A Convicted Evangelical (Church of Christ)

[JRKH]

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?

And let’s not forget the real clincher…Acts 15 - the Council of Jerusalem…What were “independent churches” doing coming together for the purpose of resolving a doctrinal matter if each church was independent?

Peace
James

 

[MarkInOregon]

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).

Since you reference the Dicache–have you read what is tells us about the practice of baptism in the early church (see 7)? So why is it you practice only submersion baptism? (and please don’t say scripture because scripture is silent on that).

Peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[mackbrislawn]

In regards to 3) and 4), I don’t know myself. What are your opinions?

This reminds me of the doctrine of predestination, which the Church of Christ opposes. My question about predestination, if it is foreordained whether each is going to heaven or hell even before we are born, what is the purpose of evangelizing? Why scripture? Why church? All of this does not affect our salvation or not, so why bother?
This is related to the question of why be Protestant or Catholic? And, if predestination, why even be Christian at all? That is a problem the Calvinists have, but not the CoC.

The early founders of the Church of Christ movement, Campbell, et al, realized there was something seriously wrong with Protestantism. They saw that it led to splintering of Chrisitanity, and wanted to get back to the basics. In doing so, they came back to many of the basic truths that the Catholic church had taught for ages, but that the Reformers had denied. Primarily truths of baptism, the kingdom, soteriology… But, they retained the notion of congregationalism, so the CoC idea of church is the opposite of the Catholic church. Also, the CoC does not believe in original sin, hence adult baptism.

As for the name Church of Christ, of course anybody can call themselves that. However, it does avoid what Paul opposed, those who “follow Cephas,” or those who “follow Apollos” or “follow Paul.” But, there are churches that, contrary to scripture, do exactly that, and identify themselves as followers of men! Such as Lutherans, Wesleyans, Mennonites.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

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.

We’re waiting for the evidence.

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).

This doesn’t say a word about baptism.

QUOTE - The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit. END QUOTE - Origin, Commentaries on Romans [post A.D. 244].

 

[bwmnstar]

It is not an asserting,but a FACT! I’ll be more than glad for you to present me ONE primary source written by an early church father stating he does not belong to the Catholic Church/Orthodox Church,but to the circles of Churches of Christ.

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 both biblical and by early non-canonical sources.

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 not written such if baptism was not a novel practice.

Where in thet 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 superflous. 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 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 no tsinned not 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.

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.

Your opinion…not a fact.

 

[bwmnstar]

It is not an asserting, but a FACT! I’ll be more than glad for you to present me ONE primary source written by an early church father stating he does not belong to the Catholic Church/Orthodox Church, but to the circles of Churches of Christ.

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.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

1. 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.
2. As a disclaimer, I do not consider the RCC and EOC to be devoid of true and genuine believers.
3. I do, however, believe that these churches have in large part departed from what I would consider to be a truly Orthodox view.

Hello bwmnstar,

1. What readings from the ECF and the NT are you referring to? and What is the “right claim” to the “true faith” instituted by Christ?
2. In what sense are you discerning true and genuine believers in the RCC and EOC?
3. How exactly have the RCC and the EOC departed in large from a true Orthodox view? and more importantly: How is your Church holding to them and what exactly are they?

Thanks,

Jose

 

[FabiusMaximus]

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?

I hope you’ll end up elaborating on your view. Not to be provocative, but because I’m genuinely interested in your conclusion.

Anyway, my answers:

1. I used to faithfully believe that Evangelicalism was the truest and most correct expression of Christianity. I was raised Pentecostal, and in reading the Bible, I always felt that it confirmed my belief. However, I am also passionate about history (or a history Geek, whatever). One Christmas Eve, a friend of mine invited me to attend her Christmas service (ours did not take place, I did not understand why and was angry, so I attended along with her). She is a Lutheran. And not knowing much about Lutheranism, I mistakenly believed the service was going to be like an Evangelical service. But I was naturally wrong. So I began exploring Church history, and from there, I began looking at the Church Fathers, and have drifted into ancient Christianity. I believe Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the truest expressions of Christianity, though I haven’t quite figured out which yet.
2. You can understand why, then, I reject the Church of Christ’s claim (if we’re thinking about the same Church of Christ). In studying the Church Fathers and early Church history, I was consistently brought back to the theology that is much closer to Catholicism (or Orthodoxy) than to CoC theology. Especially reading texts from fathers like Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, who were taught by disciples led me to ask the question - who am I to pretend to know more than they? How arrogant must I be to arrive and defend conclusions so different from theirs? I think in the end, I caved to what Cardinal Newman said: "To be steeped in History is to cease to be Protestant."
3. I’ve never thought, either as an Evangelical or now as an inquirer to other forms of Christianity that failure to associate with this group would mean certain condemnation for others. I simply leave it to God. What else can I do? If someone’s faith is true, it’s not up to me to decide.
4. It matters because the truth always matters.

 

[Nicea325]

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).

Seriously? You mean it is all lie your churches were founded in the 19th century? And you have yet to provide your evidence it began in the 1st century… My assumption the ECF were Roman Catholics? Sorry,but Roman refers to one rite out of many and yes the ECF were Catholics/Orthodoxs,not members of the 19th century churches you attend. What you are proposing does not mean it is an undisputable fact the “Churches of Christ” have more claims,it is your opinion,not a fact. I’ll ask again: Show me one ECF clearly stating he is NOT a member of the CC or EO churches,but the Churches of Christ?

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.

Well duh! Of course the first converts were adults because there wasn’t any cradle Christians. As for immersion? Show me where scripture explicitly states the **only valid **and acceptable method is by immersion?

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).

Sorry,but it is proof-texting and I am very familiar with the clever method used by non-Catholics. The quote you provided mentioned nothing about infant baptism being invalid. Tertullian against infant baptism? See what I mean? You just proved my point. Let me you ask you this: Did Tertullian make such a statement when he was an orthodox Christian or when he became a Montanist?

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

WRONG! It is clear you did not know Tertullian followed a heretical group called Montanism. So infant baptism was NOT 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.

Sorry,but I do not accept your poor interpretation. Since we are on the subject, you might as well start telling us Catholics Augustine also believed in Sola Scriptura. Heard it all and a far cry from the truth.

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).

Again,sorry but your interpretation is flawed.

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.

Tell me how doctrinal differences affects the Holy Spirit’s promise of guiding the church into ALL Truth?

 

[JRKH]

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).

(Snip)

Re: the bolded section -
I’m mot surprised you have this difficulty.
This is a common mistake that people make. The “Modern” Church is quite different than the very early Church for several reasons. But actually if you look at the development of the Church over the early centuries - and through to today the development is quite natural and organic.

Peace
James

 

[kwortham]

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)

So?

1. We believe in baptism for the forgiveness of sins. However, we reject infant baptism as having no apostolic validity.

Ex 4:23I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me, and thou wouldst not let him go: behold I will kill thy son, thy firstborn. 24 And when he was in his journey, in the inn, the Lord met him, and would have killed him. 25 Immediately Sephora took a very sharp stone, and circumcised the fore skin of her son, and touched his feet and said: A bloody spouse art thou to me. 26 And he let him go after she had said: A bloody spouse art thou to me, because of the circumcision.

Lev 12: 3 And on the eighth day the infant shall be circumcised:

Col 2:11 In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead

Mt 19:14 But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such.

Acts 2:38 But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.

Acts 16:15 And when she was baptized,** and her household**, she besought us, saying: If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

Acts 16:33 And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes, and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately.

Eph 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is just. 2 Honour thy father and thy mother, which is the first commandment with a promise: (How are they in the Lord? How is anyone in the Lord???)

“And many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years…” St. Justin Martyr, First Apology (A.D. ~110-165)

“For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.” St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies (A.D. ~180)

“And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves,** let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.**”
St. Hippolytus of Rome, (A.D. 215)

“For this reason, moreover,** the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.**” Origen, Homily on Romans (A.D. ~244)

Also we baptize strictly by immersion, and the rite is only administered to those who are able to give ther consent.

