A Convicted Evangelical (Church of Christ)

[rfournier103]

My reasons for being Catholic…

1. TWO THOUSAND YEAR OLD CHURCH. Founded by Jesus Christ, with St. Peter and his successors left to ‘mind the store’ until Christ returns.
2. Not that I need more than number one… Apostolic succession.
3. St. Peter buried under St. Peter’s Basillica. Kind of gives Catholicism a little crediblity as far as I’m concerned.
4. All the other churches that have sprung up in recent years… where were they when the Catholic Church was founded at Pentacost? Still 1500 years into the future?
5. I refuse to follow in the footsteps of an English king who wanted a divorce and a disgruntled monk instead of Jesus and his apostles.

As far as non-Catholics having salvation… that is up to God, and I would not presume to know who will be “saved”, and who will not. All I can do is follow the path Jesus left us, (Catholicism, as far as I am concerned) and leave the rest to God.

In conclusion… history trumps some fly-by-night person who says he’s a minister and that Catholicism is wrong. I pray we’re all united one day, and I will pray for those who we are separated from.

The above are MY reasons, and mine alone… my personal opinion, so to speak. May God bless you.

 

[benjohnson]

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

As a Lutheran, personally I skip the issue.

I feel that my church is valid and that we properly worship God. I recognize that I and my fellow church members have faults. But a true and proper worship of God is what matters, and I think I have it. Good enough for me, and I hope, good enough for our savior.

Now, one may argue that I have this viewpoint because my church doesn’t have the buildings, hierarchy, or succession to backup it’s claims of legitimacy.

That may be a fair critique - but when it all comes down to it, when my paster puts the True Body of christ in my hand and tells me “Ben, the body of Christ given for you.” - there is nothing more important in my mind, and I don’t see anything more important in the world. This is what is true for me, and in Christ, this is where I stand.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Where was this self-named, self-proclaimed, man-made “Church of Christ” when what we know now as the New Testament was written and named, the Old Testament was canonized and named, and the Bible was compiled at the end of the fourth century? Where was it when the many, many synods of the Catholic Church against the early heresies were held? Where was it when the Roman persecutions were raging?

From Wiki: QUOTE: Churches of Christ are autonomous Christian congregations associated with one another through common beliefs and practices. They seek to base doctrine and practice on the Bible alone, and seek to be New Testament congregations as originally established by the authority of Christ. Historically, Churches of Christ in the United States were recognized as a distinct movement by the U.S. Religious Census of 1906. Prior to that they had been reported in the religious census as part of the movement that had its roots in the several independent movements that occurred through the leadership of people such as Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott, and Barton W. Stone.END QUOTE

Sorry, bwmnstar, no sale.

 

[pablope]

As my title indicates, I am a committed and active member within the circle of Churches of Christ. I am convinced (through reading the earliest

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

?

1 Samuel 15:22-23

22 So Samuel said:

“Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
As in obeying the voice of the Lord?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
And to heed than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
He also has rejected you from being king.

Who founded your church? Can you trace its apostolic lineage and provide proof?

Your church can only trace its lineage from the Reformation, or as someone posted, from the Restoration movement of the 1800s, same with the JWs, the Mormons, the SDA.

So your church came from disobedience…which as the verse above, the Lord does not look to kindly on and equates it with the sin of witchcraft…and idolatry.

 

[Nicea325]

I believe part of the confusion lies with the fact these churches call themselves the Churches of Christ,thus it is automatically believed they were founded by Jesus. Second, it is one thing to “restore” the NT church and yet is another thing to claim these churches stem back to Christ. Two different issues and very common among even the Jehovah Witnesses.

 

[Nicea325]

1 Samuel 15:22-23

22 So Samuel said:

“Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
As in obeying the voice of the Lord?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
And to heed than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
He also has rejected you from being king.

Who founded your church? Can you trace its apostolic lineage and provide proof?

Your church can only trace its lineage from the Reformation, or as someone posted, from the Restoration movement of the 1800s, same with the JWs, the Mormons, the SDA.

