beliefs of the church of christ

Originally posted by KenH:
The instrumental music and missionary society controversies were the main catalysts for the split in the Restoration Movement. The split was made official in the Religious Census of 1906(if I remember the year correctly), which was the first time that the Church of Christ was listed separately.

Who split from whom would depend on one's perspective I would guess.

As far as my source, I have read quite a lot about church history in general and about the Church of Christ and about the Southern Baptist Church in particular.

Click to expand...

No, we were talking on the same thing. I know there is a difference. I think it is slight. I was doing some research on the Web. We have had two regular posters on the board that I have gone around and round in circles on a few doctrines, especially baptism. So I know what they believe. They were both from the COC, not the ICOC. But from the above quoted article which described the ICOC's practices, it seemed to indicate in its article that for the most part the COC's beliefs did not differ all that much. They really didn't differ to make all that much difference in whether or not to classify them a cult. Both believe that baptism is necessary to salvation. Both are very legalistic and controlling. Those are the main sticking points.
DHK

Originally posted by DHK:
1) Both believe that baptism is necessary to salvation.

2) Both are very legalistic and controlling.

Click to expand...

1) That belief does not define a cult. If you think so, then we will simply never agree on the defintion of a cult.

2) The Church of Christ on the street corner has a history of being legalistic but that is generally fading as the older members die off. I disagree with your controlling designation as that only applies to the International Church of Christ, which may have similar doctrines to the Church of Christ on the street corner but the ICOC has a different methodology toward its members. If you can't, or won't, see this difference between these two groups, then I really can't do anything for your understanding.

You may be right about the controlling issue. I know they are legalistic from the first post I posted. They have a discipleship program. How "controlling" that is I honestly don't know. That is where the difference might lie. The biggest issue that I have with any cult is the doctrine. I examine their doctrine. When a relgious group goes that far astray as to deny the efficacy of the blood of Christ that puts them in the realm of a cult, no matter what the other factors are.
DHK

Originally posted by DHK:
When a relgious group goes that far astray as to deny the efficacy of the blood of Christ that puts them in the realm of a cult, no matter what the other factors are.

Click to expand...

I disagree that that stance creates a cult.

All New Testement churches should be trying to make disciples of Christ Jesus.

I have enjoyed the discussion.

Just to throw my 2 cents into this current discussion. I would like to say that I would no more categorize the Church of Christ, as I know it, as a cult than I would any of the Missionary or Southern Baptists. Just because a group does not agree with our beliefs does not make them a cult, and it does not mean they aren't trying to worship God to the berst of their ability.

As you well know, most Baptists on this board have a big problem with Primitive Baptist beliefs, but we also have a big problem with many Baptist beliefs, they are on doctrinal grounds, yet we do not refer to each other as cult members. Why is COC any different?

"Generally, it is a group that is unorthodox, esoteric, and has a devotion to a person, object, or a set of new ideas."
www.carm.org

James,
The difference in doctrine lies in that baptismal regeneration affects the doctrine of salvation and takes away from the atoning work of Christ. It is a requirement that all COC members must believe in order to be saved.

In order to be defined as a Baptist we adhere to a set of Baptist distinctives. One of them is that we believe that our churches are made up of baptized regenerated members. The word regenerated is understood to mean those that are saved by grace through faith and not of works. They have been regenerated by an act of God once they have put their faith and trust in Christ.

Wherever our differences lie, I don't believe they lie in the area of soteriology, that is the way of salvation. Another Baptist distinctive is soul liberty--the right to believe the Bible as we see it to be true. There are areas where we can agree to disagree.
I believe Ken and I have come to that point in this discussion in our definition of cult. You and I may disagree in other points of doctrine, but would we disagree on the way of salvation? I don't think so. Is baptism the way of salvation, as the COC teaches? No. That is what makes them a cult.
DHK

You and I may disagree in other points of doctrine, but would we disagree on the way of salvation? I don't think so.

Click to expand...

Actually, we do disagree on this point. Primitive Baptists hold the belief that our belief is not what saves in the eternal sense.

