Do church of christ believe other mainline, evangelical christians are not believers?

[God IS]

Okay, I'll try to clarify my thoughts on a few of the above mentioned matters. Patience please, as I try to work through my thoughts and type them out in way that is clear:tongue_smilie:

 

Building: We see meeting places other than homes in scripture-

1. In houses:

Houses: Acts 12:12; Rom 16:5,14,15; 1 Cor 16:19: Col 4:15; Philemon

In upper rooms of houses: Mk 14:13-15 + Acts 1:13c. Third floor of a house: Acts 20:7-92.

In the Jewish temple: Acts 2:463.

In a school: Acts 19:9

 

We could not logistically meet in a house, ourselves. With nearly 200 people, that would be.....wild:lol:

 

The authority for a place to assemble is in the command to assemble in Heb 10:25

 

Airconditioning(and heat and electricity for that matter): When our elders choose to have the local church own a meeting place, they had many decisions to make, all of the above included. We could meet in homes,rented facilities etc--and all of those would have the above things. Our building is a metal building, no windows, and in our local with around 200 people in there, the buiding would get hot enough to make people sick, especially our eldery(I don't even want to think about about the mold issues we would have). In other words--it was, for us, a better use of funds to have an inexpensive building built by members, and have heat and air to make is usable here. Heat is the same issue. We are in an area with extreme heats and extreme cold.

 

Velcro shoes: I'm assuming this was sarcasm. Am I wrong? Of course our choice of footwear has no bearing on worship.:001_huh:

 

Now I am trying to remember what else there was......

 

Selling all you have?

We do see that many of the wealthier would sell lands and homes to help those in need. It wasn't the case of everyone going communist. Not everyone sold all they had, although that is a popular miscinception.

 

Today many people give up things to help other members. The member truely take care of each other when the need arises. I've seen members suport other monetarily, logistically and even physically.

 

 

So..OP did we help to answer your original question?

[milovany]

I'll try to clarify my point of view on the "restored" church vs. the original church founded on pentacost.

 

I(personally) do also believe that God would not have forsaken His church. I beleieve that the church has existed throughout history, dieing out in someplaces, and springing up in other places--wherever people beging to look at the scriptures for what they say, not for what other people say that they say. (Whew. that was a weird sentence!) Studying the pattern laid out in Acts for church workings and worship.

 

Mr. Campbell, who began the most widespread "restoration" movement didn't actually restore or start the church--but help to lead a widespread movement to restore the practices of church work and worship back to what we see in the earliest recorded church history (the book of Acts).

 

I understand, really I do. It's just that a whole lotta Christians around the world will disagree with the need for a "restored" church when the original still exists. Instead of reading the Bible 1000, 1400 or 1900 years after the fact, and trying to recreate what we think God may have meant from a vantage point so far removed from the church that did begin then, one can be a part of the same historical church Christ put the apostles in charge of leading. There are some churches that have this historic, apostolic succession. I've been up front about saying I do have a belief on which church this is, but that's not my point in this thread. Just this: if the original church still exists, why not be a part of that rather than a restored church founded out of the understanding of men hundreds of years later? NOTE: I do understand, also, that some Christians don't believe these churches are "biblical" but that's a whole 'nuther can of worms. :tongue_smilie:

 

And yes, I've appreciated the polite demeanor in this thread!! Thank you.

Edited February 14, 2012 by milovaný

[Dobela]

I understand, really I do. It's just that a whole lotta Christians around the world will disagree with the need for a "restored" church when the original still exists. Instead of reading the Bible 1000, 1400 or 1900 years after the fact, and trying to recreate what we think God may have meant from a vantage point so far removed from the church that did begin then, one can be a part of the same historical church Christ put the apostles in charge of leading. There are some churches that have this historic, apostolic succession. I've been up front about saying I do have a belief on which church this is, but that's not my point in this thread. Just this: if the original church still exists, why not be a part of that rather than a restored church founded out of the understanding of men hundreds of years later? NOTE: I do understand, also, that some Christians don't believe these churches are "biblical" but that's a whole 'nuther can of worms. :tongue_smilie:

 

And yes, I've appreciated the polite demeanor in this thread!! Thank you.