So your church came from disobedience…which as the verse above, the Lord does not look to kindly on and equates it with the sin of witchcraft…and idolatry.

Read the following from: church-of-christ.org/who.html#restore

The Historical background of the Restoration Movement

One of the earliest advocates of the return to New Testament Christianity, as a means of achieving unity of all believers in Christ, was James O’Kelly of the Methodist Episcopal Church. In 1793 **he withdrew **from the Baltimore conference of his church and called upon others to join him in taking the Bible as the only creed. His influence was largely felt in Virginia and North Carolina where history records that some seven thousand communicants followed his leadership toward a return to primitive New Testament Christianity.

In 1802 a similar movement among the Baptists in New England was led by Abner Jones and Elias Smith. They were concerned about “denominational names and creeds” and decided to wear only the name Christian, taking Bible as their only guide. In 1804, in the western frontier state of Kentucky, Barton W. Stone and several other Presbyterian preachers took similar action declaring that they would take the Bible as the “only sure guide to heaven.” Thomas Campbell, and his illustrious son, Alexander Campbell, took similar steps in the year 1809 in what is now the state of West Virginia. They contended that nothing should be bound upon Christians as a matter of doctrine which is not as old as the New Testament. Although these four movements were completely independent in their beginnings eventually they became one strong restoration movement because of their common purpose and plea. These men did not advocate the starting of a new church, but rather a return to Christ’s church as described in the Bible.

Members of the church of Christ do not conceive of themselves as a new church started near the beginning of the 19th century. Rather, the whole movement is designed to reproduce in contemporary times the church originally established on Pentecost, A.D. 30. The strength of the appeal lies in the restoration of Christ’s original church.

Isn’t it a bit contradictory? I mean their purpose? One reason for the movement was to restore the NT church and for achieving unity? But look at how quick it took to go against such unity?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

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.

 

[NorthTexan88]

Howdy OP!
I grew up church of Christ and came into the Church this past November, here are my reasons why I left the CoC and came to Christ’s true Church:

1. By reading the ECF’s I realized they were Catholic. So the complete opposite of you on that one.
2. The CoC was only founded in the 1800’s…the Catholic Church was founded in 33AD.
3. Reading St. Justin Martyr’s order of the Mass
4. Visiting The Vatican when I was in high school. Seeing 2,000 years of Church history, I was convinced the CoC couldn’t possibly be the Church that Christ founded.
5. 2,000 years of writings of the Church…CoC barely has 200

These are just a couple bc I’m sittin in class:thumbsup:

 

[The_Scott]

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).

Wouldn’t this specific quote support infant baptism? For if an infant died without sin, then his original sun must’ve been washed away. Specifically, through baptism.

 

[Nicea325]

Howdy OP!
I grew up church of Christ and came into the Church this past November, here are my reasons why I left the CoC and came to Christ’s true Church:

1. By reading the ECF’s I realized they were Catholic. So the complete opposite of you on that one.
2. The CoC was only founded in the 1800’s…the Catholic Church was founded in 33AD.
3. Reading St. Justin Martyr’s order of the Mass
4. Visiting The Vatican when I was in high school. Seeing 2,000 years of Church history, I was convinced the CoC couldn’t possibly be the Church that Christ founded.
5. 2,000 years of writings of the Church…CoC barely has 200

These are just a couple bc I’m sittin in class:thumbsup:

 

[Nicea325]

Wouldn’t this specific quote support infant baptism? For if an infant died without sin, then his original sun must’ve been washed away. Specifically, through baptism.

More important, the OP is stating such a quote is against infant baptism? No where does it even hint such a position.

 

[The_Scott]

More important, the OP is stating such a quote is against infant baptism? No where does it even hint such a position.

Either way, I find it interesting that this quote supports the very thing he is opposing.

 

[Nicea325]

Either way, I find it interesting that this quote supports the very thing he is opposing.

Exactly!

 

[mackbrislawn]

As my title indicates, I am a committed and active member within the circle of Churches of Christ. I am convinced (through reading the earliest Fathers and New Testament) that the Church of Christ, (and not the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox) has a right claim to the true faith instituted by Christ. As a disclaimer, I do not consider the RCC and EOC to be devoid of true and genuine believers. I do, however, believe that these churches have in large part departed from what I would consider to be a truly Orthodox view.

