A Convicted Evangelical (Church of Christ)

[teresa_lamb]

Contritespirit, wonderful posts!
Thank you

 

[MarkInOregon]

contritespirit,

An Excellent post. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Thank you.

Peace
James

I second the above.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[campeador]

No one here calling themselves Catholic will turn away from anyone proclaiming a genuine belief in Christ, in the humility as taught us by our Lord.

That said, coming here and claiming that a “church” raised in 19th century America is the true One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and further declaring that neither the RCC nor the EOCs can make any such claim, is likely to be greeted with nothing more than skepticism, at best, as to both credibility and intent.

With due respect and in Christian charity, we would and should always welcome a discussion about mutual belief and faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ here on CAF. However, when it is prefaced by a claim of superiority, built upon a yet unsubstantiated claim of defect on the part of Churches of true Apostolic lineage, heritage and origin, it simply cannot be taken as a serious attempt at charitable exchange, promoting Christian spiritual growth and unity.

Please consider first laying out an argument for the first claim, that is, that the Church of Christ is Apostolic. Otherwise, this is simple nothing more than a very polite jab at both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and thus inconsistent with the norms of this forum.

We pray for you and your family, and wish you well in your journey of faith.

Absolutely. Well said.

 

[CopticChristian]

I will focus this response on the latter part of your question–that is–what is the Church of Christ? By this I take it that you mean: What does the Church of Christ believe?

A short synopsis of our beliefs

1. We simply wear the name Christian (not Baptist, Methodist, or Presbyterian)
2. We believe in baptism for the forgiveness of sins. However, we reject infant baptism as having no apostolic validity. Also we baptize strictly by immersion, and the rite is only administered to those who are able to give ther consent.
3. We are governed by a plurality of elders (aka bishops) and under them deacons. Each church is autonomous. We believe that the triadic form of government–first attested by Ignatius–is an early departure from the New Testament teaching.
4. Our singing is done Acapella (as church history attests was the only practice in the church up until the 7th century. The EOC has continued to observe this practice).
5. We observe the Lord’s Supper weekly.

Blessings, bwmnstar

B,

You claim the name Christian for only those that are of “The Church of Christ”…

You believe in Baptism and for the forgiveness of sins rejecting it for infants.

You believe in some sort of governance/organization

You observe the Lords supper

You sing without music

Where do I find “church of Christ” in the Bible…no concordance I have says anything about “church of christ”

You do not agree with forgiving sins for infants…who are the persons able to baptize?

You believe in organization…

You observe the lords supper? symbolically…what does it mean to you?

 

[CopticChristian]

Thanks for the response. Asserting that the Church I attend has no historical proof is merely that, an assertion. Simply saying such a statement does not dismiss the possibility that the Churches of Christ do, in fact, have historical precedence. I can supply a plethora of patristic quotations that go against infant baptism alone (See the writings of Aristides, Justin Martyr, Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas).

Aristides: "And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God; and if it should die as an infant, they give thanks the more, because it has departed life sinless (Apology 15.11–circa 125 AD).

I can supply numerous others if necessary. Also, you concluded your response with a reference to the EOC, which similar to RC, claims apostolic continuity. What we have here is two churches, both claiming to be the one True Church, both tracing their lineage to the apostles, who make contradicting doctrinal claims. Seems as if appeal to apostolic continuity is problematic in and of itself.

A better question perhaps: Did the Eastern Orthodox and RCC remain faithful to the apostolic teaching. My answer is “No.”

B,

Your train of thought loses me here. You say that possibility of historical precedence of the “church of Christ” exists and then your next sentence addresses infant baptism. I don’t see the logic here.

Concerning infant baptism and your query about the EOC and OHCAC they both accept infant baptism…considered as faithful to apostolic teaching…

 

[CopticChristian]

Rejoinder to (2)

I don’t know this other “Church of Christ”, but I am sure it doesn’t have the historical link the Church founded by Christ (Catholic Church) has with Jesus Christ.

After admitting your ignorance (btw I don’t mean ignorance in a demeaning sense. You are unaware of what the Church of Christ believes), how can you make such a bold statement? That would be like me saying: I don’t know about the Roman Catholic Church, but I am sure it doesn’t have the historical link the Church founded by Christ (The Church of Christ) has with Jesus Christ." You wouldn’t accept such a statement. Why should I?

Rejoinder to (4)

Eastern Orthodox, the RCC, and Evangelicals all believe that they are faithfully following the teachings of Jesus. What does relativism have to do with the question I asked? It is a fact that the Catechism stipulates that Protestants will be in heaven. If you affirm this, you need to clarify your inquiry about relativism, and what relevance it has for this discussion?