I don't believe the church of Christ is 'restored'. I believe it has always existed, although under different names, or under no particular name at all. If you read the site I posted before, http://churches-of-christ.ws/indextr.htm, there is evidence of their existance over 1000 years ago. I don't believe that the 'church of Christ' suddenly came into existence at that time. I have read other documents (that others have found and shared) where Christians were practicing the same beliefs as moderen churches of Christ in Germany and closer to Italy before that time. They were persecuted by the Catholics for not believing as they did. There is no 'church of Christ' historical society or governing organization that keeps records but someone has taken time to look at the old Catholic records and find out who they were killing as heretics and what the beliefs were of those 'heretics'. The worship practices described by Josephus and other historians of the era also describe similar worship practices of the first century Christians (adult baptism by immersion, a believers baptism, acapella song worship, communing weekly, and so on).

 

I don't consider the church of Christ to be restored. I believe it is the original church, or very similar to the early church. I do belive that at various times in history people have left other churches/denominations in order to 'restore' what they believe is right. But I don't follow Campbell, or any of those folks. I don't go to their writings to confirm what I believe. I go to the Bible.

[God IS]

I don't believe the church of Christ is 'restored'. I believe it has always existed, although under different names, or under no particular name at all. If you read the site I posted before, http://churches-of-christ.ws/indextr.htm, there is evidence of their existance over 1000 years ago. I don't believe that the 'church of Christ' suddenly came into existence at that time. I have read other documents (that others have found and shared) where Christians were practicing the same beliefs as moderen churches of Christ in Germany and closer to Italy before that time. They were persecuted by the Catholics for not believing as they did. There is no 'church of Christ' historical society or governing organization that keeps records but someone has taken time to look at the old Catholic records and find out who they were killing as heretics and what the beliefs were of those 'heretics'. The worship practices described by Josephus and other historians of the era also describe similar worship practices of the first century Christians (adult baptism by immersion, a believers baptism, acapella song worship, communing weekly, and so on).

 

I don't consider the church of Christ to be restored. I believe it is the original church, or very similar to the early church. I do belive that at various times in history people have left other churches/denominations in order to 'restore' what they believe is right. But I don't follow Campbell, or any of those folks. I don't go to their writings to confirm what I believe. I go to the Bible.

 

Nicely said. :iagree:

[ktgrok]

Velcro shoes: I'm assuming this was sarcasm. Am I wrong? Of course our choice of footwear has no bearing on worship.:001_huh:

 

 

Ok, I agree, shoes have no bearing on worship. i'm just not sure what bearing a kitchen has on worship either...but it was stated in this thread that many CofC would say that it was against the new testament to have a kitchen as part of the church building. And maybe foot wear was just as important as choices of music...we have no way of knowing.

[Lovedtodeath]

Interesting. Exactly which false gods are the rest of us worshipping?

For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted,-- 2 Corinthians 11:4 (I do not belong to nor have ever attended a CoC church, it is just that this scripture shows us that some who claim to worship the same God clearly don't.)

 

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that churches of Christ worldwide consider them selves a worldwide fellowship, a brotherhood. This, in my opinion, is their greatest strength and most appealing quality. You can go just about anywhere and find people you know or someone who knows someone you know. :) Most of the time you can go to a new area and have instant family, with people who will take you in and treat you like long lost friends. (This is not always the case, but they are human beings after all)

Oh if only all Christians were like this, even if we are different denominations. Brothers and sisters I appeal to you to make it so!

 

1 Corinthians 12:4-6; 1 John 5:1

[Dobela]

Ok, I agree, shoes have no bearing on worship. i'm just not sure what bearing a kitchen has on worship either...but it was stated in this thread that many CofC would say that it was against the new testament to have a kitchen as part of the church building. And maybe foot wear was just as important as choices of music...we have no way of knowing.

It isn't a kitchen issue per say, but a money issue. Some congregations believe that the money collected each week and placed in church accounts can only be only used in very specific ways. While air conditioning is considered 'expedient' because it enables Christians to worship more comfortably, a kitchen does not fit into that definition according to some congregations. For them to spend money on a kitchen, and then the supplies (pots, pans, utensils, etc) and to pay additional electricity, more insurance costs, etc, is a matter of not using church funds wisely. A kitchen offers nothing that is required for worship or that will make worship more accessible to those who want to attend. Often these congregations are smaller and can comfortably fit into homes (the congregation near us has maybe 50 members) for fellowships (meals, showers, parties, etc). Or, the members will take turns hosting a fellowship meal (potluck or similar) and will use personal money to rent a location for everyone to gather. Or they will gather in public places such as parks so that church funds are used conservatively and never for 'entertainment'.