Eze 36:24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. 25 ** Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean**: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things,
baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living
(running) water. But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou
art not able in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head
thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. -Didache (~65-80 AD)

Besides, the true Church that can trace its history back 2000 years teaches both immersion or pouring are acceptable and this Church is the pillar and ground of truth.

 

[kwortham]

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.

Let us make this easy on you. Simply provide a list of writers from the end of the 1st century through to Campbell/Stone that preserved the faith as told by the “church of Christ.” If you are correct, then there will be a historical record everyone can follow throughout history. Make sure you cover every century and make sure that they faithfully taught only what you believe.

While you are at it, please show us any historical canonical listing of the exact 66 books in your protestant bible before the 16th century. This listing must be a historical record listing only the exact 66 books in your bible, no more and no less.

 

[andrewstx]

I was raised and dunked Campellite at age 16, and I began to notice the huge holes in logic the subscribe to and I was out of the “churches of Christ” as soon as graduated HS.

Very simularly to Mormons the hold the total apostacy/restoration dichotomy. The believe the church lost it’s way and became extinct from the very start. They beleive this happened when the church stopped obeying the bible in a very legal fashion. This is supposed to have happened in the first couple of centuries AD. The bible was not completed until the late 4th century. See the holes in the logic?

The “churches of Christ” were not established by the Campbells in the early 19th century. Those men founded the Christian Church Disciples of Christ.

The cofcs broke away in 1906 no earlier,and it was mostly over social issues. To this day the divide exists from the North South differences. DOC north mostly of the Mason Dixon line, and cofc mostly to the south.
The northern Disciples had more money for things like pipe organs, seminary educated ministers, nice churches with stained glass and the like. The post-war south was economically depressed and could afford none of those things. So the csofc declared those things as “unscriptual innovations”, and sin.

 

[andrewstx]

One thing the OP neglected to mention there is not one denomination that calls itself the churches of Christ but several, all refusing the name Christian and fellowship to the others.

Largest teaches sunday school classes. uses individual plastic cups for the grape juice in the “Lord’s Supper”, and has only accapella music.

Next is the same, but they do use instruments.

Then their is the cofc that does not have sunday school.

Next is the cofc that does not donate to “instituions” like Universities, retirement homes ETC.

Then the cofc that passes one glass of grape juice in the pews.

There are different combinations of the types, I just can’t recall all of them.

All of these csofc believe they are the only Christians to exist, and everyone else is bound for hell.

But then all who died pre 1906 are hell bound as well.

 

[kwortham]

I was raised and dunked Campellite at age 16, and I began to notice the huge holes in logic the subscribe to and I was out of the “churches of Christ” as soon as graduated HS.

Very simularly to Mormons the hold the total apostacy/restoration dichotomy. The believe the church lost it’s way and became extinct from the very start. They beleive this happened when the church stopped obeying the bible in a very legal fashion. This is supposed to have happened in the first couple of centuries AD. The bible was not completed until the late 4th century. See the holes in the logic?

The “churches of Christ” were not established by the Campbells in the early 19th century. Those men founded the Christian Church Disciples of Christ.

The cofcs broke away in 1906 no earlier,and it was mostly over social issues. To this day the divide exists from the North South differences. DOC north mostly of the Mason Dixon line, and cofc mostly to the south.

You are not the only one. I was one of these until the age of 35. At 35 I began to read the early church fathers. From the earliest writings I saw things that were different from my heretical sola scriptura background. Hence, I ended up searching the internet night after night to see what church taught what these earliest of fathers taught. It always ended up being an exact match to the catholic Church. Of course, these earliest fathers cleared up complete books, chapters and verses that were never satisfactorily explained in the “church of Christ.”

You must remember that the virulent coc members teach that the doc broke away from them (i.e. “the true church.”)

