beliefs of the church of christ

Bob

DHK wrote earlier…

However when one makes baptism so important as to take the place of, or take away from the atoning work of Christ on the cross, then it is heresy. It is blasphemous. Christ's shed blood was all sufficient. He made the sacrifice that paid the penalty for our sins. To say that baptism paid part of that price (as the COC teaches) is absolute heresy. That is what makes it a cult.

I have never heard a single time, in my decades attending CoC’s, that baptism pays any portion of the price for our sins. If any among us have asserted that, I agree that they are heretics. But, again, I’ve never heard that taught, even by those of a more legalistic bent. Charity requires that I assume you are simply misinformed in saying “as the COC teaches”.

I teach that our works, when compared to God’s righteousness as expressed in His laws, condemn us. “All sin and fall short of the glory of God.” There is nothing we can do to change that. I deserve hell. If I killed someone, it wouldn’t do much good to plead before the judge that, “Hey, I’ve been pretty good other than losing my temper that one time! And I promise I’ll be extra good in the future.” No, justice demands the penalty be paid. “No human being will be justified in His sight by deeds prescribed by the law.” Good behavior doesn’t pay for bad behavior. Keeping the law of God cannot save us; that is merely what we ought to have done. Rather, the law shows us each to be helpless sinners. Our only hope is that God has provided a substitute.

I furthermore teach that obedience to the command to be baptized is not meritorious. Obedience to the command to repent is not meritorious. Obedience to the command to believe the gospel is not meritorious. These merely are avenues given by God to renounce as worthless our past and to identify our life with our substitute, the One who died for our sins, was buried, and was raised for our justification. The life and death of Jesus are what has merit. My faith is in what He did. The blood of Jesus will be my plea in the judgment. I’ve earned death, but God has given me eternal life in His Son.

As to baptism in particular, far from being a work to show our own righteousness, it declares that our old man is unrighteous and needs to be buried and left behind and that we are placing our faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for our righteousness. Just as confession is a verbal expression of faith, so is baptism a visible expression of faith, a reenactment of His death, burial, and resurrection. Both are actions, but neither is an attempt to be justified by works of law. Neither is an attempt to measure up to God’s standard. Rather, in both we profess Christ…who He is and what He did.

DHK, however, would have one believe that baptism is a command to be obeyed, pure and simple.

Baptism has nothing to do with faith. It is purely an act of obedience to a command of Christ done by man. Man does the baptizing. Man receives the baptizing. It is an act of man.

And in another thread he writes:

Baptism is a work done by man, not by God. It is not part of salvation; it a work of obedience done after salvation.

In contrast, Paul wrote:

Col 2:11 And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

In baptism, Paul says we are buried and raised up with Christ “through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” It sounds to me like baptism has very much to do with faith. It, furthermore, sounds like God is working in baptism. In it we trust that God will raise us up from the dead together with Christ.

Is baptism done after salvation? Paul, in verse 11 and 12, associates baptism with a spiritual circumcision made by Christ. Verse 13, then, makes it quite clear what our condition was before this circumcision. “And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh….” It sounds like before this circumcision we were dead…dead in our transgressions. But praise God that from baptism you were “raised up with Him through faith in the working of God” and praise God that “He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions.”

Now, here are some disclaimers. I am not going to put God in a box and say that He can’t save apart from baptism. He can do what He wants. Jesus simply pronounced the sins of some men forgiven during His ministry, so I assume that He still can do that today. I do not consider infant baptism to be baptism at all. But if one believes that he is baptized and is living a life manifesting the work of the Spirit of God in their lives, who am I to judge another’s servant? But I would recommend believer’s baptism to them, nonetheless.

I would never dream of questioning the salvation of someone who slipped going into the baptistery, hit their head, and died, as someone mentioned earlier. But pleading extreme situations as an excuse seems silly to me when one has it within their power to do what God has said.

Finally, I do not claim to know that the promises associated with baptism are only granted to those with a full understanding of what they are doing. Peter taught his audience that each of them should repent and “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”. I could not in good conscience teach anything else about baptism. But I also cannot assume that God rejects those who have put their faith in Jesus and in obedience been baptized into His name, even though believing their sins are already forgiven. Jesus will judge the faithfulness of His servants. I will leave that to Him.

So I hope to see all of you in heaven. I must teach what I believe, but I believe that I should be careful how I judge.

May our holy God bless each of you in the knowledge of Him,

Bob

 

The Campbells began preaching in America in 1811. There are and were at least two congregations of the church of Christ meeting in 1807 and 09. They are and were located in Celina Tenn. and Northport Al. It is most difficult to found a body that is already in existence. The origin date of the church was A.D. 30. See Acts 2.

 

No it does not make it redundant. One could say since Christ said "he that believeth not" would make it redundant. The verse says what it says.

It says those who believe and are baptized are saved...

It says those who don't believe are damned.... it says nothing more or less than that.