 

For the people I know that will not worship in a church that has a kitchen, it is somewhat of a salvation issue. I have been told by such members that if I am attending a congregation that is improperly using money (and that is publically demonstrated by the multipurpose building and the kitchen within), then the congregation is most likely incorrectly using church funds in other ways and possibly/probably even allowing members to worship God incorrectly. Making the conscious choice to worship God incorrectly, especially when we 'know better' is considered to remove me from grace and can lead to condemnation at judgement day. Does that make any sense?

[Dobela]

I agree.

 

What about holding everything in common? Selling all you have and giving it to the church? No church buildings just all believers meeting in homes?

 

The early Christians did not post their entire liturgy in the Bible. There are other places to look for it, in liturgical documents and in the writings of the early church fathers. But they lived a long time, worshipping and fellowshipping when there was no agreed upon New Testament, and even before some of it was written or compiled. So to say that everything THEY needed to live and worship was in the Bible ignores the fact that they had no agreed upon New Testament at the time and that the writers of the New Testament were certainly living out their faith in Christian communities before the whole New Testament was written.

 

You can have a church without the Bible, but you could not have gotten the Bible without the Church. Saying that all practices have to come from a group of documents not even completely in existence at the time seems a little short-sighted. Of course, we need the Bible. But it was compiled as a liturgical document, as the approved list of writings to be read aloud during liturgical celebrations. So to say that the people compiling it, who were having these celebrations before and during the compilation of it, were behaving somehow un-Biblically by not modeling themselves on it seems flawed to me.

This is not what I believe. I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. What has reached us today reached us because that is what He wanted passed thru the generations. What we have was compiled by men, and written down by men, but thru the influence of God thru the Holy Spirit. Do I think there were other letters? Most likely. Do I think the letters and books of the Bible were copied and passed among congregations. Absolutely. I can't find my notes now to name the references, but there are hundreds of examples of pieces of the letters that have been found of the the books we have in the New Testament today. Knowing that the letters were copied and shared between churches means that uniformity could (and did) exist.

[Lovedtodeath]

The early Christians did not post their entire liturgy in the Bible. There are other places to look for it, in liturgical documents and in the writings of the early church fathers. But they lived a long time, worshipping and fellowshipping when there was no agreed upon New Testament, and even before some of it was written or compiled. So to say that everything THEY needed to live and worship was in the Bible ignores the fact that they had no agreed upon New Testament at the time and that the writers of the New Testament were certainly living out their faith in Christian communities before the whole New Testament was written.

 

You can have a church without the Bible, but you could not have gotten the Bible without the Church. Saying that all practices have to come from a group of documents not even completely in existence at the time seems a little short-sighted. Of course, we need the Bible. But it was compiled as a liturgical document, as the approved list of writings to be read aloud during liturgical celebrations. So to say that the people compiling it, who were having these celebrations before and during the compilation of it, were behaving somehow un-Biblically by not modeling themselves on it seems flawed to me.

Hey sister, facebook me more on this please!

[ktgrok]

 

For the people I know that will not worship in a church that has a kitchen, it is somewhat of a salvation issue. I have been told by such members that if I am attending a congregation that is improperly using money (and that is publically demonstrated by the multipurpose building and the kitchen within), then the congregation is most likely incorrectly using church funds in other ways and possibly/probably even allowing members to worship God incorrectly. Making the conscious choice to worship God incorrectly, especially when we 'know better' is considered to remove me from grace and can lead to condemnation at judgement day. Does that make any sense?

 

Although I see how one might try to make that argument, no, it doesn't make sense. It isn't logical (as in the argument is full of logical fallacies).

[Dobela]

Although I see how one might try to make that argument, no, it doesn't make sense. It isn't logical (as in the argument is full of logical fallacies).

I actually agree with you. It is one of the reasons I chose to attend a congregation that is mainstream or more middle of the road.

[staceyobu]

 

For the people I know that will not worship in a church that has a kitchen, it is somewhat of a salvation issue. I have been told by such members that if I am attending a congregation that is improperly using money (and that is publically demonstrated by the multipurpose building and the kitchen within), then the congregation is most likely incorrectly using church funds in other ways and possibly/probably even allowing members to worship God incorrectly. Making the conscious choice to worship God incorrectly, especially when we 'know better' is considered to remove me from grace and can lead to condemnation at judgement day. Does that make any sense?

 

But, where is biblical evidence that you can lose your salvation based on worshiping in a church with a kitchen? Or in a church that spent money wrongly?

[staceyobu]

For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted,-- 2 Corinthians 11:4 (I do not belong to nor have ever attended a CoC church, it is just that this scripture shows us that some who claim to worship the same God clearly don't.)