That being said (and keeping in mind that I am a minority voice in this forum), I would like this particular blog to center on:

1. How you came to the conclusion that whatever religious body you are a part of is in fact the one true church?
2. Why you feel/don’t feel that the Church of Christ is the one true church.
3. Are there eternal consequences for being outside the true church? (Here I am not talking about the post-Vatican II view that considers Evangelicals to be separated brethren that are in some form or fashion mystically part of the RC faith. Rather, my inquiry is mean to be taken thusly: If RC is true, will Evangelicals go to heaven since they are not true Catholics? And if Evangelicalism is true, will Roman Catholics go to heaven since they are not true “Protestants?”
4. Based on your answer to (3) If both groups have the same eternal destiny, why does it matter if one is Protestant or Catholic?

To address 1) and 2)). I like the idea of a church with a line going back to apostles themselves. That is true for the Catholic church as well as the Orthodox.
One thing that helps affirm my belief in the Catholic church is the Church of Christ itself. The founders of the Church of Christ went “back to the bible,” to study it without regard to creeds and confessions that were man-made. And, remarkably enough, ignoring Luther, Calvin, et al, they arrived at conclusions about baptism, works, and salvation and predestination quite similar to Catholic understanding! To me, this means the original reformers were wrong or simply willful in their scriptural interpretations.

But, I also don’t believe God meant us to go by ‘bible alone.’ Only in recent times has there been widespread literacy and widespread availabilty of copies of scripture. This use of scripture by individuals is a man-made tradition. In God-given times, the only way for the people to access scripture was to belong to a group that did have copies of scripture, and to assemble periodically to hear them read. Note that this was an aural and collective experience. This is the way I believe we were meant to use scripture. That is, in the context of the pre-existing people of God, known as the Church. Outside of that God-given context, it is highly likely scripture will be misunderstood. 2Peter 3:16. So the idea of someone ignorant reading a Gideon bible alone in their motel room is not God’s way.

Therefore, the Church cannot be ‘recreated’ or ‘reinvented.’ The true Church exists prior to scripture, and scripture comes out of the Church. Not the other way around. I feel the Church has the power to determine what is scripture, and also has the power to decide expediency in matters of worship, such as musical instruments.

 

[Link0126]

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).

none of these references address my question at all. They seem like stock verses for when you are challenged by other protestants as to a church hierarchy.

Again, if the churches of the New Testament are autonomous as you claim, why are they asking for Paul’s decision on issues and why is Paul writing to them with authority, even going as far as to say he has this authority, in order to get them to change their ways and/or theological beliefs?

 

[pablope]

By this I take it that you mean: What does the Church of Christ believe?

A short synopsis of our beliefs

 

[Jim_Dandy]

As my title indicates, I am a committed and active member within the circle of Churches of Christ. I am convinced (through reading the earliest Fathers and New Testament) that the Church of Christ, (and not the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox) has a right claim to the true faith instituted by Christ. As a disclaimer, I do not consider the RCC and EOC to be devoid of true and genuine believers. I do, however, believe that these churches have in large part departed from what I would consider to be a truly Orthodox view.

That being said (and keeping in mind that I am a minority voice in this forum), I would like this particular blog to center on:

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

A study of the history of Christianity, especially the first four centuries A.D., convinced me.
I was an atheist at the time.

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

Because it is a man-made Protestant organization born in the 19th century “restoration” movement in the U.S.A. Jesus Christ founded only one Church – the Catholic Church – in A.D. 33 in Jerusalem.

1. Are there eternal consequences for being outside the true church? (Here I am not talking about the post-Vatican II view that considers Evangelicals to be separated brethren that are in some form or fashion mystically part of the RC faith. Rather, my inquiry is mean to be taken thusly: If RC is true, will Evangelicals go to heaven since they are not true Catholics? And if Evangelicalism is true, will Roman Catholics go to heaven since they are not true “Protestants?”

