Church of Christ

Ken,
As I mentioned before these are MY experiences with a few COC members and websites. I even mentioned that some may not share these beliefs such as yours.
You do not have to defend the COC but share your experience with them as I have. I am not saying you are wrong in anyway, just sharing my thoughts, opinions and experiences.

Yes, Actually I would call the RCC a cult because if you leave the RCC you lose your salvation (I was RC for 20 years). People usually don’t because the RCC is so big and typically a cult is a small group. Heck, when I left the RCC my own Mom said I was with the devil now, I think she was hurt and was speaking nonsense. Just because I or anyone else calls a church a cult means nothing really. Some non believers consider Christianity a cult but I don’t. Who’s right? Who’s wrong?
No one really, let us look up the definition of cult.

Main Entry: cult
Pronunciation: 'k&lt
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL
Date: 1617
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator, health cults
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

[ October 17, 2003, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: Matthew 16:24 ]

 

I guess I think of a cult as having a strong, charismatic leader. The mainstream Church of Christ uses a plurality of elders with completely autonomous congregations.

Our Baptist churches tend to be pastor driven and we have the cooperative program among Southern Baptists. Actually, when it comes to congregational autonomy and a plurality leadership, Churches of Christ are more so than Southern Baptist churches.

 

KenH,

Are you aware that Jesus Christ said that He hated the doctrines and deeds of the Nicolaitans and that He commended the church at Ephesus for hating them also?

Most of my father's family are Campbellites and I have seen first hand the spiritual deadness and hopelessness in which it leaves men's souls. Yes sir, I do hate the Campbellite heresy.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Several years ago I had a conversation with a Campbellite preacher about the doctrine of eternal security. After I finally convinced him that I really do believe that, because I am saved, it isn't possible for me to go to hell, he asked me this:

"If you think it is impossible for you to go to hell, why do you try to serve the Lord."

I said,

"Because I love him for saving my soul."

He said,

"That is a nice thought."

The last I knew he was still preaching his salvation by works heresy.

Mark Osgatharp

 

They don't call themselves that. That is a pejorative term by their opponents.

Actually, more accurately, the Disciples of Christ and the Christian Church would be the ones called "Campbellites" as Alexander Campbell went along with the more "liberal" ideas(such as the missionary society) in the mid-1800s compared to the no-instrumental music in worship conservative Churches of Christ. The conservative Churches of Christ owe their lineage more to people like David Lipscomb, J.W. McGarvey, Tolbert Fanning, and Austin McGary.

The Restoration Movement produced three lines - the Disciples of Christ, the Christian Church, the Churches of Christ.

 

RSR,

Here are some standard Campbellite beliefs. Whether or not the agree with the "ecumentical creeds" is irrelevant - they disagree with the Bible.

1. Sins forgiven in baptism.

2. Eternal life gained by good works.

3. The Holy Spirit neither regenerates nor indwells a believer. The "new birth" to the Campbellites is nothing more than an intellectual and moral reformation which begins when a man is obedient to baptism.

4. They are restorationist and presbyterial (within the local church that is) in their ecclesiology.

5. They practice open communion, which is ironic, since they don't believe you can even be saved unless you are one of them.

I am aware that the the so called "Disciples of Christ" do not adhere to these traditional Campbellite doctrines; but that is due more to a general liberalization and modernization than to any return to word of God.

The so called "Church of Christ" churches are far more traditional and, as far as has been my knowledge of them, hold tenaciously to the original Campbellite heresies.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Um, he may be good at that in person, but he has been completely wrong about me and several others I know that he has vilified. Therefore, if he has a supernatural gift of discernment, it does not extend to BaptistBoard.

Mark often drives me up the wall, but he is very passionate about his beliefs. While I often do not appreciate his opinions or the way he expresses them, I can appreciate his passion and zeal for what he thinks is right.

 

Perhaps not, but they are in direct conflict with the plain teachings of Jesus Christ.