Obviously as long as a person follows Christ, Christ will lead them. There are many people who have an imperfect understanding of the whole of following Christ (you, I and every Christian included).

This verse tells me that as long as you don't have faith you are damned... however if you haven't been baptized yet, you are not necessarily damned. Would are savior not lead us to what we need to know if we put faith in him? You and I both know the answer to that question... (Luke 11:10).

This verse shows us that baptism without belief is a worthless ritual. This verse shows us that those who don't believe have no hope whatsoever, and it also shows us those who have faith and baptism are saved.

 

Clifty:
I have eight language teachers in my school who disagree. They have master's to doctorate level degrees in language.
One who eats his food and digests it shall be healthy but the one who does not eat shall be unhealthy. It is obvious the clause and does not digest his food shall not be healthy would be redundant. This is basic grammar.

 

The key word there is avenues isn't it? These (repentance and baptism included) are avenues to salvation. That is where the heresy comes in. We know that repentance is essential to salvation. We also know that baptism is not.

Your first statement is wrong. If baptism is not a work; then by default it is meritorious (which you claim it is not). Thus it does take away from the atoning work of Christ. You can't have it both ways.
Baptism does not declare anything. It gets you wet. You are the one that declares your identification with Christ--your death to your old life, and your newness to a new life in Christ. It is not baptism. Baptism is symbolic. Baptism does nothing. It is simply water. If you believe that the waters of baptism do anything for you, you beiieve in a superstition--that the water has some magical power. It doesn't. You also believe that the shed blood of Christ was not enough to pay for our sins, but that you had to be baptized to help him finish the work. Baptism in every case took place after salvation, not during or as a process of salvation.

[QUOTE}In baptism, Paul says we are buried and raised up with Christ “through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” It sounds to me like baptism has very much to do with faith. It, furthermore, sounds like God is working in baptism. In it we trust that God will raise us up from the dead together with Christ.[/QUOTE]
Yes, if we trust in God, He will raise us up from the dead together with Christ. Not if we are baptized, but if we trust in God. There is a big difference. Baptism has to do with obedience, not faith. Only in the respect that we obey through faith, that it has anything to do with faith. Abraham through faith obeyed God. But Abraham was already saved when he did that. We walk by faith. Our entire Christian life is a walf of faith. Baptism has nothing to do with "saving faith."

If you are trusting in your baptism for God to raise you from the dead, you will end up in Hell. Sorry to be so blunt, but that is the truth. Baptism is a work. Salvation is not of works.

Your confused here:
12 "having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."
--We are buried with him in baptism. It is a picture--purely symbolic.
--We are raised with Him in baptism. The Bible does not contradict itself. This is explained in Romans 6:3,4. It is purely symbolic.
--God raised who from the dead? He raised Christ from the dead? In baptism the only way that we are raised from the dead is in a picture, symbolically. Water simply gets you wet. If you believe that water has magical powers you are sadly deluded.

Recognize the symbolism, the picture of baptism. Water can't do anything for you. Compare Scripture with Scripture. It is so clear in Romans 6:3,4.
Our condition before salvation which pre-baptism pictures is our unsaved ungodly life. When we go under the water in baptism, that life is put to death (symbolically). It is "cut off" (the meaning of circumcision). Beforehand we were dead in trespasses and sins (Eph.2:1), but now we are alive in Christ. This is pictured symbolically in baptism. Baptism itself just gets you wet. It is not meritorious, as you yourself say. If it was it would take away from the sufficiency of Christ. It cannot be part of the process of salvation. It is an act of obedience after salvation.

I am glad for your disclaimers. There are some (COCers) that are much more quick to judge. I was saved, and then not baptized for two years later. According to them I would have gone to Hell during that two year period. That belief is heresy. There have been posters here who have been saved, and have not taken the step of baptism, for one reason or another, and are still judged to be unsaved by the same people of your denomination. Do you think that is fair of them?
DHK

 

Lord willing, I will give you more of a response later. For now, I will simply point out the delicious irony of our brief exchange. On a thread accusing the COC en masse of being legalistic people who think we are the only ones saved because we are the only ones who baptize “for the remission of sins”, I have acknowledged that God may accept those who do not have a perfect understanding of baptism, yet you have branded me a heretic and thus condemned me because my understanding of baptism is defective by your way of thinking. Hmmm…

DHK wrote: I am glad for your disclaimers. There are some (COCers) that are much more quick to judge.

Yes, some people are quick to judge.

More later,

Heretic Bob

 

DHK,

Sorry to take so long to respond. Life has been very hectic lately.

I don’t believe in magical waters, so please drop that fruitless line of argumentation.

