Can CoC be considered Christian?

[TCGreek]

Nope, there are many out there that belong to congregations that have no denominational affiliation, who have obeyed the Gospel and follow after Christ just as He has commnded. They are part of the church that Christ died for. The church of Christ is not a title of a group, but the identification of the church that Christ built.



When it is not biblical it has everything to do with it, besides along with these names, diverse doctrines acompany them. I do not have a hang up with names, Jesus did not ask us to call ourselves all these different names.

You may think that faith alone is suffcient for salvation, but that is just another example of the connection to certain namrd groups that hold to thiese ideas.

Alright, then.

 

[DHK]

The Baptists will call themselves Baptists. None of you do wrong in so doing.

Yeah, Baptists are more Scriptural and have been for a longer time. They call themselves "Baptizers" (OE word--modern meaning is "Baptists), originating from "John the Baptist." :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Yeah, Baptists are more Scriptural and have been for a longer time. They call themselves "Baptizers" (OE word--modern meaning is "Baptists), originating from "John the Baptist." :smilewinkgrin:

Sorry, but I just have to laugh...:laugh::laugh:

In XC
-

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Thesis:
"How else do you read Jesus Christ at Matthew 7:20? He said “by their fruits ye shall know them” (ASV) = “you will know people by the deeds they do” (NBV)" (no matter who posted it; let's address the issue, not the person).

Antithesis:
"How else do you read Jesus Christ at Matthew 7:20?"

Here is one 'version' that 'reads Christ'; the other is false. Christ in Mt7:20 'reads', "by their fruits ye shall know them” (ASV)" ≠ “you will know people by the deeds they do” (NBV)"

Christ said, “by their fruits ye shall know them” (ASV) which fruit shall be everlasting life - invisible in act or confession of any man, but known to God only. That's why Paul said the foundation is SURE: GOD, KNOWS WHO HIS ARE.

If I may make a judgment of my own I would therefore judge: He who THROUGH JESUS CHRIST believes the FREE AND SOVEREIGN GRACE OF GOD, is a Christian, and NTHER!

PS
Karl Barth said something like this (in English) The only real dividing line in Christianity consists in the doctrine of free election --- more or less, but for me, quite sufficiently rendered.

 

[JSM17]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSM17
Nope, there are many out there that belong to congregations that have no denominational affiliation,

That is, none acknowledged.

That is your opinion. According to you and others there cannot be one true church, it must be the hundreds or maybe thousands of denomination who have divided again and again. Who do not agree on issues when you scratch the surface of there so called justification by faith alone. Underneath all of that is division over issues that cause them to no longer fellowship with one another. And yes church of Christ has done the same thing, yet those who divide over petty issues do so in sin, but essential issues there is no other way then to either correct them or remove them according to scripture. If one teaches contrary to scripture they do not follow Christ.

Quote:
who have obeyed the Gospel and follow after Christ just as He has commnded.

In many cases, minus the humility.

Again your opinion, to obey the Gospel requires humility or else you are not in sorrow over your sin and cannot repent according to scripture.

Quote:
They are part of the church that Christ died for.

Those among them that are His followers, yes so.

Those who obey God with a sincere heart and continue to do so.

Quote:
The church of Christ is not a title of a group, but the identification of the church that Christ built.

-- and therefore the title of a group: a title which describes a group that does not remotely include all of Christ's followers, and therefore not remotely all of His church.

I have never claimed that all people who enter a building with a title on it called "The church of Christ" are saved. I said those who obey the gospel and follow after Christ are the saved and belong to the church which Christ dies for, His church, not mine or yours.

Quote:
...I do not have a hang up with names, Jesus did not ask us to call ourselves all these different names....

He did not ask us to call ourselves ANY of these names.

There is no recorded command of Jesus from His mouth to call His church "the Church of Christ," or "the Churches of Christ," or "the Christian Churches" or "the Baptists" or "the Methodists" or "the Christians" or "the Disciples of Christ."