Mark Osgatharp

 

4. The Bible teaches there should be a plurality of elders, also called presbyters, bishops, overseers, pastors, or shepherds. All of these terms equate to the same office.

5. The Bible teaches that anyone who confesses that Jesus is Lord should be able to commune at the Lord's Supper with any other Christian.

I have severe disagreements with Church of Christ theology but on these two points I agree with them 100%.

 

Exhortation is necessary.
However most exhortation appears to me to be based on less than the well-being of the brethren.

But (FWIW) Mark has given me pause many times to consider/reconsider my own views or has brought to our attention certain warnings concerning error in "professing Christianity"

Hebrews 3:13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

 

KenH,

a. The Bible does teach a plurality of elders, but not as a governing board over the church. Believe it or not, the Baptist church in which I pastor actually does have two elders/pastors.

b. The Bible does not teach that every professed beleiver should be able to commune at the Lord's table. On top of that, a profession of Campbellism, as well as many other heresies, is more a profession of faith against Christ than for Him.

Mark Osgatharp

 

a. I don't know how you define "governing" in this case, but the elders certainly rule the local congregation:

1 Tim. 5:17 (ESV)
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Hebrews 13:17 (ESV)
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

b. Can you give an instance in the New Testament where a professed believer in Christ Jesus was ever denied the Lord's Supper. I have found no such instance, not even in the congregation in Corinth.

I see you are spewing forth even more vitriolic, bigoted anger toward other people. I tell you what, Mark, when you hate someone or some group you do hate them thoroughly. I wouldn't be surprised that if a Church of Christ member stated that Jesus is the Son of God that you would find a way to critcize him.

But you are in serious error. In the Church of Christ before one is baptized one is asked if he believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. That is hardly a confession of "Campbellism" but is one of Christ whether you accept that or not.

 

Read Corinthians again. The man in chapter 5 was forbidden from the Lord's table. The instructions in chapter 11 specify that examination and confession is to take place prior to partaking and the clear implication is that disobedience is exclusionary. Your view stems from a misunderstanding of communion and the baptist view of it.

Remember that mere profession is not the key. It is commitment to that doctrine that marks one's spiritual state. And even among those who confess that Jesus Christ is God there are valid reasons for confrontation. Paul confronted Peter who certainly believed that Christ was God. This "Christ is God" is all you need philosophy is simplistic and not biblical. It is incomplete. Orthodoxy does not consist of "Christ is God."

I think you misunderstand this. The CoC teaches that baptism is what saves, that apart from baptism one is unsaved. That is not the biblical position.

While I do not defend that antagonistic and iconoclastic attitude of Mark here, it is important not to beat the wrong horse. On this matter, you have chosen the wrong horse.

 

1) Not really. I don't recall if Mark holds this position or not, but there those who claim that the Lord's Supper is to taken by only those within their own congregation or within their own denomination, regardless of whether someone else in attendance is a true Christian or not. The Church of Christ does not practice that and neither does the Southern Baptist church of which I am a member. So, no, I do not understand the idea of excluding a blood-bought brother or sister in full fellowship with the Lord from the Lord's table because of denominational differences or simply because he/she is a member of a different congregation of the same denomination.

2) I understand that. My point was about Mark's bigotry toward those whom he hates and disagrees with.

3) I understand that as well. My point is that what I confessed about Jesus before I was baptized in a Church of Christ was a Biblical confession that I thoroughly believed then and still thoroughly believe now.

 

There are some valid arguments for closed communion. Mark Dever's Polity addresses some of this from historic baptist documents as do other sources. The point of communion is "communion" oddly enough. That is, we are participating in a joint celebration of Christ's death in light of our blood bought life. Those who have no credible testimony can rightly be excluded from the table, as Paul makes clear in 1 Cor 11. While we practice "close communion" here, it seems that the weight of theology and practice is more on the side of closed communion than open communion, whether you understand the arguments and reasons behind it or not.