We feel like if one is to put the condition on it that one must first believe in Christ before they are saved, then that is a condition, or work, in order to obtain salvation.

Most Baptists see salvation as something they have to ask Jesus for in order to get, but we believe it is something that is given to us and we can not refuse it.

I don't want to get into a big discussion about our different views on salvation, but this clearly demonstrates that we differ greatly on the ways and means of salvation.

Philippians 1

15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice , yea, and will rejoice.

I think Paul is telling us here that he rejoices in the fact that Christ is being preached, and while these people are not doing so with the full truth or knowledge thereof, they are preaching christ to the best of their understanding and that is what he is thankful for.

That is why, while I may disagree with your, and many others, theology, I rejoice in the fact that you are a believer of Jesus Christ and do worship and praise him to the best of your understanding. I thank Him that I am able to do so as well. That is really all any of us can do.

The CoC have a level of understanding that, while not as profound as yours and, by the grace of God, mine, they are worshipping Him according to that understanding He has given them and I rejoice in that.

God Bless. Bro. James

KenH, thank you for your defense of CoC's against the charge of being a cult. I don't think the accuser understands the connotation that word has in current usage in our society.

When you write, "The Church of Christ on the street corner has a history of being legalistic but that is generally fading as the older members die off", I think you are accurate. Frankly, if I encountered a congregation teaching the above list of thirty-something items as a new code of law, I would run just as fast in the opposite direction as you would! (And sadly, there still are too many congregations like that out there.)

But, there is quite a bit of diversity among us. We are independent congregations, so we are free to respond to the Word as our consciences dictate. (That, of course, is very unlike cults.)

We began as a unity movement seeking to unite the Christians among all the sects. We very much went astray from our origins as our list of "essential" beliefs grew. But I think we will see a growing segment of our denomination return to our roots, starting within our own ranks. For example, my congregation is on the verge of uniting with another CoC in our town, healing a 50 year breach. More significantly, I read recently of a union between a CoC and a Christian church in the Northwest.

I have no doubt that we will see unity efforts beyond our own ranks. For the first 100 years of our movement, the standard practice was to accept Baptists as members simply upon their expressed desire to join us. Baptists coming to us were not seen as being any less a Christian than we were. There were efforts, furthermore, to be united with Baptists. I'm sure eventually, as we return to our roots, that there will be again. (Watch out, DHK!)

God bless,

Bob

The CoC movement does not teach 'baptismal regeneration' in the original meaning of the word. They do not believe that a priests baptism has power to save apart from the faith of the baptized, as in the Roman Catholic church.

CoC adhearants believe in a baptism of faith. They believe in 'baptism for the remission of sins.' They interpret this to mean that sins are remitted through baptism. If we look at Ananias' baptism of Saul of Tarsus, we can see why they believe this. He told Paul to arise and be baptized, and calling on the name of the Lord, wash away his sins.

Repeatedly in Acts we see that the early Christians used baptism as a part of the evangelism process. Philip baptized the Ethiopian,etc.

I have a question concerning the church of christ and what they believe about a couple of topics. My mil was dating a man who belonged to the church of christ and they believed that b/c she was not in their denomination that she was going to hell. Also, they didn't use instruments in their worship service and claimed that it was b/c the Bible says to make melody in your heart to the Lord so they didn't need instruments, only sang Accapella (sp??) Anyway, this is NOT an attack on this denomination, I am seriously just trying to understand if this is a unviversal belief of the Church of Christ or if it was just this particular church.....

Thanks for any help.....

Click to expand...

Wow... You'd be surprised how far discussions go on the internet.. I'm a member of several other Christian forums and a person on one of them mentioned this thread over here at Baptist Board.

Let me fill you in on the churches of Christ...

You mentioned "and they believed that b/c she was not in their denomination that she was going to hell.", well thats the first thing CoC folks don't believe they are a denomination. They believe they are the one true Church and the only people who know the whole truth (for the most part)

Let me tell you my testimony...

I grew up in the church of Christ... my whole family is Coc, my ancestors are coc, everything about my life was coc.. I even went to a CoC university.