You say that I “believe that the shed blood of Christ was not enough to pay for our sins”. I do not believe that. You should not say that I do. If you believe that is the implication of my belief, then argue your case, but don’t ascribe beliefs to me that I have not expressed. I stated in my post clearly, The life and death of Jesus are what has merit. My faith is in what He did. The blood of Jesus will be my plea in the judgment. I’ve earned death, but God has given me eternal life in His Son.” In no way do I believe that baptism earns salvation for me. I am condemned by God’s law and deserving of death. Doing something good cannot pay for my wrongs. “No human being will be justified in His sight by deeds prescribed by the law.” I was not trying to work my way to God when I was baptized.

The question is whether or not God works in baptism. I agreed with one thing in your post. Baptism is symbolic. The question is whether or not God works through the symbol.

Col 2:12… having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. [/I]

Yes, we are raised up with Jesus through faith, according to this passage; but you left out the “in which” part. It is faith in connection with baptism. That is explicitly stated. In baptism we trust in the working of God to raise us up with Jesus, on the basis of His death on the cross. In baptism we give visible expression to our faith. As we are buried under the water and raised from it, we identify ourselves with Him who died for our sins, was buried, and raised for our justification.

Oddly enough, from what you wrote, it appears that you think that baptism is symbolic, yet being baptized expresses no faith in the content of the symbol:

Baptism does not declare anything. It gets you wet. You are the one that declares your identification with Christ--your death to your old life, and your newness to a new life in Christ. It is not baptism. Baptism is symbolic. Baptism does nothing.

And previously:

Baptism has nothing to do with faith. It is purely an act of obedience to a command of Christ done by man.

So one is baptized merely to obey, moved to obey out of faith, but with no faith expressed during participation in the symbol. It declares nothing. It is a ritual done out of obedience.

I think, DHK, that you are out of step with your denomination. My understanding is that Baptists typically receive Jesus through a sinner’s prayer, then later are baptized as a public testimony to what happened. In that case, it very much is a declaration of one’s faith, although they believe that it follows conversion rather than culminates conversion. Perhaps, in your zeal to deny any credibility to anything the heretic is saying, you have not been true to your own tradition?

Enough for now.

A heretic for Christ,

Bob

 

(My answers in bold)

The Rules & Pattern of the Church of Christ

Of course the following is written in the form of “shall” and “shalt not”, evoking images of the Law of Moses. I freely admit that some churches of Christ are legalistic; but many are not. Some of these items are common practice, but even legalistic congregations do not bind all of them as law, unlike what the language the author used implies. Other items listed are practices of one segment of our movement, but not others. On some items our practice varies from congregation to congregation, and even from individual to individual. In other words, while this list contains kernels of truth, and may even be largely true of some parts of our movement, it is a distortion to imply that it is true of us as a whole and to imply that we all adhere to these beliefs as a legalistic set of rules.

1 It must be noted immediately that this list is not to be construed as a written creed. No statement of beliefs or rules outside the Bible itself is permitted. However, it will be permitted that such lists of beliefs or rules shall be allowed if written in a church bulletin or other published material provided that such is clearly designated as not being a written creed. This list is here shared merely as a convenience and with the understanding that there is really no need for such since all these rules are to be found in a clear and unmistakable form scattered throughout the pages of the collected books of the New Testament. It is also to be believed that anyone who truly loves God and the truth will easily find these exact rules and consequently obey.

Creeds were eschewed by our forefathers in churches of Christ because they were believed to divide Christians of various denominations from one another. Creeds typically became tests of orthodoxy. Fellowship with other Christians was denied based upon acceptance or rejection of this or that statement of faith. Of course, one could easily argue that there are benefits to creeds, also. And I gladly affirm the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. By and large, however, I am glad that I am not bound by the interpretations of whomever occupied the greatest position of power and influence historically within my denomination. I do feel compelled to admit that the absence of written creeds does not preclude similar enforcement of unwritten creeds. At least unwritten creeds, however, are not as apt to be widely enforced nor to be historically static.

2 By Scriptural definition (and for the purpose of applying these rules), a Christian is one who has done the following five acts of salvation (and in this order): hear, believe, repent, confess (a “Yes” response to the question “Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God?” shall be construed as a valid confession), and be baptized. Of the several purposes and benefits of baptism, one must know that baptism is “for the remission of sins” in order for God to consider it a valid baptism.

When I baptize someone, I tell them beforehand that I am going to ask them who Jesus is. Then upon their profession of faith, I baptize them into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But would you reject someone’s confession who had answered “Yes” to the question? As to the order, some of those logically precede others. I wouldn’t consider “hearing” an “act of salvation”. Faith, however, does come from hearing the word of Christ, according to Paul. Baptism is for believers, I think most on this board would agree. I believe that baptism into Christ, based upon Romans 6, is a baptism of repentance, just like John’s baptism was. Faith obviously precedes confession, otherwise confession would be meaningless. Other than that, I’ll let others argue the order. Must one know that baptism is for the remission of sins in order for it to be valid? I teach that it is for the remission of sins, and I could not teach anything else. But I am content to let God judge those who were baptized into Jesus to submit to His Lordship believing that they were already saved. I am not willing to assume that the blessing is contingent upon a full understanding of baptism.