 

But, what determining factor would be used to say who is worshiping God and who is not?

[milovany]

If you read the site I posted before, http://churches-of-christ.ws/indextr.htm

 

I read the first few pages of your link. I did not find much historical accuracy in the descriptions of the early church. There are writings from this time period that show what the early church was like, and what they believed about things like infant baptism and the Eucharist. These writings were not deemed by the Church that gave us Scripture (eventually) to be Scripture, but they still paint a pretty clear picture of what the faith/practice/theology of the church in its earliest days was like.

 

Perhaps you'd return the favor and read mine? It's not as long, and is definitely easier on the eyes ;). You may disagree with it as much as I disagree with yours, I realize. That's fine. But I found I had to let go of my preconceived ideas (based on what I thought was "Scripture alone" but was really based upon my own study and interpretation of Scripture, or that of the groups I chose to align myself with) and just let the Church be what it is and has always been outside human interference. The church is the pillar and ground (foundation and "walls") of the Christian faith, so it's important to get it right.

 

May you be abundantly blessed on your journey. He is loving and merciful and faithful ~ I'm sure we can find agreement on that. :001_smile:

Edited February 14, 2012 by milovaný

[Chelli]

But, where is biblical evidence that you can lose your salvation based on worshiping in a church with a kitchen? Or in a church that spent money wrongly?

 

There isn't any evidence for 90% of church of Christ people. She was giving an example of the more extreme, conservative groups that fall under the name of "church of Christ".

 

These conservative groups (referred to as non-institutional) would not consider other people who call themselves "church of Christ" to actually be saved because of the views they have about how the church should spend money.

[Dobela]

But, where is biblical evidence that you can lose your salvation based on worshiping in a church with a kitchen? Or in a church that spent money wrongly?

Ok, let me start explaining that from the beginning. It is believed, by all churches of Christ that how one worships is determined by Biblical authority. Which is:

 

1. The Bible is inspired [God breathed] II Timothy 3:16-17.

 

a. Through the Holy Spirit John 16:13, II Peter 1:20-21 and John 6:63.

 

b. The N.T. is the word of Christ Hebrews 1:1-2 and John 12:48.

 

c. The O.T. has been put away by the death of Christ (Colossians 2:14, Romans 7:1-6 and Hebrews 9:15-17). The O.T. was never to the Gentile but was to the nation of Israel, those brought out of Egyptian bondage (Deuteronomy 6:1-6 and Ephesians 2:11-16).

2. The Bible provides all things we need to know Deuteronomy 29:29, II Peter 1:3 and John 20:30-31.

 

3. Adding to it or taking away from it is sinful Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18-19.

 

a. No man or angel can change it Galatians 1:6-12.

 

b. The word has been once delivered Jude 3 and I Peter 1:23ff.

4. We must have the authority for whatsoever we do or say Colossians 3:17!

 

Further there are 2 types of authority in the Bible - explicit and inferred. The most commonly used example of explicit is from Genesis 6:14 where Noah is told to build the ark from Gopher wood. Since God was very specific, it would have been a sin for Noah to use a diferent type of wood. Inferred means that authority is given in the Bible thru example. Our beliefs about taking the Lord's Supper weekly come from descriptions of worship of the first Christians.

Applying Bible Authority using the Lord’s Supper –

 

 

a. Direct Command I Corinthians 11:23-28 This do… in remembrance.

 

b. Approved Example Acts 20:7 First day of the week.

 

c. Necessary inference (implication) Acts 20:7 every first day of the week.

-- Singing – not playing instruments (Matt. 26:30, Eph. 5:19 & Col. 3:16)

-- baptism The scriptures clearly teach that baptism is commanded (Acts 2:38, John 3:3-5, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-5, and I Peter 3:20-21).

Because the first Christians are told to 'sing' but are not shown to be playing instruments, the implication is that instruments were to be no longer used in worship. Because the early Christians were described as partaking the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week, it is implied that they did so EVERY first day, not just once a month, or year, or on Saturday, and so on.