Well about a year after I got out of college my life was empty. While at home growing up in a rural community I was a pretty good kid... but after going to college and getting embroiled in all kinds of sin, I was questioning everything.

I met a woman who changed my life. She grew up in a Baptist/Pentecostal background... obviously this was a problem. I tried to get her to change and go to all "my churches". I was bothered by her acceptance of "instrumental music".. her not "taking the communion every Sunday"... her "being saved before she was baptized"... etc.,etc.,etc.

Well the day came when I had to go to her parents southern Baptist congregation. My life was changed. All the lies I had been told growing up were exposed. I saw that Baptists don't "worship with instruments just because they like a good show"... I saw that Baptists can preach the truth and the gospel (and with a Holy Spirit power that I'd hardly ever experienced). I saw that they were saved.. and they ACTED like it.

Anyway all this came from communication... love and a wilingness to accept differences in opinion (Romans 14 anyone?).

This is what the CoC doesn't have. DMK has posted so much about them... and I just want to tell DMK in Christian love... be easy on people.

Not all people in the CoC are alike. They have as many "flavors" as Baptists.

Some are more tied to the tradition, some are more tied to Christ.

We all have traditions and we must all sacrifice them for Christ. Think of folks like Rubel Shelly, or Max Lucado... they are CoC but they are nothing like folks like Ira Rice Jr. or Wayne Coats (who are also CoC).

The CoC problem is that for the most part they disbelieve in the Holy Spirit's power to change lives. It is taught as doctrine that spritual gifts are no longer present on Earth... They use 1 Cor 13:8 as their proof text. They believe for the most part that Instrumental Music is sinful in a "church building". They believe the Lord's supper must be taken every Sunday.

If anyone desires to know why I can happily tell them... not to bash my brethren (they are my brethren, and yours too... even though they don't believe they are) but to inform anyone who wants to know so they can try and lead people who are under the sway of these man-made doctrines to come to the freedom that is Christ.

Just remember, we all have traditions.. we must hold everyone individually accountable.

Link, I agree that a proper definition of terms is necessary for meaningful discussion of "baptismal regeneration". I, too, think of it in the way you described. I suspect that Marcia and DHK have something different in mind, however. Perhaps they will enlighten me. Whatever they believe it to be, they sure do believe that it is a heresy.

Greetings to all. My name is Bobby Valentine. I have read through this particular thread with a great deal of interest . . . especially the Moderator's summary of the beliefs of the Churches of Christ. I just had to respond, hopefully in a kind and Christlike manner, to this.

I am the Pulpit Minister for the Southside Church of Christ in Milwaukee. This congregation has about 300 wonderful souls that gather to worship our gracious Father, through the work of the Son and in the power of the Holy Spirit. You can visit our website at www.sside-church.org

It is impossible to respond quickly to, what I believe to be, some rather distorted and inaccurate caricatures of the Churches of Christ. The Churches of Christ are a diverse fellowship just like the Baptists, Methodists or even the Catholics. We do have some brethren that are quite sectarian and struggle with legalism. I would be quick to point out these maladies are not limited to Churches of Christ.

Churches of Christ understand themselves to be a non-denominational fellowship of Christians. We have no "headquarters." We have no synods, no governing boards. Every congregation is autonomous. Yet we have a "brotherhood."

The members of the Churches of Christ operate many colleges and universites. Pepperdine University (California) , Abilene Christian University (Texas), Harding University (Ark), Oklahoma Christian University, Faulkner University (Alabama), Lubbock Christian University (Texas) and dozens of other smaller colleges. Each of these Universities are nationally ranked among the best regional universities by US News & World Report and have been for some time.

The Churches of Christ have many great biblical scholars in some of the great colleges and schools in America (like Princeton, Notre Dame, and virtually every major school in America). Our scholar served on the New King James Version, the NIV and the NRSV translation committee's. Some our speakers are well known one example would be Max Lucado one of the best known devotional writers in the world. He is a graduate of Abilene Christian University and preaches for a Church of Christ in Texas.