B,

You are confused. You cannot honestly believe that EO, RCC, and Evangelicals are faithfully following the teachings of Jesus. I suggest you do not lump Evangelicals in the same sentence when discussing EO and RCC. Those EO guys are pretty strict about being grouped with anyone else.

Did Jesus teach infant baptism and the Lords supper as professed by the “church of christ”? If so then you cannot accept and believe that the EO and RCC are faithfully following the teachings of Jesus.

I believe that Chiropractors, Dentists, Naturopaths, Allopaths and Homeopaths are all concerned with health. I believe that if you need a rhinoplasty you may want to reconsider a visit to a Chiropractic.

 

[CopticChristian]

After the death of the apostles, the earliest non-canonical writings attest that the churches were governed by a plurality of elders: (See Didache 15, Hermas, Visions 2.4.2-3=8.2-3; 3.5.1=13.1). (See also Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; Ephesians 4:11; Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-13; 4:14; 2 Tim 4:5; Titus 1:5-9).

B,

The fascinating thing about looking outside of scripture is that there is no limit to what you can use to prove your point. Archaeology, writings, word of mouth, tradition, and in fact looking to see what exists today from the past…there are as you know Samaritans living today that are remnants of the Samaritans of yesterday…

The Church in Ephesus is an archeological historical place for evaluation. The churches in Jerusalem are a monument and testament of the past types of church…governance should be looked at and inspected in time.

There is a history of everything. You may want to look at music, art, poetry and the like and then consider that absent historical continuity you are proposing invention.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi, sorry. My response about relativism was meant for another individual. I just joined today and am still getting used to posting. It’s a bit confusing, especially when all of the posts are directed at me. Please bear with and forgive me.

Blessings, bwmnstar

B,

I have a difficult time forgiving you. You started this OP. It is tantamount to declaring that you are the toughest man on the planet and inviting the UFC to prove you wrong. You did this to yourself.

 

[CopticChristian]

Writing “fact” in capital letters is not evidence in support of your claim. In fact (no pun intended), your assumption that the Church Fathers were Roman Catholic begs the question in the first place. I have a very hard time reading modern Catholicism back into the earliest non canonical writings. What I am proposing is that the Church of Christ, and not the EOC or RCC, has a more realistic claim on the early patristic writings than both the RCC and EOC (more on this in a future post).

I find that in terms of church organization, baptism by immersion to consenting individuals, singing without instrumental accompaniment, observance of the Lord’s Supper, etc. are well attested in both biblical and by early non-canonical sources.

You wrote: “You can supply a plethora of ECF going against infant baptism? You mean more like “proof-texting” their works to present a smoking gun?”

Not proof texting, more like examining the earliest sources against what the New Testament says. For Justin Martyr, only individuals who could choose and were persuaded were brought to the baptismal font (See his Apology I, 61). In his orthodox days, Tertullian spoke against the practice of baptizing infants. He writes:

“According to the circumstances and nature, and also age, of each person, the delay of baptism is more suitable, especially in the case of small children. What is the necessity, if there is no such necessity, for the sponsors as well to be brought into danger, since they many fail to keep their promises by reason of death or be deceived by an evil disposition that grows up in the child.” He goes on to say that he would rather children come when they are able and when they can ask for themselves (On Baptism 18).

Tertullian could in no way have written this unless infant baptism was a recent development.

You wrote: “Where in the statement is Aristides advocating non-infant baptism? Where? Second, did he make such a statement in reference to infant baptism being false?”

Earlier in his apology, Aristides speaks of how Christians used persuasion in making disciples of young children:

"If they should have bondmen and bondwomen or children, they persuade them to become Christians in order that they might be friends, and when they have become such, they call them brethren withotu distinction (Apology 15.6).

Aristides suggests that children enter the world sinless and departed in the same condition. This in and of itself suggests that infant baptism if superfluous. If the infant is indeed innocent, there is no reason to baptize them. The earliest writings do not attest to the modern position of original sin adopted (and officially formulated) after Augustine’s argument with the Pelagians.

Hermas writes: “Those who believed are such as these: They are like innocent infants, in whose heart no wickedness enters and always remain in innocence. Such as these will undoubtedly live in the kingdom of God…” (Similitudes 9.29.1-3

Athenagoras: “Although all human beings who die are resurrected, not all those resurrected are judged. If justice in the judgment were the only cause of the resurrection, it would follow, of course, that those who have not sinned nor done good, namely quite young children would not be resurrected.” (On the Resurrection 14).

In order to show I’m not biased, I note that Irenaeus is the first likely candidate in support of infant baptism. (See Against Heresies 4.28.3).

You wrote: “Go for it and I’ll be more than glad to rebuke your position. Problems within the church does not change the santification of the church. Problems have always existed and always will.”

Are you suggesting that doctrinal differences do not change the sanctification of the Church. If so, I find that to be quite odd.