You are correct, yet the bible identifies His church in a few ways, to which I know you already know this. Again it is not the name, it is the teaching that follows the name. However when it come to identifying the congregation we would be far better off not to use a man's name, wheher Luther, Peter, or Paul. The church belongs to Christ.

It is amazing hypocritical to criticize a church group for identifying itself by a name Jesus Christ did not command -- while simultaneously identifying one's own church group by another name He did not command.

You folks want to call yourselves "the Churches of Christ" that is fine. While other congregations took those names before your group formed, you got the name to stick for your group. Congratulations to your forebears, and say `thanks' that 1906 American society allowed you to name yourselves whatever you wanted. Enjoy that liberty to call yourselves "the Churches of Christ." The Baptists will call themselves Baptists. None of you do wrong in so doing.

Paul called the Lord's church the churches of Christ, I didn't. Yet I still do not see "Baptist" church or "Luther's" church in scripture.

It seems that you are the advocate of unity at all costs even if it is un biblical and unsound.

 

[Darron Steele]

That is your opinion. According to you and others there cannot be one true church, it must be the hundreds or maybe thousands of denomination who have divided again and again.

There is "one true church" and it includes ALL Christians.

The "one true church" is not made up of denominations. You and many other people are absolutely obsessed with groups. You cannot look past the groups to see the people.

The "one true church" is made up of INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE.

Who do not agree on issues when you scratch the surface of there so called justification by faith alone.

Yeah; I know. You are apparently obsessed with eliminating that precept.

Underneath all of that is division over issues that cause them to no longer fellowship with one another.

The issues do not "cause them to no longer fellowship with one another" -- their factious leanings cause that.

I have never claimed that all people who enter a building with a title on it called "The church of Christ" are saved.

Oh, I am sure you believe that.

I am sure that there are few others, if any, who do not "enter a building with a title on it called `The church of Christ'" who will be saved -- in your view. The point you are disputing stands.

You are correct, yet the bible identifies His church in a few ways, to which I know you already know this. Again it is not the name, it is the teaching that follows the name. However when it come to identifying the congregation we would be far better off not to use a man's name, wheher Luther, Peter, or Paul. The church belongs to Christ.

Well, that is an interesting opinion.

Your opinion makes sense.

Your opinion does not determine what makes sin -- which leads me to my next point.

Paul called the Lord's church the churches of Christ, I didn't. Yet I still do not see "Baptist" church or "Luther's" church in scripture.

It seems that you are the advocate of unity at all costs even if it is un biblical and unsound.

So, on the reasonings of your opinion that churches ought to have or have not certain names, you accuse me of being "advocate of unity at all costs even if it is un biblical and unsound."

Is your opinion the written Word of God? Are you God? Should I treat your opinions, however well-founded, as if it is God's written Word? Should we treat diverging from your opinion as diverging from God's written Word? If you think so -- and it is evident that you do -- then you have made yourself God.

The fact is, Scripture never commands Christians to name their congregations anything. For you to argue that congregations ought to name themselves `something like this -- but definitely not that' is opinion-based. If you treat divergence from that opinion as "un biblical" then you treat your opinion as God's written Word, and make yourself God. You are not God.

Now, as for this

It seems that you are the advocate of unity at all costs even if it is un biblical and unsound.

I am an advocate of biblical unity -- on Scripture's terms.

That is a vision of unity that factious people like you cannot stand. You cannot stand the vision of a church where not everyone agrees with you `enough.' You cannot stand a church where there is unity without `enough' agreement with you. You cannot stand a church where you must resist your factious lusts.

Biblical unity is unity of purpose. Christians are servants of Jesus Christ. Biblical church unity is commitment to a common task: to serve Jesus Christ. In the last several years, I have seen that the passages which teach us how to stay united are clear and mean simply and precisely what they say. They do not have exemptions that make them `not quite that simple'; they have no exemptions: they are to be followed as written.

The "costs" that I give up are the same "costs" that we are all called to give up: the desire to have everyone do things `our way.' For Jesus Christ, Who gave His life for us, I am willing to give that up.

 

[Enow]

Can COC Be Considered Christian? Yes, as in bought with a price and sealed as His.