Churches of Christ are not a cult and have never been. There was some confusion in this thread over the "International" Churches of Christ. That group did in fact break off of "us" and has rightly been seen as having cultic tendencies. But even in that group since its founder Kip McKean resigned there has been massive changes in that group.

A few doctrinal observations. I believe that a human being is not saved by works. Rather we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2.8).

Churches of Christ do place emphasis on baptism . . . largely because they believe other Christian groups have a tendency to gut this wonderful gift of God of any meaning at all. It is an absolute misrepresentation, however, to say that we believe or have ever believed "baptismal regeneration." You will frequently hear a minister say that baptism is "for the remission of sins" but is this not, I ask in all candor, quite biblical? (See Acts 2.38). But it is not true that any one in the Churches of Christ teaches that baptism is a meritorious work. I do not believe that Scripture ever calls baptism a human work. I do believe that God works in it however (Titus 3.3-8, esp. v.5). It is a response of faith . . . just as confession is. If one tells folks to do what Peter did on the day of Pentecost I fail to see how that is baptismal regeneration. The ground of salvation is the blood of Jesus and nothing else. If we are accused of baptismal regeneration then Martin Luther must be as well for he said the same thing . . . and his teaching on grace is beyond question.

It is possible that some place to LITTLE emphasis on baptism . . . and it is possible that we have made to MUCH of baptism. Reactions often are not very balanced. From my perspective baptism is quite important . . . but not because it is a work but because it is the moment that one unites himself with Christ and baptism is proof one is saved by grace through faith. On these two ideas I appeal to Romans 6, Colossians 2.9-12 and Galatians 3.26-29. There are other great passages on baptism like 1 Peter 3.20-22.

The Churches of Christ do take the Lord's Supper every Lord's Day. As for dress codes and the like for serving I know nothing about. It is not that way at our congregation. Various men take turn doing a devotional around the table and we break the bread. We do not check the credentials of any who take. . . it is between them and God. What we are doing is celebrating and remembering what Jesus asked us to do.

We have a kitchen in our building. . . and we try to be simply the people of God. We feed the poor in the inner city, we cloth the naked through free clothing give aways, we pay for medical attention, we support missions in India, Wisconsin, and other parts of the world. We send folks on mission trips to Japan, Mexico and the Netherlands. We hand out Bibles with every bag of groceries. These are good works.

For the moment I will need to go. But for those who truly want to investigate what many in Churches of Christ understand baptism I recommend purchasing a book by John Mark Hicks and Greg Taylor called "Down to the River to Pray: Revisioning Baptism as God's Transforming Work." This was published by Leafwood Press and can be ordered 1-877-634-6004

I personally think this last book is a marvelous presentation of what the Bible teaches about baptism. It is firmly rooted in the cross and God's grace. At the very least you will see first hand what most of us in Churches of Christ understand about baptism.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Pulpit Minister, Southside Church of Christ
Ut omnes unum sint (John 17.21, Vulgate, 'that they may all be one')
www.sside-church.org

Originally posted by MIZ83:
KenH, thank you for your defense of CoC's against the charge of being a cult.

Click to expand...

You are very welcome.

I appreciate everyone who has responded to this thread. To the CoC minister, the CoC that my mil's friend attended did believe that if you aren't baptized, that you aren't saved. Also, they believe that if you aren't a member of the CoC, you aren't saved. Is this how your congregation believes?? Also, are y'all against instrumental music as well??? If so, why?

I appreciate everyone who has responded to this thread. To the CoC minister, the CoC that my mil's friend attended did believe that if you aren't baptized, that you aren't saved. Also, they believe that if you aren't a member of the CoC, you aren't saved. Is this how your congregation believes?? Also, are y'all against instrumental music as well??? If so, why?

Click to expand...

Joyfulkeeperathome, I can answer this question for you... in the CoC we were all considered "ministers of the gospel" (however we rarely preached the gospel, at least in the congregation I grew up in)

Most CoC groups believe that if you aren't baptized then you aren't saved. This comes from a collection of verses (usually taken out of context). Especially Mark 16:15-16... but what is unusual is that they don't even noticed those who aren't baptized aren't condemned by the words of Mark 16:15-16. It verifies that those who believe AND are [/i]baptized[/i] will be saved. Without a doubt that is true. However they forget this verse requires two things to work.