 

Now, Non-institutional churches of Christ use this authority to come to the following conclusions about how money that is collected by an individual church can be used. The non-institutional congregations do not, as a body and from their treasury, support human institutions or organizations (like missionary societies, orphan's homes, "Christian" schools, publishing cooperatives, soup kitchens, United Way, etc.), and which do not support institutions or preachers by sending money to another congregation (the 'sponsoring' church) for their elders or decision-makers to decide how to redistribute. This is because they believe the Bible, specifically the New Testament, only authorizes the following uses for money from church treasuries (because these are the only examples of church treasury money being used in the New Testament)

 

1. Preach the Gospel to all Matthew 28:19 and I Thessalonians 1:8.

2. Edify the saints I Thessalonians 5:11.

3. Benevolence for the saints Romans 12:13.

Any use of money for reasons outside of those 3 is considered to be stepping outside of the authority of the Bible, and as such, adding to the Bible. To quote a website supported by a noninstitutional member,

 

Edification is building up. The scriptures build us up Acts 20:32! Kitchens, fellowship halls, appreciation dinners etc. do nothing but use the Lord’s money wrongly. RESULT = Adding to God’s word (Revelation 22:18-19).

 

I hope this helps some. The non-institutional members I know personally will help non-Christians and similar 'good deeds' generously because they believe that it is the responsibility of Christians to help all men (Galations 6:10 and I Corinthians 9:13, in addition James 1:27). Individual Christians using personal money, that is. Church money can only be used for the 3 reasons above.

 

I know this is the catchy topic, and not to offend those in the non-Instutional churches, but few people in the broad sense of churches of Christ believe this way. The differences between the non-institutional and mainstream/liberal churches of Christ are more complicated than this, but this is what is most commonly discussed.

[Avila]

This is not what I believe. I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. What has reached us today reached us because that is what He wanted passed thru the generations. What we have was compiled by men, and written down by men, but thru the influence of God thru the Holy Spirit. Do I think there were other letters? Most likely. Do I think the letters and books of the Bible were copied and passed among congregations. Absolutely. I can't find my notes now to name the references, but there are hundreds of examples of pieces of the letters that have been found of the the books we have in the New Testament today. Knowing that the letters were copied and shared between churches means that uniformity could (and did) exist.

 

I also believe the Bible is the written and inspired Word of God. And that what is in the Bible is there because he wanted it to be there. I just don't believe that it contains everything necessary to be Christian or that he ever intended it to. I believe that we are to take both the written and the oral traditions together to make the complete gift that Jesus left us.

 

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. 2 Thess. 2:15 NAB

 

They were sharing letters. They were also sharing other documents that never made it into the New Testament as scripture. And while Paul was writing his letters, he was writing them to Christian communities who were living their lives in their faith as Christians without having the New Testament, as a whole, to reference. It did not come out of nowhere. He wrote to individual congregations as issues surfaced, and they then shared their letters with other Christian communities. But communication was not immediate. It isn't like he could just send an email, and poof! The whole body of Christ was carbon copied. ;). Years went by, just in the first part of Christianity during Paul's lifetime and while he was writing his letters that became Scripture. And Christian communities lived and worshipped that whole time without the benefit of the written Word of God as you know it to guide them. And it is likely that Paul himself never read the whole New Testament, even as he was pouring himself into the message of the gospel and teaching others how to live as Christians.

 

Even later people were arguing about whether Revelation was really scripture, whether we really needed four gospels, and whether the letters of other prominent Christians like Clement were scripture.

 

So I am not arguing about the uniformity of what we have now, but that different communities has access to different letters or not all of the letters and that there was no real standard for quite some time as to which of these materials went beyond useful advice and became the written Word of God as we know it.

 

And what these people did, even if we are only talking about the period of time between the death of Christ and the writing of the last piece of the New Testament, is the birth of Christianity and could not have been based on only the New Testament because they predate it. That is a whole generation of Christians, some of which who knew Jesus and many of which who studied under the apostles. And that is just during the time period while the New Testament was being actually written.

 

Here is a decent synopsis on how the New Testament was canonized:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Edited February 14, 2012 by Asenik
the ipad is making me crazy. Sorry!

[Dobela]

There isn't any evidence for 90% of church of Christ people. She was giving an example of the more extreme, conservative groups that fall under the name of "church of Christ".

 

These conservative groups (referred to as non-institutional) would not consider other people who call themselves "church of Christ" to actually be saved because of the views they have about how the church should spend money.

:iagree: I apologize if I didn't make that more clear. There are fewer churches that consider themselves to be non-institutional by far than there are other churches of Christ. In my experience, those who have had very negative experiences with someone from a church of Christ has had that experience with a member of a non-institutional church rather than with a middle of the road congregation member.

[Onceuponatime]

I read the first few pages of your link. I did not find much historical accuracy in the descriptions of the early church. There are writings from this time period that show what the early church was like, and what they believed about things like infant baptism and the Eucharist. These writings were not deemed by the Church that gave us Scripture (eventually) to be Scripture, but they still paint a pretty clear picture of what the faith/practice/theology of the church in its earliest days was like.

