of Christ. Does that mean they really and truly believe there are plenty of people in denominational congregations that are part of that body? If so, why do they give people such a hard time when they choose to go worship at one of those congregations, rather than at a building that has "church of Christ" on the sign out front?

Now I do hold to a conviction of immersion baptism for the adult believer into the body of Christ is the way we demonstrate our faith in what Jesus has done for us and accept that gift of salvation and while I do not stand in judgement of those who hold different convictions, I feel obliged to share my conviction with them.

So I believe that all of those added to the church by God are in the church of Christ. And I am of the conviction that that group is a much larger group of people than those who occupy buildings with the name "Church of Christ" written over the doorframe.

...

That means there is a very dangerous ditch known as legalism that would not distinguish between the gospel of Jesus Christ and the doctrine or teachings of Jesus and his apostles. Gospel is the seed of life and the doctrine or teachings are what assist us in our growth. But, you can see with that analogy that the gospel and doctrine are quite different.

Now, does this mean that because we might not have all the correct understandings or have everything figured out that we should not "reprove, rebuke, and exhort" as Paul told Timothy? I don't believe so. In fact having no conviction and saying, "well I can't figure this out so every teaching is ok as long as a person just believes in Jesus," can be a dangerous alternative to legalism known as liberalism. From this end of the continuum we have people suggesting that the Bible "contains the word of God but is not the Word of God" This is the line of thinking that is causing serious damage among believers in the Episcopal and Methodist Churches today because it opens the door to approving such things as the homosexual agenda.

So there are two ends on this contiuum with dangerous sharks on both sides. That's not new. In fact Paul the apostle was writing to combat legalism in the Galatian churches, hence the emphasis on Grace and James the brother of Jesus was writing to combat antinominism (No Law) hence the emphasis on a faith that works.

I believe in the simplicity of the arguments made by men such as Stone and Campbell who called us back to the Bible and who differentiated between gospel and doctrine. I believe that on balance the Churches of Christ today are moving toward that call once again and finding some common ground with long lost brothers and sisters in Christ. At the same time, we do have some strongly held convictions and rightly so if you would investigate the Biblical basis of such claims - taking the Lord's Supper every first day of the week or immersion into Jesus for remission of sins or the doctrine of amillenialism as opposed to the more currently popular view of pre or post millenialism - to name a few.Okay, here's where I start to have trouble. For the sake of clarification, I'll use the term "COC" to refer to people in congregations that have "church of Christ" on the sign out front, and I'll use "Christ's church" to refer to the total body of believers, those throughout the world who are saved.

There are certain things, of course, that are required for our salvation, namely the belief that Jesus is the Messiah, and whatever goes along with that. I think most of that is detailed in what's called the Nicene Creed, and I think you've already stated you're pretty okay with that. I do agree that both legalism and liberalism are too far to the extreme, but if a person is sincerely studying the Scriptures, and yet still comes to a different conclusion than you do on something that is not directly related to salvation, then I think there should be not only some leniency, but also respect for the idea that what they believe may actually be more right than what you believe, even if you don't see it that way.

Many COC, though, seem to believe, by their actions, that there are other things you must agree on in order to be saved. For example, if I choose to worship at a church that uses instruments, I can guarantee you that many in our current congregation and throughout my COC family will attempt to convince me of the errors of my ways, since they will be concerned for the well-being of my eternal state. Also, if someone speaks in tongues today, COC believes that threatens a person's salvation (I realize they're not the only ones who believe that--I'm not trying to start that debate! It just seems to me, from the study of the Scripture, that there's really no clear-cut answer to that question. So if someone else chooses to speak in tongues, I don't feel it's my place to tell them they're wrong.). If I choose to worship on Saturday instead of on Sunday, or horror of horrors, take the Lord's Supper every day instead of exactly on Sunday's, I'm certain I will get phone calls and visits from well-meaning COC'ers who think I'm turning my back on God. And what if I choose to take the Lord's Supper in the context of a meal, as it was done at the actual Last Supper? Or what if I choose to stay home and rest, after working 6 days that week (just like God did), instead of packing my two little ones into the car and going through all the trouble of getting us to church, simply to warm a pew and feel uninspired with the slow songs and the same sermon I've heard a thousand times, especially since I spend the whole t