In the CoC there is a huge over-emphasis on baptism and sometimes faith, confession, repentance, and the Holy Spirit are left in the dust.

The CoC has a very out-of-context tradition oriented view of the bible. The CoC has a huge amount of doctrine tied to out of context verses... its hard to convey this to you in a couple of paragraphs. People in the CoC are raised in this doctrine from birth... and it builds on them in levels and levels. (and remember, I know because I grew up in one of the most legalist congregations there was).

My idea of baptism has changed significantly. I simply believe that Christ did it so we need too. We don't have to know the exact reason why.. just that Christ participated and it was good. We should do all things Christ does. If someone doesn't have an understanding that leads them to baptism, are they unsaved? Well I guess the question is will God condemn people for what they don't know. Another question is, if someone is earnestly seeking will God leave them out in the cold? The question to both is no. We need to realize that baptism like everything else has a lot of room for opinion, and just because someone has a different view of it doesn't mean they can't be brothers/sisters in Christ...

-------------------

As far as being a "member of the CoC". In a way many CoC's beleive they have the only true doctrine. So in effect they believe that if you aren't a member you aren't saved. Not because "if you're not a member you're not saved" but because they believe the CoC is the only organization on Earth that has the right doctrine... so if you aren't part of it you are in "error" and a false teacher so you aren't saved. (pretty legalistic huh?) - Remember that is the most extreme view, and many don't hold to this sick twisted tradition.

-----------------------

As far as instrumental music... most of what CoC's belive on this is based on a concept. "There is no authority in the bible for instruments". This is based on two verses... Colossians 3:16, and Ephesians 5:19... notice CoC folks rarely talk about Colossians 3:17. Truthfully this viewpoint is not based on the bible but on tradition. I've ran it through my mind a hundred times. If we have to have authority for everything we do then we can't have million-dollar buildings for worship (they aren't in the bible), we can't have powerpoint, we can't have microphones, we can't have a pulpit, we can't have an invitation.. we can't have an altar call.... you get the idea. Also the CoC has an extremely hypocritical position on this matter. They say if you don't do whats in the bible than its sin. Well hardly any of the congregations that judge fellow Christian's on instrumental music wash feet, annoint with oil, lift holy hands, lay on hands, or greet with a holy kiss.... all these are in the bible and could be considered "commandments" yet they don't do them.

remember if we judge on bits and pieces of the bible, Jesus will judge us based on how we judge. Now that is a scary thought....

Once again I have to provide my disclaimer. I grew up in an extremely legalist congregation, but even then not everyone was that extreme. Not all CoCs are alike... what I am sharing with you is the generally accepted doctrine of 1920s-1970s thinking Churches of Christ. Many have left these restrictive Spirit-denying doctrines and are moving away from these self-imposed laws.

I pray all of us whether Baptist, Methodists, Independant Christian, Coc, etc.,etc.,etc... realize we all have some traditions that some of us hold binding and just realize we are to follow Christ first and never bow to tradition before we bow to him.

Thanks so much for taking the time to write that out for me!! It helps me to understand better...

Greetings from the land of Packers, Bucks and Cheese. I thought I would check back in and see how my post was taken . . . and it looks like it went over as I intended.

Joyfulkeeperathome . . . be proud. My wife and I homeschool our daughters and there is nothing more important than that. Let me see if I can addres your comments in more detail. I am willing to say that baptism is part of the faith response a sinner makes to become a Christian. I will say that baptism is for the remission of sins (as scripture declares) but baptism is not alone . . . it is a manifestation of faith.

That does not mean I believe, or that most in Churches of Christ believe a person must be baptized by a "Church of Christ" preacher (I reject the term first of all . . . just a servant of the Lord like all). Rather any baptized person is a Christian.