3 A person who has completed the above five acts of salvation, but who comes to doubt the validity of their baptism (perhaps later thinking that he/she did not fully understand the primary purpose), shall be baptized again. One of the following scenarios must be adopted: 1) that the entire previous life of the person in question shall be considered as one outside of Christ and separated from God, thus only now becoming a new child of God; or, 2) that the person in question is being rebaptized “just in case”. In this instance, it shall be assumed that the person is doing so with the knowledge that baptism is generally “for the remission of sins”, even though he/she has may not be sure if such cleansing is really needed. Regardless, any rebaptism shall be preceded with the standard ritual of confession (one’s previous life as an apparent believing Christian shall not suffice as meeting this requirement).

First, to characterize confession of Christ as a “ritual” seems disrespectful to me of something Jesus encouraged. I wish that I had the boldness to confess Jesus every day before men. As to rebaptism, in some cases I mildly discourage it. But if someone questions whether they have obeyed God from the heart, who am I to stand in their way? I recently baptized a woman who had been baptized as an infant in the Catholic Church. She said she didn’t know what she was doing, so it was meaningless. Some who were children when they were baptized say the same thing…that they didn’t know what they were doing. Ultimately, I let an individual decide for themselves. Who am I to judge?

4 The Bible shall be considered as the standard of authority for every spiritual matter. It shall be interpreted using the approved method of “command, example, and necessary inference”. Silence of the Scriptures on any matter is to be construed as a forbiddance of such. However, this rule shall not be applied to matters considered to be helpful in obeying any other commands (such as church buildings and their necessary furnishings, etc.).

I believe that the Bible is normative for our faith and practice, even today. I do not interpret it looking to establish authority through “command, example, and necessary inference”. I try to understand each passage within its context, also taking into account the literary genre. The goal is to know God, to understand His mighty acts on our behalf, to know what pleases Him, to grasp the wisdom that comes from Him, and to discern and embrace the traditions He has handed down to us for our good.

5 Congregations shall name themselves according to the following guidelines: 1) the name shall be one that is found in Scripture and has within it the name of God or Christ (it shall be permitted that Paul’s use of the term “churches of Christ” in referring to various congregations may be used as a formal name and amended to “Church of Christ”); and, 2) the name may be preceded with a location description, that being the location of the church building, not necessarily the location of the church itself.

At one congregation where I ministered, we simply put out a sign that said, “Christians meet here to worship our Lord and encourage one another.” I do believe in scriptural designations for the church. That would include “The Way”. That would include “The church of the firstborn”, firstborn being plural in the Greek, referring to Christians. I prefer scriptural names because they are not in and of themselves divisive. I disagree with the insistence upon “church of Christ”, however, as the only designation for the church of our Lord.

6 All those congregations who use the same generic name (excluding the location part of the name) and uniformly subscribe to these rules shall be considered as “the brotherhood”; no other Christian (one who has believed and been baptized but does not subscribe to one or more of these rules) shall be considered as being a part of “the brotherhood”.

I do not believe this.

7 Individual members of the church may be called by several different names that are found in Scripture (“disciples”, “saints”, “children of God”), but “Christian” is the preferred designation.

I prefer scriptural designations, but not one over any other.

8 The church shall gather every first day of the week for worship. (Note: Most calendars have Sunday as the first day of the week. Cultures whose calendars are different will have to decide whether to observe Sunday or their first day of the week; no further help here is given in making that decision.)

Meeting upon the first day of the week appears to have been the practice of the church in apostolic times and the practice of the early Christians. I believe this to be a tradition we would do well to follow. Isn’t it your practice?

9 The worship service shall consist of the following five acts of worship: praying, singing, giving, partaking of the Lord’s Supper, and preaching. The reading of Scripture shall also be considered as acceptable since it relates to preaching. No other acts (such as lighting candles, dramatic presentations or readings, etc.) shall be allowed in the service other than the following exceptions: making of announcements, recognizing of families who wish to place membership with the congregation, giving of Bibles to graduates or other special people, or other such special activities that shall be deemed as appropriate for the worship service.

Reading of scripture has more than its relation to preaching for its justification as part of our worship. See 1 Tim 4:13. I’m not sure that the prohibitions you list are uniformly observed among us. I don’t believe these practices are wrong.

10 It is permissible for congregations to have salaried preachers and other paid employees (such as youth ministers, education ministers, secretaries, janitors, etc.).

And your problem with that is?

11 Acceptable designations for preachers shall be the following: “ministers”, “evangelists”, or “gospel preachers”. Generally speaking, all preaching can be called “gospel preaching” regardless of the subject. Sermons shall typically be ended with an invitation to be baptized or to rededicate one’s life to the Lord.

Is there biblically a problem with calling a minister by those designations? My sermons typically do end with an invitation. I don’t think it is a bad tradition, since the very first sermon after the resurrection concluded with an invitation. And like Peter, I invite people to be saved. And like Peter, I point to Jesus as Savior and Lord. And like Peter, I instruct people to repent and be baptized into the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins.