Can the CoC Be Considered As Abiding in Him?

Since they are autonomous, it is not fair to judge the CoC in general.

Even every individual member of any church is autonomous as every believer must examine themselves in the faith with the help and trust in their Good Shepherd.

No church is going to defend each member of its congregation before God; our defense comes from Jesus Christ, so I suggest everyone to not be complacent with where they are at with the Lord in their walk with Him as God calls every one of us to give pause for self-examination: even me; as we place our trust in the Lord to prune us from offenses; religious works that deny Him as well as the works of the flesh.

2 Corinthians 11:1Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me. 2For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. 3But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.....

Galatians 5:13For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

Read the exhortation for all believers in 2 Timothy 2nd chapter in how we are to serve Him by faith as well as in loving one another. :1_grouphug:

 

[DHK]

That is your opinion. According to you and others there cannot be one true church, it must be the hundreds or maybe thousands of denomination who have divided again and again. Who do not agree on issues when you scratch the surface of there so called justification by faith alone.

I don't know about that JSM17.
The Baptists pre-date the COCers by a looong time.
Everyone knows that John was the first Baptist. And he came commanding all to repent, and then to be baptized. Of course the repentance had to be based on faith, faith alone. Us Baptists, we date right back to John. If anyone has a heritage here that is Biblical it is the Baptists.

Matthew 3:1-2 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Matthew 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

 

[JSM17]

I don't know about that JSM17.
The Baptists pre-date the COCers by a looong time.
Everyone knows that John was the first Baptist. And he came commanding all to repent, and then to be baptized. Of course the repentance had to be based on faith, faith alone. Us Baptists, we date right back to John. If anyone has a heritage here that is Biblical it is the Baptists.

Matthew 3:1-2 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Matthew 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Then it is you who thinks that all first century Christians were Baptists?

Your implications of John preaching faith alone is not true, he preached a baptism of repentance in water for the remission of sins.

What kind of Baptist was John?

American Baptist Association
American Baptist Churches
Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America
Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
Baptist Bible Fellowship International
Baptist General Conference
Baptist Missionary Association of America
Central Baptist Association
Christian Unity Baptist Association
Conservative Baptist Association of America
Continental Baptist Churches
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
Enterprise Association of Regular Baptists
Evangelical Free Baptist Church
Free Will Baptist
Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship
Fundamental Baptist Fellowship Association
Fundamental Baptist Fellowship of America
General Association of Baptists
General Association of General Baptists
General Association of Regular Baptist Churches
General Conference of the Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc.
General Six-Principle Baptists
Independent Baptist Church of America
Independent Baptist Fellowship International
Independent Baptist Fellowship of North America
Institutional Missionary Baptist Conference of America
Interstate & Foreign Landmark Missionary Baptist Association
Landmark Baptists
Liberty Baptist Fellowship
Macedonia Baptist World Missions
Mainstream Baptist Network
National Association of Free Will Baptists
National Baptist Convention of America, Inc.
National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.
National Baptist Evangelical Life and Soul Saving Assembly of the U.S.A.
National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
National Primitive Baptist Convention of the U.S.A.
New Testament Association of Independent Baptist Churches
North American Baptist Conference
Old Regular Baptist
Indian Bottom Association of Old Regular Baptists
Old Time Missionary Baptist
Original Free Will Baptist Convention
Progressive National Baptist Convention
Reformed Baptist
Regular Baptist
Roger Williams Fellowship
Separate Baptist
Separate Baptists in Christ
Seventh Day Baptist General Conference
Southern Baptist Convention
Southwide Baptist Fellowship
Sovereign Grace Baptists
Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists
United American Free Will Baptist Church
United American Free Will Baptist Conference
United Baptists
Unregistered Baptist Fellowship
World Baptist Fellowship
Worldwide Baptist New Testament Missions

 

[KenH]

Sometimes I wonder if we spent more time trying write people out of Heaven than we do trying to assist people in coming to Christ Jesus in faith and repentance to make it to Heaven.