Unfortunately some in Churches of Christ do think that unless on is a member of a "Church of Christ" they will not go to heaven. But this is an aberration of who we are. And that has not been our historical stance. The Churches of Christ, along with the Disciples of Christ, have their roots in a movement called The American Restoration Movement. The rallying cry of that movement was unity. At Southside we state openly the historic "slogan" that finds its roots in that movement: "We are Christians Only, but we are not the Only Christians." That is a far cry from saying "We are the ONLY Christians."

No we want to be nondenominational and undenominational. I do not want to be any "kind" of Christian . . . just what ever Paul and Peter were. Christians . . . not a name brand.

Unfortunately at our worst we have perverted that wonderous vision. This is a result of our fallen world and Satan is the enemy of unity.

Let me address further some concerns or questions about baptism. Baptism is not a work of human righteousness . . . thus I will disagree with our illustrious Moderator. It is never called such in Scripture. I do believe God works in baptism. I believe he is present. I believe the Holy Spirit cleanses us. It is a moment of incredible grace. But it is not magic. God is present because there is faith manifested in the Crucified One. This is a far cry from baptismal regeneration as it is defined in any standard theological work.

Some have over reacted to baptism perhaps out of fear of legalism or Roman Catholicism or . . . Some make baptism practically meaningless (which WOULD make it legalism at that point). But this view of baptism is historically fairly new (since the mid 19th century). But baptism is prominent in Scripture. But we can miss it. I know I did for a long time. Yet I have read through the NT many times and have come to the conclusion that it knows of no unbaptized Christian. This conclusion by the way has also been reached by scholars from every denomination; Roman Catholic to Baptist. Here are a few passages to look up:

Matthew 28.18-19
Mark 16.15-16
John 3.5 (some will say this is not describing baptism but the Church Fathers thougth so as did Martin Luther and John Calvin)

Acts 2.14-41 (beautiful passage on Pentecost, not, v.38 & 41 . . . but read it all)
Acts 8.12
Acts 8.26-40 . . . the African Treasurer
Acts 9.17-19 . . . Luke' account of Paul's conversion
Acts 16.15
Acts 16.31-34
Acts 18.7-8
Acts 22.12-16 . . . Paul's testimony, note v.16

Roman 6.1-14
Galatians 3.26-29
Ephesians 4.4-6
Colossians 2.9-12
Titus 3.5
1 Peter 3.21

These are not all of the passages in the NT that discuss baptism but even this sampling is impressive in my mind. In many of the above passages the Spirit guided writers associate baptism with: repentance, faith, forgiveness, union with Christ, circumcision of the heart, the gift of the Holy Spirit, etc. The apostles were not afraid to use this language, nor did they believe in "baptismal regeneration." But they did talk a lot about baptism. Baptism is a bath of grace . . . when the Spirit is present. When he is not one simply gets wet.

But baptism is not the gospel, 1 Cor. 1.17. This passage has often been greatly abused and ripped out of context. Paul is not belittling baptism rather he is checking the sectarian tendency at Corinth . . . I think Romans 6 reveals Paul's deep respect for baptism as much as anything. Baptism at its basic function proclaims the Gospel of grace.

I do still recommend John Mark Hicks and Greg Taylor's book "Down to the River to Pray" as an outstanding book on baptism . . . regardless of one's theological orientation. It can be ordered for around 15 dollars from Leafwood Press at (toll free) 1-877-634-6004.

A quick comment on instrumental music. Southside, as practically all Churches of Christ, sings "a cappella." Certainly we are not the only fellowship to do so. The Greek Orthodox Church along with many other historic fellowships do not use instruments. In fact historically even the Baptists did not use them until the middle of the 19th century. Churches of Christ have preserved the tradition of the early church here. I personally do not view this as a fellowship issue and certainly not a salvation issue. But this is a strongly held point of view among many of my brethren. They feel this is without biblical authority. This is but an application of the historic hermeneutic that goes back to Zwingli and Calvin. It is called the Regulative Principle. "What is not authorized by scripture is forbidden." This is the principle no matter how hard it is to be consistent in its application. This music thing is a beautiful tradition. For those who have never sung a cappella and they come to Southside . . . they are usually awestruck. But again I do not think we can make this into a legalistic requirement.