12 The Lord’s Supper shall be observed every first day of the week, and it cannot be observed on any day other than the first day of the week (nor at any function other than one specified as a formal worship service). If the congregation chooses to have another worship service later in the day, the Lord’s Supper shall then be observed again. However, only those who were not at the earlier service (or who otherwise did not already partake) are expected to partake. These same persons are to be given the opportunity to put an offering in the collection plate. These two acts of worship can be done in the presence of others who merely watch, or it can be done in a separate assembly apart from other Christians.

While it is our common practice to partake of the Lord’s Supper every first day of the week, there is considerable diversity on the other points asserted in the above.

13 The Lord’s Supper shall consist of the following (and in this order): 1) a prayer of thanksgiving for the bread (which must be unleavened); 2) the distributing of the bread; 3) a prayer of thanksgiving for the fruit of the vine; and, 4) the distributing of the fruit of the vine.

Most of our churches do follow that portion of the example of Jesus’ institution of the supper.

14 Those who have not been baptized shall not be allowed to conduct any public part of the service. There is one exception to this rule: young boys who have not yet been immersed may be permitted to read Scripture in the general assembly or to lead singing or prayers in a special assembly for the purpose of training such boys.

Yes, typically those who lead our assemblies are those who have become disciples of Christ. Do Baptists typically have those who are not disciples of Christ lead their assemblies?

15 Those who have not been baptized shall be allowed to participate in the worship by listening to the prayers and the preaching. They are further allowed to actively participate by joining in the singing and by putting money in the collection plate. They are not, however, allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper.

All of the churches of Christ with whom I’ve been associated or with whom I’ve visited have practiced open communion.

16 The music of the worship assembly shall be limited to the vocal expression of words. No humming or other non-worded sounds are permitted. The use of harmonious or other singing shall be deemed as fulfilling the pattern of chanting as found in the early church.

17 No instrument of music shall be used at any time in the worship other than to play the first note or key of a song before the singing of that song. The use of a song leader is permitted, as is the use of a microphone for him. Song books or other such aids are also permitted. However, it is forbidden for more than one person to help in leading the singing, and no voice other than that of the one song leader’s may be amplified by artificial means.

18 Singing shall at all times be congregational; at no time is it permitted for one person or group of persons to sing while another merely listens, other than at those brief times when a song is written accordingly. In other words, it is permissible for different people to sing different parts at different times during a song, provided that all members sing at some point during the song and it can reasonably be said that they all sang together.

19 If a congregation wishes to permit a separate group (such as a chorus) to sing to the congregation, it must be done in a separate assembly, or at least after what is considered the closing prayer of the worship assembly. It is permitted for the chorus to sing, read Scripture, and end with a closing prayer, but this shall not be considered as a time of worship, nor shall any individual in the audience allow their thoughts or feelings to be intended as a worship unto God. It is merely a performance for entertainment value; the fact that songs, hymns, and spiritual songs are being sung is inconsequential. If a woman should be used to lead the group, she is not permitted to speak until after the close of this non-worship service.

20 There shall be no clapping, raising of hands, or any other gesture or indecent or disorderly action during the worship service. However, a congregation is allowed to suspend this rule during special child-oriented services such as Vacation Bible Schools or Youth Rallies.

I personally don’t teach the restrictions in items 16 through 20, and I believe that there are a growing number of COC’s who don’t. I do not even have a problem with instrumental music.

21 During the worship assembly, men are allowed (but not required) to say aloud “amen” or some other similar word or phrase as long as such is done decently and in order. Expressions such as “Praise the Lord” would technically be permitted, but are not recommended.

I have no problem with it. Praise the Lord!!

22 A collection of money is to be taken every first day of the week. Each Christian is to give as he purposes in his heart, keeping in mind the amount generally required under the Old Law. The money collected shall be put into a church treasury and referred to as “the Lord’s money”, but it can be used for a variety of purposes such as church buildings, utility bills, employee salaries, landscaping, etc. (all at the discretion of the elders). Funds cannot be obtained and deposited into the church treasury by any other means than by free will offerings. Fundraisers of any kind are forbidden.

I don’t think any collection would be necessary if no need exists. I don’t refer to the collection as “the Lord’s money”. I personally don’t think it does much for our cause to be begging unbelievers for money.

23 The elders of a congregation may choose to have more than one regular assembly during each week. If so, attendance by all members at all of these assemblies is required unless they are prevented from doing so due to illness, work, or some other good reason. Those who no longer attend any assembly on a regular basis shall be deemed as being unfaithful and shall eventually be disfellowshipped (this shall typically be comprised of declaring such in a worship assembly and in a letter sent to the person being disfellowshipped).

According to the Hebrew writer, we are not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together, as is the habit of some. I think each one should deal honestly with that passage, then answer for themselves. Our congregation has not “disfellowshipped” those who have quit attending.

