Mark,
bmerr here. To be quite honest, I'm not that familiar with Restoration history. I know that men like Thomas and Alexander Campbell, and Barton Stone had a worthy goal: to leave the creeds, catechisms, and doctrines of men, and return to the NT for the sole authority for faith and practice.
I know that many men before their time had the same vision, often emphasizing one Bible truth above others, and most resulting in yet another denomination.
While the success of men through the ages in their quest to return to the Bible as their final authority may be questioned, the goal, in and of itself, is a noble one, would you not agree?
And, while "churches of Christ" may not have been known in America prior to the 1800's, the church of Christ has been in existence since Acts 2.
The church is the body is the kingdom of Christ. God nowhere commanded anyone to "join it", as you remarked, but people were added to it by the Lord when they obeyed the commands of the gospel (Acts 2:47).
The conditions upon which one may be added to the church of Christ are the same today as they have been since Acts 2. If you "joined" a church, it wasn't the one Christ built.
Alexander Campbell is not my authority. He is no Christian's authority. What truth he taught is right and acceptable, just as any truth Spurgeon taught is. There may have been some doctrinal points that Campbell had wrong, I don't know.
Each man has the duty to study (2 Tim 2:15), and to live accordingly as best he can (Phil 3:16). On these boards, I would hope we would be more interested in coming to a better knowledge of the truth than we are in finding "reasonable" names to call each other, especially if it's with indended offense.
If I refer to someone as a "Baptist", it's nothing that they don't call themselves, so no offense should be taken, since no sane person would call themselves a name they objected to. But to continue to use a term that you know is offensive is childish at best.
I'll look for better from you in the future.
In Christ,
bmerr
bmerr here. To be quite honest, I'm not that familiar with Restoration history. I know that men like Thomas and Alexander Campbell, and Barton Stone had a worthy goal: to leave the creeds, catechisms, and doctrines of men, and return to the NT for the sole authority for faith and practice.
I know that many men before their time had the same vision, often emphasizing one Bible truth above others, and most resulting in yet another denomination.
While the success of men through the ages in their quest to return to the Bible as their final authority may be questioned, the goal, in and of itself, is a noble one, would you not agree?
And, while "churches of Christ" may not have been known in America prior to the 1800's, the church of Christ has been in existence since Acts 2.
The church is the body is the kingdom of Christ. God nowhere commanded anyone to "join it", as you remarked, but people were added to it by the Lord when they obeyed the commands of the gospel (Acts 2:47).
The conditions upon which one may be added to the church of Christ are the same today as they have been since Acts 2. If you "joined" a church, it wasn't the one Christ built.
Alexander Campbell is not my authority. He is no Christian's authority. What truth he taught is right and acceptable, just as any truth Spurgeon taught is. There may have been some doctrinal points that Campbell had wrong, I don't know.
Each man has the duty to study (2 Tim 2:15), and to live accordingly as best he can (Phil 3:16). On these boards, I would hope we would be more interested in coming to a better knowledge of the truth than we are in finding "reasonable" names to call each other, especially if it's with indended offense.
If I refer to someone as a "Baptist", it's nothing that they don't call themselves, so no offense should be taken, since no sane person would call themselves a name they objected to. But to continue to use a term that you know is offensive is childish at best.
I'll look for better from you in the future.
In Christ,
bmerr