Let me know how your reading comes out. I will look forward to hearing from you.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Milwaukee, WI
Ut omnes unum sint (John 17.21, Vulgate, 'that they may all be one')
www.sside-church.org

For those who would like to see some primary sources on the history of Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ in the American Restoration Movement I offer the following source.

Hans Rollmann is a professor of religion at a Canadaian university in Newfoundland. The site is very large with a wide variety of information.

The big Four in those early days were Barton Stone, Thomas and Alexander Campbell and Walter Scott. Most of their writings can be accessed on this site. Other important names, for the branch that became the Churches of Christ, would be David Lipscomb, James A. Harding, K.C. Moser and a few others.

Hans Rollmann's Restoration Movement Website
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/

I offer this resource because there is some serious misinformation (or confusion) that has been presented.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Southside Church of Christ
Milwaukee, WI
Ut omnes unum sint (John 17.21)
www.sside-church.org

joyfulkeeperathome:

I cannot speak for all churches of Christ. However, as a preacher of the gospel, I would like to address the opening of this thread.
The church of Christ is not a denomination. It belongs to Jesus. Mat. 16:18. The rule of Christianity is the New Testament of Christ. Mat. 28:18-20. If one esposues New Testament Christianity he does not divide his loyalty by using the bible and various creeds or articles of faith as set forth by uninspired men. Jesus opposes such divisions. Mat. 15:14, I Cor. 1:10, Phil. 3:17, II Thes. 2:15, Col. 3:17.

I accept the bible as the standard for all that is taught and practiced, no more, no less. Mat. 28:18-20. This is not true of all thoes who are in " contemporary Christendom."

The New Testament of Christ also teaches salvation is IN the church, not outside of it. II Tim. 2:10, I Cor. 15:24, Rev.21:1-3. The saved are the church. Acts 2:47. One poster claimed on emust jointhechurch to be saved. This statement is one without biblical foundation. No one joins the church. Men are added by God ss they are saved. Acts 2:47 says , "praising God and having favor with all the people and the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." Be careful to whom you listen. The church grows as men are saved. Therefore, the church and the saved are the same. I Tim. 3:15, Eph. 2:20,21.

Faithful members of the church sing unaccompanied by instruments because the standard of the bible requires it to be practiced in this manner by specific command. Col. 3:17,Eph. 5:19, Hebs. 2;12, Acts 16:25,26, I Cor.14:15, Romans 15:9, Mat. 26:30. The practice of using mechanical instruments is a prohibited by the lack of authority to do so. I Cor. 4:6. Leviticus 10:1-5, Col. 3:17.

Furthermore, mechanical instruments were not used in worship for some 500 years. It was a practice started by an uninspired man. The church of the new testament did not use them because there is no authority to do so.

It is quite ironic that the members of various denominations use instruments in direct conflict and violation of the very men who founded such bodies. Consider the following:

CLARKE "I am an old man, and I here declare that I never knew them to be productive of any good in the worship of God, and have reason to believe that they are productive of much evil. Music as a science I esteem and admire, but instrumental music in the house of God I abominate and abhor. This is the abuse of music, and I here register my protest against all such corruption of the worship of the author of Christianity.

'I have no objections to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither heard nor seen.' I say the same." (Adam Clark, Methodist)

CALVIN "Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists therefore, have foolishly borrowed, this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostles is far more pleasing to him. Paul allows us to bless God in the public assembly of the saints, only in a known tongue (I Cor. 14:16) What shall we then say of chanting, which fills the ears with nothing but an empty sound?" (John Calvin, Commentary on Psalms 33
AUGUSTINE "musical instruments were not used. The pipe, tabret, and harp here associate so intimately with the sensual heathen cults, as well as with the wild revelries and shameless performances of the degenerate theater and circus, it is easy to understand the prejudices against their use in the worship." (Augustine 354 A.D., describing the singing at Alexandria under Athanasius)
ROBERTSON "The word (psalleto) originally meant to play on a stringed instrument (Sir. 9:4), but it comes to be used also for singing with the voice and heart (Eph. 5:19; 1 Cor. 14:15), making melody with the heart also to the Lord" (A. T. Robertson, Baptist Greek scholar, Baptist Studies in the Nestle James, comment on James 5:13)