24 Women are allowed to teach other women or children. They may not teach male children who have been baptized. Women may speak aloud in any Bible class (while still recognizing the authority of the man), but not during the formal worship service (other than during the announcement period).

This is accurate with few exceptions.

25 The business of each congregation shall be conducted by one of two methods: 1) a plurality of elders and deacons; or, 2) a men’s business meeting. The first is the preferred option, but it is not required if the congregation cannot find at least two men willing or able to fulfill the responsibility. Elders and deacons must fit the qualifications listed by Paul, the main difference being that elders have to have children who have been baptized, while deacons just have to have children. Those men who are needed to serve as deacons but do not technically fit the qualifications can still be used as long as their title is changed (“ministry leader”, etc.). Women may serve in an appropriate way but are not to be called deaconesses.

I assume you do not think that having elders and deacons is unscriptural. I believe we scripturally should have deaconesses, and I admit that it is a flaw common among us that we do not. Since we are autonomous congregations, that could change over time.

26 There shall be no organization of the church beyond that of the local congregation. However, conformity of beliefs can be maintained through brotherhood lectureships, publications, universities, etc.

We find no scriptural precedent for a denominational governing body. Acts 15 does not fit the case for a general assembly. The second statement above is ridiculous. Some brethren, no doubt, seek to keep people on the “old paths”. Others would like to see change. That is reflected in the public debate among us at lectureships, in publications, and in our universities.

27 Elders have authority only over the local congregation. However, there are some exceptions to this rule. An eldership can take upon itself (with approval by the other party or parties) the oversight of such things as congregations with few members considered to be in a mission area, church workers in mission areas, or other similar works deemed to be in need of the oversight of an eldership.

28 A plurality of congregations may combine money from their respective treasuries for the purpose of evangelistic efforts in another location. At no time, however, can this effort be conducted or organized in such a way as to be construed as a “missionary society”.

29 Divorced persons are to be a welcome part of the congregation. However, those divorced persons who wish to marry again, or those who have already been divorced and married again, must be investigated by the church (or its designee) in order to determine if their marriage (or pending marriage) has been preceded by a “Scriptural divorce” (that being one where the other person committed adultery either before or after the divorce). Those deemed to be in “unscriptural marriages” are expected to get a divorce in order to remain in good standing with God and the church.

There is diversity among us on how to deal with divorce.

30 All major doctrinal issues must be understood and taught without error. This includes (but not necessarily limited to): that we are not predestined to salvation, that it is possible for a Christian to lose his/her salvation, that speaking in tongues and other such miraculous gifts came to an end at the completion of the writing of the NT, that there will be no Rapture nor 1000 year reign of Christ, and that Heaven and Hell are literal. However, this requirement of perfect understanding shall not apply to the issue of the indwelling and operation of the Holy Spirit.

We are predestined to salvation. Romans 8 and Ephesians 1 says that we are. I have an Arminian understanding of predestination. One can lose their salvation. There are actual cases recorded in the scriptures. Some of the Galatians had.
NAS Galatians 5:4 “You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.” If one thinks that a perfect understanding and practice of the Scriptures is necessary, then I would say that this verse likely applies. Law condemns us. It doesn’t save us. Many of my brethren in CoC’s understand this. Sadly, some of my brethren don’t.

31 The preaching of these rules and correct doctrinal positions shall be deemed and denoted as “preaching the truth”. As noted above, people who do not understand these rules (and thus fail to follow them perfectly) shall be deemed as not truly loving God nor the truth.

See response to #30 above.

32 These rules shall be observed without variation of any kind. Anyone who fails to know and follow these rules perfectly is deemed to be lost eternally unless he/she repents. The grace of God shall not be thought to be extended for any misunderstanding or noncompliance. However, moral imperfection (sin) shall be excused (covered by grace) provided the person regularly prays and asks for forgiveness.

If this were true, I would not be accepted among us, would I, since you can see that I differ from the list on many of the “rules” on which the author claims we enforce perfect compliance.

33 Any group who fails to abide by these rules in their entirety is to be called a denomination. Anyone who attends a denomination is committing the sin of denominationalism.
No, I would say that a denomination is a body of people who separate themselves from other Christians through various means, especially through their name and governing system. When Churches of Christ insist upon that name as opposed to all other Scriptural names, they become a denomination themselves, in spite of their local autonomy. Denomination is just another name for a division, in the final analysis. Yes, it is a sin. It is party spirit. There should be no “Baptist” church. Nor should there be a “Church of Christ” in the denominational sense.