B,

I have asked and you have not replied to me as to which Church Fathers you speak of.

Every people have a history and leave archeological evidence. Your notion that there is a claim based on governance, etc makes me ask where are the early bodies of believers that were like this…Donatists, Novatians, some group like this?

You spend a great deal of time on Infant Baptism as your focus. You remind me of the Mennonites and their hogwash treatises.

 

[CopticChristian]

Mark,

I don’t hold that the Didache is an infallible document that has to be followed in everything it teaches. For instance, it is not necessary to be baptized in living or running water. The meaning of baptism is to plunge, or immerse. The Eastern Orthodox has held on to this tradition. The RCC baptizes adults by immersion, but children by pouring water on the head.

Not only do I find infant baptism problematic, but the image of a burial is significanctly diminished when alternative methods are introduced. We see an excellent depiction of baptism in Romans 6. Also noteworthy is that John baptized where water was plentiful. See also how the Philip and the eunuch came up out of the water in Acts 8.

The Church of Christ teaches baptism via immersion because it is an acceptable and ecumenical practice. Virtually no church, not even the RCC, would deny an individual baptism by submersion. Several churches, however, including the EOC, Baptists, etc, would object to baptism by other methods. Do you think it’s wrong to baptize only by immersion? If so, why?

Also, it seems as if you consider the Didache to be binding in all that it teaches. The Didache made exceptions for extreme cases. “If you do not have running water, baptize in warm. If you do not have either, pour out water three times on the head…” Can any church in America claim to have an insufficient water supply to immerse? I don’t think so.

Blessings, bwmnstar

B,

What if there is no water to submerge/immerse, then is there no possibility of Baptism?

 

[CopticChristian]

Since there are so many who responded, I can only focus on the latter portion of your question at the moment. But if you give me time, I will answer the first portion also.

You asked for a list of books.

Melito of Sardis:

After a request from his brother Onesimus to accurately record the OT books, he writes:
[To Onesimus] “Therefore, when I went to the east and reached the place where these things were preached and practiced and learned accurately the books of the Old Covenant, I set them down.” He goes on to list all of the Old Testament books with the exception of Esther, and he excludes the Apocryphal books. Melito gives the earliest known listing of an OT canon.

Origen:

He lists 22 books, including Esther. Scholars have suggested that the book of the 12 (which is the only one missing from Origen) has accidentally dropped out as some point during transmission of the text. He specifically states that the certain books are excluded. “Outside of these are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sar beth sabanai el.” (Eusebius, Church History 6.25.1-2). However, he does included the Epistle of Jeremiah in his list.

Athanasius lists 22 books, excluding Esther. He, like Origen, includes the Epistle of Jeremiah. But about certain books he says, “But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed in the canon, but appointed by the fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the canon, the latter being merely read…” (Letter 39.3-4, 7).

As far as I know, Jerome’s list accurately represents the Palestinian canon. See (Letter 53.8) Important to note: “We may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed among the apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobit, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek” (Helmeted Prologue to his translation of the Books of Samuel and Kings).

It was Augustine who so heavily influenced the canonicity of the Apocryphal books. History, as I have shown, suggests differently.

B,

How do you explain the 1611 King James and every English Bible at that time including the DC.?

 

[mark_a]

I’m late to the party, but here are my two cents:

1. How you came to the conclusion that whatever religious body you are a part of is in fact the one true church?

The use of the term “Church” implies that the religious body be Christian. So historically speaking, my choices are Orthodox and Catholic. I was baptized Catholic.

1. Why you feel/don’t feel that the Church of Christ is the one true church.

I know less than anyone on the planet about CoC, but aren’t CoC pro-abortion?

1. If RC is true, will Evangelicals go to heaven since they are not true Catholics?

Yes. I have no desire to worship a God who creates souls for hell.

And if Evangelicalism is true, will Roman Catholics go to heaven since they are not true “Protestants?”

Some evangelicals seem perfectly happy with this.

1. Based on your answer to (3) If both groups have the same eternal destiny, why does it matter if one is Protestant or Catholic?

Morals theology and sexual responsibility come to mind first.

 

[CopticChristian]

What do you mean “lost its way and became extinct from the very stary?” “The Bible was not completed until the late 4th century.”

No sir. The Bible was completed by the end of the first century. Virtually all scholars accept that John penned Revelation circa 90 AD. So, what holes in logic are you referring to? But perhaps that’s not what you meant. I’m going to assume that what you meant was that an official list of canonical books was not produced until the fourth century (at Councils Hippo and Carthage).

B,

“Church of Christ” is touted for logical deductive reasoning. The bible was complete at the end of the first century. You may see this as true. There were other books/letters being read and in that context you are correct.