We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it." (Spurgeon preached to 20,000 people every Sunday for 20 years in the Metropolitan Baptist Tabernacle and never were mechanical instruments of music used in his services. When asked why, he quoted 1st Corinthians 14:15. "I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also; I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also." He then declared: "I would as soon pray to God with machinery as to sing to God with machinery." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Baptist)
BARNES "Psallo … is used, in the New Testament, only in Rom. 15:9 and 1 Cor. 14:15, where it is translated sing; in James 5:13, where it is rendered sing psalms, and in the place before us. The idea here is that of singing in the heart, or praising God from the heart" (Albert Barnes, a Presbyterian, Notes on The Testament, comment on Eph. 5:19).
KNOX "a kist (chest) of whistles." (John Knox, Presbyterian, in reference to the organ)
WESLEY 'I have no objection to instruments of music in our worship, provided they are neither seen nor heard." (John Wesley, founder of Methodism, quoted in Adam Clarke's Commentary, Vol. 4, p. 685) LUTHER "The organ in the worship Is the insignia of Baal… The Roman Catholic borrowed it from the Jews." (Martin Luther, Mcclintock & Strong's Encyclopedia Volume VI, page 762).

Furthermore, for the most part, many who have responded to your sincere questions or concerns, obviously have not actually discussed in a studious manner with a faithful member of the church. The list published in the opening page of this thread is innane. It is an attempt to somehow discredit, deceive, or make light of Christian people who understand biblical authority and are making every attempt to submit humbly to all God asks of them. This board has many members who know very little about biblical authority. So, I would do some studying on my own about the issues you have raised. Then, sit down and discuss your questions and concerns with someone who is a member of the church and espouses new testament Christianity.

I have been married to a wonderful women for some 20 plus years. She has been a Mormon and a Baptist in her past life. I can say she has been a joy and great help to me all of the days we have been man and wife. It is not always easy, but it has worked for us with the help of the Almighty.

I suggest you pray for the faith of the both of them. Ask God to guide them and give you peace of mind. Phil. 4: 6,7.

I have two children who are dating age. I pray for their wisdom in selecting their lifetime mate. I trust God to help me and them in this matter.

I appreciate your interest, and should questions remain, I will be happy to help.

Sincerely,
Frank

Cliffyman:

Mark 16:16 does teach one is to be baptized to be saved. The grammatical construct, contents, and context so proclaim.

The idea that Christ would have said he that believeth not and is baptized not shall be damned is REDUNDANCY. It makes Christ an illiterate void of understanding language.

Christ did not say a lot of things in this passage. He did not say one had to repent to be saved. Do you exclude it? He did not ssy one had to confess? Do you exclude it? He did not say one had to be washed in his blood . Do you exclude it? Jesus did not say one must call on him to be saved. Do you exclude it? The Bible uses a literary vehicle called Synecdoche to convey conditions for salvation on numerous occasions. Synecdoche is used as the whole for it's parts, and the parts for the whole.

Furthremore, the context is salvation. The Christ so states in the first clause of passage," He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."

The purpose of baptism is stated in the new testament of Christ. Peter says in I Pet. 3:21 baptism saves us. Acts 22:16 says it washes away our sins. Gal. 3:26,27. says it makes us a child of God. We put on Christ in baptism. Gal. 3:26,27. Baptism puts us into the death burial and resurrection of Christ and gives us a new life. Romans 6:3-6. Baptism demonstrates our trust or faith in God's operation to save. Col. 2;12.

Furthermore, one must be doing things legally or he sins. I John 3:4, Gal. 6:1,2. What law can you reject and not sin? I John 5:17. The real sickness is sin, and those who espouse no standard by whch they must live are terminally ill.II John 9-11,I John 5:17.
Which biblical law can one ignore and not sin, and not be lost?