Caths/Prots: Do you believe the other side is saved?

[Darron Steele]

Darron steele's profile identifies him as Church of Christ. Those folks claim apostolic origin. Or at the very least a restoration of apostolic doctrines and practices.

Many Baptists (known as Landmarkers) claim both apostolic origin and perpetuity from New Testament times.

Some Baptists and Church of Christ (And RCC, as well), claim to be the church Jesus established. Or, at the very least, that their doctrines and practices are the closest to the early church of any other so-called church or denomination.

Church of Christ folks don't consider themselves a denomination.

If I have mis-stated, Darron Steele or bmerr can set the record straight.

There is a HUGE variation of beliefs/practices in the Churches of Christ. There is the predominant hard-line branch, and then there is a small but growing minority of Churches of Christ that are vastly different. These are so different that they are not acknowledged by the hard-liners to be Churches of Christ raise: .

The hard-liners believe everything you just wrote with one exception: they typically believe that their doctrines and practices are a perfect Restoration of the EXACT New Testament church doctrine and practice, are for that reason themselves the church Jesus Christ established, and that they are the ONLY Christians.

I myself am a member of the hated "change" movement . We are Churches of Christ that believe that Scripture and the Restoration principles require something different than most Churches of Christ at present. We typically believe that because of our attempts to further restore first century Christianity back in the early 1800's, we are closest to the truth, yet "Christians only but not the only Christians" -- we are a part of the church Jesus Christ established because of the succession of believers.

 

[Tom Butler]

Darron, thanks for the clarification. I was aware that there is a liberal element of the Churches of Christ, and you've helped me understand it better. I have heard that some congregations have added instruments to their worship, have adopted contemporary music and are going the whole CGM route.

Any more light you'd care to shed would be appreciated. Or is this a subject for another thread?

 

[Jack Matthews]

We're not saved by correct doctrine, we're saved by grace through faith in Christ. It is possible to hear that message in a Catholic church and come to a clear enough understanding so that a person could repent and confess to salvation. It is also entirely possible for someone to sit in a Baptist church for years and never get that far.

The Catholic Church is indeed loaded down with ritual, tradition and practices accumulated over a 2,000 year period of time. But I believe we have a God who is more interested in mercy than he is in sacrifice, and as a result, I think he is powerful enough to get his message of salvation into people's lives through just about any means possible. The apostle John clearly says, "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God (John 5:1a NIV). That's a clear teaching of the Catholic church. It is written that way in the catechism. It doesn't mean all Catholics are saved, but it does mean that they can hear the message of salvation and respond to it.

 

[Darron Steele]

Darron, thanks for the clarification. I was aware that there is a liberal element of the Churches of Christ, and you've helped me understand it better. ...

We are NOT liberals. We recognize that the Bible is 100% Word of God, 100% full and absolute authority, 100% full reliability.

I hate that designation -- I doubt that you know this, but it is used by hard-liners to slander us. It gets us falsely linked to denominations that openly treat the Bible with skepticism, which is the aim.

We are "changed" or "emerging" or something like that. This is somewhat more accurate, but the Restoration Movement did not envision anything like what devolved into most Churches of Christ. "Redirected" might be a better term -- we are among a segment of Churches of Christ that is redirecting to better follow Scripture and Restoration principles.

 

[Jack Matthews]

I was saved in a Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) that is a part of the same restoration movement as the churches of Christ, but has become a completely separate group. The problem with a movement or group that is trying to "get back" to the original New Testament church in doctrine and practice is that, sooner or later, you have someone who sees a way to interpret a passage of scripture just a bit differently, and someone who sees a way to apply a passage of scripture a bit differently and, poof, you have dissention and division in the ranks. In addition to churches of Christ, there are several Baptist groups in and among the various denominations, branches, and independent Baptists, who all insist that their position is closest to the original truth, and all claim to be literalist, inerrantist, and in some cases, KJV only. Yet there are major doctrinal differences among all of these groups, and in some cases, between churches within the same group. They can't all be right. It could well be that none of them are.

The D of C/Christian Church at one time had many members who advocated for the position of being the "most correct" of all Christians. However, because it is a loosely structured denomination, far more so than most Baptists, and in any attempt at arriving at pure doctrine, being in the flesh interferes, after many splinters and splits, what remains of the Disciples of Christ has become fairly ecumenical.

One thing that characterizes a D of C congregation, or at least a majority of them, is the depth of Bible study that is done. In my experience, the study of scripture is taken far more seriously than in a Baptist church. I find it interesting that, doctrinally, there is not a lot of difference between the two groups, but in actual practice, or ecclesiology, there are major differences.

Most church of Christ people have little to do with the D of C, since it represents something within their own movement that is quite different from themselves, yet once held on to many of the same claims. And it is hard to criticize a group that identifies its churches as "The Christian Church" because of the name. Many in the churches of Christ consider the Disciples to be the liberal side of the restoration movement.

 

[Charles Meadows]

As a former catholic I have some insight here.

I am afraid that the percentage of true Christians in the RCC is not terribly high. That being said I think there are many Christians in the RCC. I disagree with DHK and Mike McK - one can still abide in RCC doctrine and be a Christian. The RCC teaches that Jesus died on the cross for our sins - that sounds pretty right to me. If we say that the wrong points in RCC doctrine preclude salvation then the Methodists, Pentecostals, Wesleyans, UBI, and Anglicans are in trouble too. I also strongly disagree with Mike's remark comparing the RCC to the Mormons. Definitely not even close. True Mormon doctrine (as in Jospeh Smith Doctrine books) is absolutely bizarre and incompatible with Christianity.

 

[tragic_pizza]

The main difficulty with finding "True Christians" in any branch of Christianity is that the speakers tend to define "True Christianity" by their own standards.