 

Perhaps you'd return the favor and read mine? It's not as long, and is definitely easier on the eyes ;). You may disagree with it as much as I disagree with yours, I realize. That's fine. But I found I had to let go of my preconceived ideas (based on what I thought was "Scripture alone" but was really based upon my own study and interpretation of Scripture, or that of the groups I chose to align myself with) and just let the Church be what it is and has always been outside human interference. The church is the pillar and ground (foundation and "walls") of the Christian faith, so it's important to get it right.

 

May you be abundantly blessed on your journey. He is loving and merciful and faithful ~ I'm sure we can find agreement on that. :001_smile:

 

Milovany, I actually agree with your point here. That is the one thing that truly bothers me about the church of Christ. Most members are sorely lacking in Bible history, church history, and secular history of the first century, especially when it comes to early non-Biblical writings. In fact I would say these things are almost studiously avoided in favor of reliance on scripture alone. If they are addressed, it is from a particular point of view only. I think the internet is changing this, especially for the younger more inquisitive members. It will be interesting to see what the future holds.

 

I wanted to add some about the kitchen issue. To clarify what others have said, it is an issue of "conspicuous consumption." The display of a church's wealth is traditionally considered in very poor taste, to the point of being "boastful, " which is not loving --see Corinthians 13. This is also why those churches are very plain, usually with no adornments, stained glass windows and other embellishments. Historically, this is also the main reason for not having a piano or organ. You see, around the time of the Civil War this was a sore point with poorer congregations who could not afford these things. Churches of Christ have historically placed great stress on egalitarianism. (See the book of James :-)This same reasoning is used against, choirs, soloists, praise teams, and other performance oriented activities in a worship setting.

 

What hasn't been said is there is another reason some congregations will not have kitchens in their buildings. It is because of one of Paul's letters that says people were "partying" with food when they were supposed to be communing, and that they had homes to go eat in. This was ultimately taken to be advocating a complete separation of the act of worship and normal everyday eating, including where it took place.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Onceuponatime

[Lovedtodeath]

I look at providing a kitchen as a way to support our missionaries, pastors, and other ministries... If we as a congregation can make their ministry easier then by all means we should.

[Dobela]

I read the first few pages of your link. I did not find much historical accuracy in the descriptions of the early church. There are writings from this time period that show what the early church was like, and what they believed about things like infant baptism and the Eucharist. These writings were not deemed by the Church that gave us Scripture (eventually) to be Scripture, but they still paint a pretty clear picture of what the faith/practice/theology of the church in its earliest days was like.

 

Perhaps you'd return the favor and read mine? It's not as long, and is definitely easier on the eyes ;). You may disagree with it as much as I disagree with yours, I realize. That's fine. But I found I had to let go of my preconceived ideas (based on what I thought was "Scripture alone" but was really based upon my own study and interpretation of Scripture, or that of the groups I chose to align myself with) and just let the Church be what it is and has always been outside human interference. The church is the pillar and ground (foundation and "walls") of the Christian faith, so it's important to get it right.

 

May you be abundantly blessed on your journey. He is loving and merciful and faithful ~ I'm sure we can find agreement on that. :001_smile:

Sorry it is taking me so long to get back to some things. My dd had an MRI yesterday in another town which left us very tired and today is another busy day away from home. I do very much want to read the website you shared, but it may be tonight or tomorrow before I have the opportunity.

 

First, I do not see myself as an authority on all issues. Some things I have studied lots, others not so much. I currently attend a middle of the road church of Christ and have in the past attended a Non-institutional church of Christ. Second, do I believe there is error in the cofc? Yeah, and all because we are not perfect people. Do I believe that the cofc is worshipping correctly? Yes, for a number of reasons. Some easy to explain, some not. Mostly because we are looking at the Bible and the Bible alone for guidance. Could we still be doing some things wrong? Yes, because no one is perfect. I look at my own congregation and see some areas that I personally believe need to improve. Have I ever attended other churches? Yes, often. My family is a rich blend of cof c, Baptist, Catholic, Methodist so we have had some very interesting studies and discussions as well.

 

Second, I agree that the website above is poorly constructed. The first time I learned of it I spent a great deal of time being frustrated and confused. The man who created it, and did all of the research, is in the UK. All of his research is in the UK. He has just released the information in a book but I do not own it as of yet so I can't say if it is any better than the website or not. I certainly hope so. It is also the only place I know of where someone has attempted to show that people *have* worshipped with the same beliefs as the church of Christ for centuries. Only the name 'churchof Christ' is a new moniker - the way we worship is not.