 

[Marcia]

T
Your implications of John preaching faith alone is not true, he preached a baptism of repentance in water for the remission of sins.

What kind of Baptist was John?

All Baptists, and all non-Baptist Christians, who have been regenerated are part of the body of Christ, the church. It's that simple. Denominational names and secondary differences do not matter.

Baptism is often compared to OT circumcision. God takes pains to show us that Abraham was saved before his circumcision - there is no outward act that is part of salvation.

Romans 4
3For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 4Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.
5But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
6just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7"BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN,
AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.
8"BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT."
9Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."
10How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;

 

[Darron Steele]

Sometimes I wonder if we spent more time trying write people out of Heaven than we do trying to assist people in coming to Christ Jesus in faith and repentance to make it to Heaven.

Yeah, I think too many times, we do. Astute observation. :thumbsup:

We ought to be more concerned about evangelism, rather than trying to assure ourselves that `undesired' Christians will not be in Heaven with us.

All Baptists, and all non-Baptist Christians, who have been regenerated are part of the body of Christ, the church. It's that simple. Denominational names and secondary differences do not matter....

Amen! :thumbs:

 

[JSM17]

All Baptists, and all non-Baptist Christians, who have been regenerated are part of the body of Christ, the church. It's that simple. Denominational names and secondary differences do not matter.

Baptism is often compared to OT circumcision. God takes pains to show us that Abraham was saved before his circumcision - there is no outward act that is part of salvation.

Christians and only Christians are part of the body, which is the church, it is that simple. God took pains to assure us through James that salvation is not by faith alone.

If there is no outward act part of salvation then belief if is not part of salvation.

The point of the post was in response to John preaching faith only, which is just as false as the statement about Jesus teaching faith alone or any other Apostle or Prophet.

 

[Stanedglass]

Now there are divergent groups from this who hold that the HS is a person (but not all) but have a mode view of him as in this quote from one of their websites: Isn't this form of belief really divergent from historical Christianity and its view of the Trinity? I mean we call the JW's a cult and the Mormons a Cult we call the Oneness Pentecostals a cult. Why do the CoC not get this view? JW and Mormon's also claim the bible. What makes the CoC more palitable?

Why not call the Baptists a cult?

And let me say to you, I'm not CoC either. I just get a kick how others think they are the only ones who are right. So if the truth be shared, that would make you a cult too, right?

You really don't have to answer this. I will probably not be able to debate back, just wanted to put my two cents in!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Why not call the Baptists a cult?

And let me say to you, I'm not CoC either. I just get a kick how others think they are the only ones who are right. So if the truth be shared, that would make you a cult too, right?

You really don't have to answer this. I will probably not be able to debate back, just wanted to put my two cents in!

I came across a site explaining some of the CoC beliefs. With regard to the person of the Holy Spirit it sounded modalistic. Ie... there is one God who has 3 modes of operation. Rather than a trinity 3 distinct persons yet fully one God. I think the trinity is a cornerstone doctrine of Christianity. Blood attonement. The resurrection. And certain other doctrinal issues. To suggest something other than the trinity in my mind is not Christian. To deny the trinity is, in my mind, proclaiming a pagan god like the JW and the Mormons. Now it was explained to me that there are CoC that might fall into this camp but not all. And there were diveregent groups. So I conceded that some may very well be Christian while others who do not hold to the Trinity cannot be Christian.

 

[JSM17]

I came across a site explaining some of the CoC beliefs. With regard to the person of the Holy Spirit it sounded modalistic. Ie... there is one God who has 3 modes of operation. Rather than a trinity 3 distinct persons yet fully one God. I think the trinity is a cornerstone doctrine of Christianity. Blood attonement. The resurrection. And certain other doctrinal issues. To suggest something other than the trinity in my mind is not Christian. To deny the trinity is, in my mind, proclaiming a pagan god like the JW and the Mormons. Now it was explained to me that there are CoC that might fall into this camp but not all. And there were diveregent groups. So I conceded that some may very well be Christian while others who do not hold to the Trinity cannot be Christian.