You are confusing completeness with recognition and use. The Bible as we know it was not recognized and used as we know it today until a time later and it was done by an organization. You are all about organization…

You may want to ask why it is that Protestants had to use a book produced and preserved by the OHCAC early on to produce an English translation…why did they not go anywhere else.

While you choose to deny your Protestant heritage…I find that difficult to accept…do you deny that Thomas Campbell was a Presbyterian and started the “Brush Run Congregation”?

 

[CopticChristian]

You highlighted by quotation everything I wrote, but you dealt with none of what I said. None of the patristic sources I cited were engaged by your rebuttal.

Also, simply saying I’m wrong without providing evidence doesn’t make it so. You need to refute all of the quotations from the Fathers I presented, most of which expressly deny the canonicity of the Apocrypha.

Jerome, Origen, Athanasius, deal with those references. You have to deal with them. You can’t just say I’m wrong and expect that to fly as evidence in support of your assertion. My assessment was both honest and charitable, and I think many of the Catholics on this forum would agree.

We’re supposed to be honest and sincere seekers. Don’t dismiss what I wrote as inadequate simply because it goes against what the RCC teaches. That’s the whole point of dialoguing on this forum–to interact with another’s views.

Blessings, bwmnstar

B,

The wheel is the only way to get around. I know this because I see that there was a wheel and it is round and rolls…I don’t care about cars, airplanes or any other form of transportation because the wheel as I look back was the way to go…

This is your logic on the DC. The DC were included in every English Speaking bible including the King James 1611…what other said in the past denies what happened in 1611…is this how you think?

You are confused

 

[CopticChristian]

Time out. What is your definition of prooftexting? I accurately presented all of the views cited, even when they included an apocryphal work. How is that prooftexting? Perhaps you should show me the proper way to interpret the quotations I presented. Was my assessment wrong? You asked for individuals; I gave you four of the earliest representatives. That is in no way prooftexting, my friend. Unless of course, by prooftexting you mean “presenting evidence contrary to what you believe.”

Augustine??? Huh??? Sola Scriptura??? No offense, but this is irrelevant to the discussion. The issue you raised was over the apocryphal (or as Catholics call them–deuterocanonical) books. Red herring at its finest. But we can talk about this later.

If it’s okay with you, let’s finish discussing the apocryphal books before we get back into infant baptism.

Okay, if you’re already firmly convinced in your beliefs, then there’s no point in continuing the discussion. You may have “been there [and]…done that” with others, but what’s doing it one more time going to hurt. Maybe since you’ve “been there and done that” so often, you can copy and paste one of the numerous responses you’ve written to someone else and let other individuals judge who has the stronger argument. You never know, perhaps you can convince me that I’m wrong.

We should both be willing to follow truth wherever it leads us, even if we have to give up beliefs we’ve held for our entire lives. It’s not about winning an argument; it’s about searching and following God-given truth.

Blessings, bwmnstar

B,

You avoid the request to provide the names of the ECF and the NT you read to convince you and you dance around with supporting denial of infant baptism, governance, singing and the like.

List your sources of your conviction or you are wasting everyone’s time.

 

[kwortham]

I know less than anyone on the planet about CoC, but aren’t CoC pro-abortion?

That would be the “United Church of Christ” of which you are referencing. They support abortion, gay marriage, and many other unchristian things. The “church of Christ” this man is part of considers abortion, gay marriage, ordained women and the other things as being worse than Catholic and you know what he thinks of us.

 

[JRKH]

I hope that bwmnstar has not been overwhelmed and buried under the avalanche of responses…:stretcher:

One thing is pretty certain - He now knows that this is a highly active board with more than just a couple of knowledgeable folks. Throw down the gauntlet here for debate, irenic or not…and it will be quickly taken up by all sorts who really know their stuff.
:knight1::byzsoc::hey_bud:

Peace
James

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

1. We are governed by a plurality of elders (aka bishops) and under them deacons. Each church is autonomous. We believe that the triadic form of government–first attested by Ignatius–is an early departure from the New Testament teaching.

You became convinced the CoC is the true church through reading the ECF’s and deciding they (your example is from the 1st/2nd century) were wrong and you (from the 21st) are right. Interesting story…

 

[Gorillaman]

this type of conversation is so beautiful, but it confuses me…

catholic=universal.

its right there in the words…its right there in all of your words, were all trying to be “right”…

why do we all want to be right? because god wants us to be right and just, its innate.

to me …catholicism just makes so much sense, and the fact that it makes so little sense to so many people, and yet old women cling to rasaries as they pass on into the next life…that is what works with me.

anybody else?

 

[mark_a]

That would be the “United Church of Christ” of which you are referencing. They support abortion, gay marriage, and many other unchristian things. The “church of Christ” this man is part of considers abortion, gay marriage, ordained women and the other things as being worse than Catholic and you know what he thinks of us.

Where do they stand on contraception?