 

I don't know how much error there is in that website about other churches or groups. The reason I gave it is becuase the author has taken time to read other church records and in those records has found evidence of people with the same beliefs as the current churches of Christ. Since the churches of Christ don't have a historical society, or a central governing body, and each group is autonomous and self governed, that is the only way to find evidence and historical record.

 

Milovany, I actually agree with your point here. That is the one thing that truly bothers me about the church of Christ. Most members are sorely lacking in Bible history, church history, and secular history of the first century, especially when it comes to early non-Biblical writings. In fact I would say these things are almost studiously avoided in favor of reliance on scripture alone. If they are addressed, it is from a particular point of view only. I think the internet is changing this, especially for the younger more inquisitive members. It will be interesting to see what the future holds.

 

I also agree with this.

[Aelwydd]

I also believe the Bible is the written and inspired Word of God. And that what is in the Bible is there because he wanted it to be there. I just don't believe that it contains everything necessary to be Christian or that he ever intended it to. I believe that we are to take both the written and the oral traditions together to make the complete gift that Jesus left us.

 

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. 2 Thess. 2:15 NAB

 

They were sharing letters. They were also sharing other documents that never made it into the New Testament as scripture. And while Paul was writing his letters, he was writing them to Christian communities who were living their lives in their faith as Christians without having the New Testament, as a whole, to reference. It did not come out of nowhere. He wrote to individual congregations as issues surfaced, and they then shared their letters with other Christian communities. But communication was not immediate.

 

Say it again, please. This is why I rejected sola scriptura a long time ago. Why should I believe that everything Christians ever needed to know was contained in letters to specific individuals in churches that were overwhelmingly illiterate?

 

What about the fact that Jesus had plenty of time and opportunity to write a book containing "All You Ever Need To Know About Christianity" and yet, instead, he invested all his teachings by physical action and oral teachings? The Apostle John elegantly pointed out the limitations of written word, when he stated that if all of Jesus' acts and sayings were written down, even the whole world could not contain all the books written. The implication is that the written word is not a complete testimony, and never could be.

 

Furthermore, John the Elder, expressed the preference for oral teachings over written word, when he said in his second epistle:

 

 

 

"Having many things to write unto you, I would not

write them

with paper and ink: but I hope to come unto you, and to speak face to face, that your joy may be made full. 1:13"

 

Paul wrote to the Corinthians in his second letter to them:

 

 

"Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from you? 2

You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our[

a

] hearts, to be known and read by all.

3 And you show that

you are a letter from Christ delivered by us,

written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.[

b

] 4 Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then, there is Paul's scathing remarks to the Galatians:

 

 

 

 

"You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you

heard?

"

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are tons and tons of similar references all throughout the New Testament. Quite simply, it makes no logical sense, nor does history support the idea, that the best way to propagate a new religion would be via a form of communication that may be comprehended and understood by less than 5% of the population--for at least 15 centuries. This is why there were icons and statues and art and music and oral tradition--to make the gospel accessible to the other 95%.

 

To me, insisting that faith should be sola scripture is about is based upon a gnostic Christianity. It means that only what's written, and therefore only comprehended by those capable of reading, is considered holy and part of Christ's message to the church. It reduces the entire faith experience to a mental exercise. It's why I think that sacraments are an important experience of faith. God did not make me a giant brain (many here can testify to this :glare:). He made me a whole person, with five senses to perceive him and the world he made.

 

So, a faith that incorporates:

 

1. sight (icons, religious art, statues, architecture of the church, holy vestments)

2. sound (music, instrumental and vocal; preaching; bells; chanting)

3. smell (incense, oil)

4. taste (bread and wine of communion)

5. touch (baptismal font, praying the rosary or the Jesus prayer with a prayer rope, touching icons/statues, touching the bread, or the wine cup)

 

is one that is complete to my whole person, as God made me, and not reduced to merely what my itty bitty, tiny brain can understand via translated written language, about God's immensity and Big Plan. Which is probably less than like 0.00001%.

 

That's why I don't see the difference between Protestantism and catholicism (little "c" because there are different catholic traditions, not just the RCC out there) is one of depth of experience.

 

I did the Reformed thing for a while, and it nearly made my head explode. (I read Calvin's "Systematic Theology," and Kenneth Gentry's thesis, "When Jerusalem Fell" among other works). Protestant tradition is great for progressive thinking, and for critical analysis. I appreciate it for that very much. But, I don't agree with limiting myself to only the scripture as a legitimate source for Christian belief or practice.