In addition, the following are yet more rules that are not as frequently debated:

1. observing Christmas or other holidays
2. fruit of the vine must be fermented/not fermented
3. one cup vs. multiple cups
4. no kitchen or eating in the building
5. cannot give to non-Christians, orphan homes, etc.
6. non-baptized not allowed to read Scripture
7. no separated classes
8. Bible versions
9. taking of oaths
10. serving in the military
11. inflicting capital punishment
12. using force to defend oneself or others
13. serving as a government official
14. lifting hands while singing
15. joining a ministerial alliance
16. how God answers prayer
17. fasting
18. who selects and appoints elders
19. singing as the emblems are passed
20. use of church buildings for secular activities
21. building of fellowship halls, gymnasiums, etc.
22. use of an instrument in "church" weddings
23. youth directors, youth rallies, youth camps
24. the six days of creation being literal days
25. the operation of Christian hospitals
26. ministers of education, ministers of music, etc.
27. the baptismal "formula"
28. formal confession before baptism
29. dedicating babies
30. signing contribution pledge cards
31. women wearing shorts and slacks
32. women working outside the home
33. Children's Bible Hour
34. bussing children to services
35. degrees of reward and punishment
36. dress code for men serving the Lord's Supper

DHK

Ah…more rules. Everything is a rule in Churches of Christ according to the author. With one stroke of the broad brush we are all classified as legalists. And DHK goes one step further and classifies us as a cult.

Do you suppose that a similar list of “rules” could be drawn up for Baptists? There aren’t any legalistic Baptists. All Baptists are one big happy family that would never divide from one another over differences in doctrine or practice. Nor would they divide from other Christians, right? I ask that, not to belittle Baptists, but merely to point out that it is easy to point fingers at the other guy, generalize, and condemn. And not all of you have done that. But a few need to rethink their ability to judge another man’s servant.

A cult member for Christ, submitting to His control,

Bob

 

Bob:
i appreciate the tone of your response. You acquitted yourself well. As a preacher of the gospel, I understand your frustrations with the generalizations.

Yours in Christ,
Frank

 

Thanks for your post Bob.
Your the first one that has ever responded to it, in order to clarify it like that. I appreciate it. It was probably about a year ago that that post was made by another person who said that she visited a Church of Christ, and this is what she came back with. I just copied and pasted it for further information.

Most people look at #16 to 20, which you also disagree with, and think that the COC is a bit off. As well, they look askance at the "denomination" bit, which you also explained well. We still have some disagreements to work through. But for now, I'll take your post and look at it more carefully. Thanks for your point of view.
DHK

 

I've been part of this board for a long time and I'm a member of a Church of Christ.

First of all, let me say that I don't appreciate the "cult" accusation. Even our most dogmatic members are not cultish. A cult follows a human being as a leader. I've never met anyone in the Church of Christ who worships or follows a human leader. In fact, they give their ministers VERY little authority (probably too little).

Secondly, we are simply trying to follow the Bible as best we can, just as you. In 1 Peter 3:21 the Bible says, "baptism does also now save us."

In Acts 2:38 Peter says, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Mark 16:16 says, "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved."

If the Bible says that, I have to stand with the Bible.

Obeying God is not legalism. Nor is it taking Him out of the process of salvation.

Baptists teach the "sinners prayer." The idea is that by saying the "sinners prayer" a person requests salvation from God. That's still doing something! We see baptism as the same way. It is our burial with Christ (Romans 6:4). It is calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16).

We don't see baptism as a mighty work that obligates God to provide salvation. Rather, we simply see it as doing what God said. We see it as calling on the name of the Lord to save us.

No one in the Church of Christ believes that they can save themselves. That's why we try to follow the Bible so closely--we know that God gets to make the rules.

Please do not call us a cult for that.

Lee

PS--Instead of talking about us behind our backs, why don't you come to http://www.gracecentered.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi and discuss this with some of us? If you're interested, I'll even add a new forum area just for Baptist/Church of Christ discussion and fellowship.

 

Okay, I'm made a forum specifically for members of this forum who wish to discuss theology with members of churches of Christ and have friendly fellowship with them.

The web address is http://www.gracecentered.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?s=41c2ffc82ebfffff;act=ST;f=30;t=8708

 

Most people detest the word "cult" and for good reason. The SDA's don't like the word cult, but I have no problem associating the word cult with them because of the doctrines they believe associated with Ellen G. White, particularly their emphasis on Investigative Judgement, and the mandatory keeping of the Sabbath.

How do the churches that you belong to differ from the ICC?

Do you think that CARM has an accurate assessment of your organization. Please read it here:

Is the ICC a CULT

DHK

 

The International church of Christ broke from the old Boston discipling movement. It is a practice not authorized by the new testament. Therefore,it is rejected by the church or the saved of Christ. The Internatioanl church of Christ is a name used by men to distinguih themsleves form all others. They do not consider themsleves as a part of the church of Christ. Hence the name, International church of Christ.

I have no problem calling people by their designated name. I call baptist baptist because that is how they distinguish themselves from say the methodist, lutherans, or in this case, members of the church of Christ, who call themselves Christians.

I prefer not to use the word cult in reference to any relgious group unless they request to be identified as such. However, this is just a matter of personal preference.