Some of what the thousands of Protestant denominations teach is true, some is false. Only Catholicism has the fullness of God’s Truth – i.e., God’s complete revelation, the whole Deposit of Faith entrusted to her by Christ and His Apostles. the faith “once for all
delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

Being “Catholic” or “Protestant” is not a determing factor in who goes to heaven or hell.
However, the Catholic Church was founded by Christ for the salvation of the world, and those who belong to her have the best chance of making it to heaven. The only reason for becoming or remaining Catholic is because Catholicism is true. Those in the Church encounter the living Christ truly present in His sacraments, especially in Holy Communion – available every day. We offer the true sacrifice commanded by Christ, who is God.

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?

The Church teaches that those outside of her may achieve eternal salvation. “May” means “perhaps” – it’s a possibility. Those within her will achieve salvation if we follow her teachings.

 

[MarkInOregon]

1. 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.

Could you cite a scripture reference forbidding this, please–in order to back up your claim. Now when scripture says that a whole family or household was baptized–you assume that excludes any family member not old enough to give informed consent–is that correct?–on what basis do you make such a claim? It is does not appear to be based on Scripture.

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.

So when Peter & Paul write to the various communities correct their errors and to exhort them–they have no authority to do so–is that what you are saying? They are interfering in that communities autonomy? They have no authority? Is that how you read the New Testament? How were your elders (aka bishops) ordained–i.e. where did they get their authority from?–is it in accordance with what we see in the New Testament? Can they trace there ordination back to the apostles through the laying on of hands? What about Clement was he not exercising some kind of authority?

1. 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).

Can you show me where the New Testament speaks to singing at the worship service? Where it proscribes something with regards to singing and the worship service? I think you will find in the old testament reference to harps, lyres, tambourines, sistrums and cymbols. I have no problem with you singing a capella but what is your authority for aserting this is a mark of your church being the true church and that it is forbidden to use instruments?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[JRKH]

As my title indicates, I am a committed and active member within the circle of Churches of Christ. I am convinced (through reading the earliest Fathers and New Testament) that the Church of Christ, (and not the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox) has a right claim to the true faith instituted by Christ. As a disclaimer, I do not consider the RCC and EOC to be devoid of true and genuine believers. I do, however, believe that these churches have in large part departed from what I would consider to be a truly Orthodox view.

That being said (and keeping in mind that I am a minority voice in this forum), I would like this particular blog to center on:

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

By reading the bible and understanding some of history - The RC and EO turn out to be the most biblical.

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

Churches formed as a result of the Reformation have taken on an new and “man made” tradition(s) that are not seen in the Scriptures and are not evident in the Early church.

1. Are there eternal consequences for being outside the true church? (Here I am not talking about the post-Vatican II view that considers Evangelicals to be separated brethren that are in some form or fashion mystically part of the RC faith. Rather, my inquiry is mean to be taken thusly: If RC is true, will Evangelicals go to heaven since they are not true Catholics? And if Evangelicalism is true, will Roman Catholics go to heaven since they are not true “Protestants?”

This matter I leave entirely to my Lord and King and to His Father.

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?

For me it matters because of Truth - and the ability of the ekklesia (Church) as a whole to discern what is true from the many different voices and slants that individuals bring to the discussion. The Protestant model precludes this possibility and so - the result is doctrinal chaos.
The Holy Spirit is not the author of contradiction. So - for instance…“The real presence” cannot be both true AND false…yet there are “bible believing” protestants who take both views. The Lutherans believe in the Real Presence - Baptists believe it is symbolic…I don’t know what the “church of Christ’s” view is…

Christ called us to be one as He and the Father are one.
Such unity is impossible under the protestant model and as a result of this the protestant model is unable to protect the Truth of the Gospel through the ages.

Peace
James

 

[MarkInOregon]

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).

For those of us who are not quite as smart as you–could you please explain how this says anything about infant baptism one way or the other?

I can supply numerous others if necessary.

Perhaps you should supply them since it does not appear the quote you providede says anything re: baptism let alone infant baptism.

The peace of Christ,
Mark