 

And in fact, one of the major criteria used by the bishops in about the 3rd century ad, in determining whether to accept a book into canon, was whether it agreed with teachings and practices already in place by the churches at the time. So, if a book went against that standard, it got chucked. This is why the whole "Does the Catholic Church follow the Bible," argument makes no sense to me. The biblical cannon was specifically compiled then for many reasons, but among them was it had to follow what the Church was taught as gospel.

 

And that's why this debate always makes me feel like I've entered the Twilight Zone. :001_huh:

[MamaSheep]

Try being LDS. :tongue_smilie:

 

Lol! Indeed. :lol:

[milovany]

Say it again, please. This is why I rejected sola scriptura a long time ago ...

 

You had me at "Say" :D. LOVED your entire reply about this topic, but didn't quote it all.

 

My husband and I read this, from CS Lewis, the other day:

 

“We may observe that the teaching of our Lord Himself in which there is no imperfection, is not given us in that cut-and-dried, fool-proof, systematic fashion we might have expected or desired. We have only reported sayings, most of them uttered in answer to questions, shaped in some degree by their context. And when we have collected them all we cannot reduce them to a system. He preaches but he does not lecture. He uses paradox, proverb, exaggeration, parable, irony; even (I mean no irreverence) the ‘wisecrack’. He utters maxims which, like popular proverbs, if rigorously taken, may seem to contradict one another. His teaching therefore cannot be grasped by the intellect alone, cannot be ‘got up’ as if it were a ‘subject’. If we try to do that with it, we shall find him the most elusive of teachers. He hardly ever gave a straight answer to a straight question. He will not be, in the way we want, ‘pinned down’. The attempt is (again, I mean no irreverence) like trying to bottle a sunbeam.” (From Reflections on the Psalms, ch. 11.)[/Quote]

Edited February 14, 2012 by milovaný

[mommaduck]

 

I did the Reformed thing for a while, and it nearly made my head explode. (I read Calvin's "Systematic Theology," and Kenneth Gentry's thesis, "When Jerusalem Fell" among other works). Protestant tradition is great for progressive thinking, and for critical analysis. I appreciate it for that very much. But, I don't agree with limiting myself to only the scripture as a legitimate source for Christian belief or practice.

 

:lol::lol::lol: That is how I felt by the time we were through and I finally took a step back from it all as my husband was heading into Orthodoxy!

[mommaduck]

You can have a church without the Bible, but you could not have gotten the Bible without the Church. Saying that all practices have to come from a group of documents not even completely in existence at the time seems a little short-sighted. Of course, we need the Bible. But it was compiled as a liturgical document, as the approved list of writings to be read aloud during liturgical celebrations. So to say that the people compiling it, who were having these celebrations before and during the compilation of it, were behaving somehow un-Biblically by not modeling themselves on it seems flawed to me.

:001_wub:

[Lovedtodeath]

But, what determining factor would be used to say who is worshiping God and who is not?

hermeneutics

 

One cannot interpret any verse contrary to its grammatical structure and its context. These two principles along with the harmony principle and several others will help all students of the Bible to stay on course.

 

We can test the written word for harmony and we can test teachers and spirits based on the written word.

 

Who is Jesus according to the written word? Do your teachers preach the same Jesus? Isaiah 43:10-11; 44:24; John 1:1; 8:58, chapter 14, 20:28,29; Revelation 22:13; Romans 10:9-13; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 1 Kings 18:24;

 

What is the gospel of Paul? Do your teachers preach that same gospel? 2 Corinthians 3:17; Galatians 3:3, 5:1-4; Romans 10:9-13

 

Is the Spirit from God? 1 John 4

 

For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of Christ.-- 2 Corinthians 11:3,4

 

I have been learning from the school of hard knocks. ;) I had someone trying to teach me to rely heavily on the Spirit and not listen to any man or denomination. Good, right? Well, then this person started trying to teach me things that are not scriptural. I have run across three people like this now. I was very upset at first, because I thought that they were Christians...

 

False spirits and false teachers abound. We are warned to be cautious.

 

Matthew 24:24; 2 Thessalonians 2:9; 1 John 2:27

 

Thank God for providing us with His written word.

 

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.Luke 16:17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

 

Matthew 16:18 I will build My church and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

Thanks to whomever posted these links! MMMWWWAAAAHHHHH!:001_wub:

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

 

http://www.antiochian.org/content/finding-new-testament-church