 

[kwortham]

One thing the OP neglected to mention there is not one denomination that calls itself the churches of Christ but several, all refusing the name Christian and fellowship to the others.

Largest teaches sunday school classes. uses individual plastic cups for the grape juice in the “Lord’s Supper”, and has only accapella music.

Next is the same, but they do use instruments.

Then their is the cofc that does not have sunday school.

Next is the cofc that does not donate to “instituions” like Universities, retirement homes ETC.

Then the cofc that passes one glass of grape juice in the pews.

There are different combinations of the types, I just can’t recall all of them.

All of these csofc believe they are the only Christians to exist, and everyone else is bound for hell.

But then all who died pre 1906 are hell bound as well.

But, but, but! How can this be? All they have to do is follow the same bible and all should be one!

Isn’t it great that Christ and the Apostles left us the Church as the pillar and ground of truth. Any interpretation outside the Church is merely private interpretation and forbidden.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I was raised and dunked Campellite at age 16, and I began to notice the huge holes in logic the subscribe to and I was out of the “churches of Christ” as soon as graduated HS.

Dear friend, I remember you sharing this some time ago, in another thread / context.

How ironic in this context that you ended up among the Antiochian Orthodox. Of course, the Bible tells us that “in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians”. [Acts 11:26] I suppose that adds some holes in this particular cheese, at least from what has been shared here.

 

[andrewstx]

You are not the only one. I was one of these until the age of 35. At 35 I began to read the early church fathers. From the earliest writings I saw things that were different from my heretical sola scriptura background. Hence, I ended up searching the internet night after night to see what church taught what these earliest of fathers taught. It always ended up being an exact match to the catholic Church. Of course, these earliest fathers cleared up complete books, chapters and verses that were never satisfactorily explained in the “church of Christ.”

You must remember that the virulent coc members teach that the doc broke away from them (i.e. “the true church.”)

I am older and pre computer. I converted out of the “cofC” by just reading my KJV and noticecing the things that cofc people ignore or sweep under the carpet. Things like “This is my body”, and “on this rock I will build my church”.

They are picky about the bible, but only the things that go with their predifined theology.

 

[kwortham]

I am older and pre computer. I converted out of the “cofC” by just reading my KJV and noticecing the things that cofc people ignore or sweep under the carpet. Things like “This is my body”, and “on this rock I will build my church”.

They are picky about the bible, but only the things that go with their predifined theology.

OK, I cannot lie, you are smarter than me! I began to have questions when reading the KJV, whole books at a time. However, the coc teaching almost always countered what the books said. Later, I began reading the Ante-Nicene fathers on the internet in early 2001 and these guys were catholic and lifted the scales off of my eyes in regards to the many verses in which the coc had trouble explaining.

 

[fred_conty]

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?

Why am I a Catholic?(in plain words)

The church service does just what the biblical christians did.
They broke bread as Jesus did at the last supper and at Emmaus. As Paul speaks of several times in his letters. Breaking bread was the first name for the current day catholic Mass.
“Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you cannot have life in you.” (real food)
“This is my body which will be given up for you.” (given up on the cross, as sacrifice)
“As often as you do this, do it in my name.” (command to repeat and authority to do this)

I don’t see this in Protestant services or even the protestants at this time in history.

Jesus created his church and left his church with the power to retain or forgive.
“whose sins you forgive they are forgiven…”
What church does this today?

Jesus left his church with someone in authority to guide it.
“you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church.”

Jesus before his going back to his Father, told his apostles to spread the faith.
“teach all nations baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
So many nations on earth have the Catholic faith and they believe and hold the same thing world wide believing in the real body and blood of Jesus, and his forgiveness.

And Jesus promised that his church would remain until the end of days.
“and the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.”
“I will be with you always even to the end …”
What church converted the Roman Empire thru persecution and is still with us?

And what church has fulfilled the prayer of Jesus in the garden when he said
“Father that they may all be one…”

And here is a familiar person in the early chuch explaining why he is catholic.

“In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should. . . With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me. . . No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion. . . For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”

St. Augustine