 

Ken,

You seem a bit defensive about those words...

I wonder why.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I would like to add another recommendation to the above. My favorite book on baptism was written by a Baptist, G.R. Beasley-Murray. It is simply entitled, Baptism. It is thorough and scholarly, yet unpretentious in style and presentation.

Blessings,

Heretic Bob

 

Lee, thanks for setting up that link.

http://www.gracecentered.com/cgi-in/ikonboard.cgi?s=41c2ffc82ebfffff;act=ST;f=30;t=8708

to discuss the Church of Christ (CoC) beliefs.

Please note that I've posted to it & awaiting a response.

I contacted a CoC board moderator, & DHK, privately with my worst post, because CC potentates @ here really howl about it.

The CoC moderator didn't object, but noted I'd probably be hearing from a certain party who will remain anonymous for now.

You, frank, et al are cordially asked to respond.

http://www.gracecentered.com/cgi-in/ikonboard.cgi?s=41c2ffc82ebfffff;act=ST;f=30;t=8708

"The Christian Name"

See God’s instructions for handling His word (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15), before thoughtfully reading Eph 2:11-12; Isa 56:2-8; Gen 17:9-14; Isa 62:1-4 because:

1) God officially gave the Gentiles up when He called out Abram (Gen 12; Rom 1) so they never had a covenant (Eph 2:12), consequently they never observed Sabbaths & circumcision.
2) Nowhere in the New Testament is: “the mouth of the Lord shall name” (Isa 62:2) quoted as fulfilled by an Apostle.
3) Peter writes last about the name “Christian,” yet does not cite Isa 62:2 as fulfillment.
4) That Luke (Acts 11:26) mentions believers were called such without identifying the source proves the name “Christian” was not from God.
5) Any appeal to Acts 26:28 being “prophetic“, a lost king God’s mouth in saying “Christian,” is blasphemous!

Scripture, correctly applied (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15), proves the “everlasting name” was a promise exclusively to Hebrews & proselytes keeping God’s Sabbaths (Isa 56:2-8), that had taken hold of God’s covenant (Gen 17:9-14) &, according to God, the everlasting name is “Hephzibah” (Isa 62:4). So it violates God‘s instruction & context to claim the “everlasting name“ is “Christian.”

Remember, (Ps 51:6; Jn 4:23-24).

Dave

 

Ken,

You seem a bit defensive about those words...

I wonder why. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't think that the Church of Christ meets the "common" usage of the word "cult", Joseph. Any group, including Baptists, with distinctive beliefs could be called a "cult" if one wants to use a very broad, dictionary type definition.

I have never hidden the fact that I was "born and reared" in the Church of Christ until I left it about 6 years ago and became a Southern Baptist.

 

I don't think that the Church of Christ meets the "common" usage of the word "cult", Joseph. Any group, including Baptists, with distinctive beliefs could be called a "cult" if one wants to use a very broad, dictionary type definition. Ken, while I can’t speak to Joe’s remark please recall you have been shown Webster’s specific definition & that that definition applies equally to Mormons, Jehovah Witness etc. The word “ cult ”, by Webster’s definition, excludes those from salvation who fail to perform & or participate in the rite (s) required to meet the demands of a religious sect , which insist that such rite(s) must be obeyed, thereby proving Webster’s definition is not " very broad, dictionary type definition " but exact . (Please, look up the bold words in a Webster dictionary.)

Had you discussed salvation with any CC potentate, who holds to the “ restoration ” movement beliefs, they, not Methodists, Baptists etc insist that those who do not submit to CC doctrine are damned . If you don’t believe that, please , go discuss salvation with one.

Cordially, Dave

 

Dave:

I do not consider myself a "potentate" since Christ is the blessed and only potentate. ( I Tim. 6:14). However, since I am a member of the church, I can respond to your remarks in your previous post concerning "church doctrine".

The word of God teaches that all men are amenable to the same standard of truth. ( John 12:48). Men will be judged by the new testament of Christ before his seat.( Hebrews 9:15-17, II Cor. 5:10). God insists that it be this way. ( Mat. 28:18-20, Mark 9:7).

You are correct that Baptist and Methodist do not insist one adhere to the new testament, as both groups teach differently on salvation. In regards to their correctness there are only two rational possibilities as to the truth. One, both are wrong. Two, one is right and the other is wrong. I side with the static standard of truth of God's word.

As for the issue of condemnation, this is for Christ to prononce. ( Mat. 25:23-46). Is it wrong to judge others by using the truth?( John 7:24). If it is, please explain to me how one finds and teaches the lost without a standard.( Luke 19:10).

Are you inferring that sincerety alone can save a man without believing the truth?

Furthermore, what do you consider " restoration principles? " If these principles are in adherence to the gospel of Christ, I teach and submit to them. If they are not in agreement with the standard as set forth by the new testament, I reject them as I would denominational dogma.

Frank