Do you consider every group that does not believe in the trinity a cult? Divergent groups?
I am sure that I can find baptists or so called baptists that do not believe in the triune God the way you do, does this make them a cult? Is the word trinity even found in scripture? You explain to us how you have three distinct persons that are one yet distinct as three. I believe in the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit and they are one in Spirit, there is one God.

Maybe you can explain to us in more detail this idea of modalism verses three persons as one God. Again the coc's are autonomous, so I cannot speak on behalf of what the rest of the world is doing in so called other congregations.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Do you consider every group that does not believe in the trinity a cult? Divergent groups?
I am sure that I can find baptists or so called baptists that do not believe in the triune God the way you do, does this make them a cult? Is the word trinity even found in scripture? You explain to us how you have three distinct persons that are one yet distinct as three. I believe in the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit and they are one in Spirit, there is one God.

Maybe you can explain to us in more detail this idea of modalism verses three persons as one God. Again the coc's are autonomous, so I cannot speak on behalf of what the rest of the world is doing in so called other congregations.

Yes. I believe the trinity (or triune God) is so fundalmental to our faith that to believe otherwise is divergent to orthodox christian belief and therefore a cult. As far as modalism the history of it begins with Saballius who taught that God wears three faces or masks rather being three persons equally existing equally one. In other words God plays the father and then decides to play the son then decides to play the holy spirit. With this last of the CoC some, I believe, are saying its not even a person but explains the activity of God. So if you take it to its logical conclusion. While Jesus was walking around it was God playing the part of Jesus. So prayers to the "father" was at best insincere.

 

[DHK]

Then it is you who thinks that all first century Christians were Baptists?

Your implications of John preaching faith alone is not true, he preached a baptism of repentance in water for the remission of sins.

What kind of Baptist was John?

He was one who believed and practiced the Bible--a forerunner of Christ.
Though he was a "Baptist" in name, did not make him a "Baptist" in today's doctrine for even Christ stated that he was the last of the OT prophets. Our doctrine is obtained primarily from the NT, especially when relevant to local church polity, the ordinances of Christ, the priesthood of believers, etc.

Your understanding of repentance is woefully lacking. Repentance is not a work and never has been. It is a change of mind with respect to one's attitude to the authority of God. That is not a work. What work is done in changing your mind? People change their mind all the time but do not consider it work. If I could get paid every time I changed my mind about something what a wonderful world it would be. (I'll have one sugar in my coffee; no, wait--I have changed my mind, make that two. Hey, where's my pay for that! )
It is God that changes not; not man.

Repentance is a change of mind with respect to one's attitude to the authority of God.
It is not a work!!

Salvation is by faith alone. Anything less than that is not salvation, and is another gospel.

 

[Marcia]

I came across a site explaining some of the CoC beliefs. With regard to the person of the Holy Spirit it sounded modalistic. Ie... there is one God who has 3 modes of operation. Rather than a trinity 3 distinct persons yet fully one God. I think the trinity is a cornerstone doctrine of Christianity.

I never heard of any CoC being modalistic - I wonder if this was some aberrant group you came across? Are you sure it was a Church of Christ? Maybe it had that name but is really something else. The Oneness groups baptize "in the name of Jesus only" and require baptism to be saved, but they are not CoC.

I agree with you on the Trinity but always thought the CoC also believed in the Trinity.

 

[Stanedglass]

I came across a site explaining some of the CoC beliefs. With regard to the person of the Holy Spirit it sounded modalistic. Ie... there is one God who has 3 modes of operation. Rather than a trinity 3 distinct persons yet fully one God. I think the trinity is a cornerstone doctrine of Christianity. Blood attonement. The resurrection. And certain other doctrinal issues. To suggest something other than the trinity in my mind is not Christian. To deny the trinity is, in my mind, proclaiming a pagan god like the JW and the Mormons. Now it was explained to me that there are CoC that might fall into this camp but not all. And there were diveregent groups. So I conceded that some may very well be Christian while others who do not hold to the Trinity cannot be Christian.

I believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but show me in the Word of God that if someone does not believe in the Trinity they are not Christian?