Information On The Church Of Christ

[believerdoc]

Great post, these individuals don’t have the biblical proof to prove it, nor history nor writings from the early church fathers.

But they do. They follow accounts of the early church stating that the Apostles met together for the hearing the Word, singing of psalms (or hymns), and the breaking of bread. You must remember that there was no formal institutional church at this time but many home churches established by the Apostles.

 

[ltwin]

Just keep in mind that the Church of Christ is a different thing entirely from the United Church of Christ (which is a liberal/ecumenical Protestant denomination). These two groups are often confused.

 

[eddie_too]

it always surprises me that the members of the restorationist churches have no problem with the idea that the Church Jesus founded fell away form Him. some savior that would be, right?

 

[BLP]

Follow the history. It goes back to the Catholic Church.

 

[andrewstx]

Follow the history. It goes back to the Catholic Church.

Exactly. The churches of Christ spit from the Disciples of Christ. The Disciples split from the Seceeders Presbyterian church.

The seceeders Presbyterian church split from the church of Scotland. The church of Scotland split from the Anglican Church of England. And the Church of England split from the Catholic church.

But churchofChristers ignore church history and logic. They are restorationists like Mormons. They think the church ended when the church stopped following the bible as a strict map of blueprint and only re-emerged when the Campbells and Barton Stone ‘restored’ the church back into existence.

There were no “Christians” according to that theory for most of the history of Christianity.

The “apostacy-restoration” theory is full of holes because the church supposedly stopped stop existing before the bible new testament would not even be canonized until centuries after the church had “apostacised” itself out of existence.

 

[concretecamper]

believerdoc:

Quote:

Originally Posted by chero23

Great post, these individuals don’t have the biblical proof to prove it, nor history nor writings from the early church fathers.

But they do. They follow accounts of the early church stating that the Apostles met together for the hearing the Word, singing of psalms (or hymns), and the breaking of bread. You must remember that there was no formal institutional church at this time but many home churches established by the Apostles.

So, was the Word that the Christians heard for the first 50 years after Pentecost the same Word that the CofC members hear today?

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[concretecamper]

concretecamper:

Quote:

Originally Posted by believerdoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by chero23

Great post, these individuals don’t have the biblical proof to prove it, nor history nor writings from the early church fathers.

But they do. They follow accounts of the early church stating that the Apostles met together for the hearing the Word, singing of psalms (or hymns), and the breaking of bread. You must remember that there was no formal institutional church at this time but many home churches established by the Apostles.

So, was the Word that the Christians heard for the first 50 years after Pentecost the same Word that the CofC members hear today?

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

You can’t even make in out the Acts before the Church has it’s first council. Did it look like today’s Church…no but it was organized.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I remember speaking to one and asking where their church was in history and they pointed to the bible, some verse about church and said “thats where we are.” Despite pointing out that you cannot simply draw a connection between the apostolic church and their own church by refferring to a verse from the bible i got the idea that they don’t know that simply calling themselves teh “church of Christ” doesnt make theirs the “Church of Christ.”

 

[Honorius]

I happen to have a friend who is a member of the local Church of Christ, and has explained to me some of their practices. (Keep in mind however, that the groups that call themselves Churches of Christ are legion and the fact that they are congregationalists means that this information does not apply to every group.)

First, they only do things in church if they are mentioned in the Bible. For example they do not use music because it is not explicitly stated that the early church used music.

Second, from what my friend told me, they view anything above the level of the local church (for example, deacon pastor elder) as going against the Bible, and therefore wrong.

Just my $0.02

 

[ealfred]

Well all that bring the question, do they now that the Catholic Church decided the canon of the Bible? and without the Catholic Church the Bible would not be agreed on (at least NT)?

 

[BLP]

Most Protestants never think about how the Bible came to be. It didn’t just drop out of the sky. Someone had to put it together, decide what was going to be in it, etc. History shows Catholic bishops did that. What did the church do before there was a Bible to follow? It was word of mouth carried down from the apostles themselves. That nasty word to a Protestant, Tradition.

 

[believerdoc]

it always surprises me that the members of the restorationist churches have no problem with the idea that the Church Jesus founded fell away form Him. some savior that would be, right?

We do not believe that the Church of Jesus Christ fell away from its Lord and Savior. We accept the fact the the institutional church fell into errors due to human leadership and many many non-essential dogma were added as a result. The difference here is what you believe is the Church. We do not accept or believe that any earthy church is the one true church but that Christ’s true church is made up of all true believers and therefore is not contained in one single earthly institution. If you read scripture you will find that the church of the apostles does not resemble in any way any of the churches that exist today that claim to be the one true church.

 

[believerdoc]

Follow the history. It goes back to the Catholic Church.

I agree. Follow the history and you will find it goes back to the church established by Christ through the Apostles; the Catholic church as we know it today grew out of that church as did the many other churches. The splits were all the result of abuses and human error which is why Christ’s own prayer “that they all might be one” is so prophetic.

 

[Randy_Carson]

We do not believe that the Church of Jesus Christ fell away from its Lord and Savior. We accept the fact the the institutional church fell into errors due to human leadership and many many non-essential dogma were added as a result. The difference here is what you believe is the Church. We do not accept or believe that any earthy church is the one true church but that Christ’s true church is made up of all true believers and therefore is not contained in one single earthly institution. If you read scripture you will find that the church of the apostles does not resemble in any way any of the churches that exist today that claim to be the one true church.

Just a few questions about this “church” made up of all true believers:

1. Is this group made up exclusively of Church of Christ members?
2. If not, would you say that doctrine is not terribly important in the “church” or are conflicting and contradictory doctrines acceptable withing the Body of Christ?
3. Is the “church” established by Jesus visible or invisible? In other words, is it obvious where to find that “church”, who its leaders are, and can we know who is formally associated with it?

Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I agree. Follow the history and you will find it goes back to the church established by Christ through the Apostles; the Catholic church as we know it today grew out of that church as did the many other churches. The splits were all the result of abuses and human error which is why Christ’s own prayer “that they all might be one” is so prophetic.

The history of the Catholic Church is clearly documented and the names of every pope from Peter to Francis is known.

Could you show some evidence of the existence of this “proto-church” out of which all the other “churches” sprang? Are there any writings or historical accounts of its existence?

We have evidence of the Catholic Church that date to the Apostolic Era itself; indeed, the writers of the New Testament were members of the Way which came to be called the “Catholic Church” before the death of the last Apostle. But I am unfamiliar with any historical references to any Christian group older than and distinct from the Catholic Church from which Catholicism came.

 

[believerdoc]

Exactly. The churches of Christ spit from the Disciples of Christ. The Disciples split from the Seceeders Presbyterian church.

The seceeders Presbyterian church split from the church of Scotland. The church of Scotland split from the Anglican Church of England. And the Church of England split from the Catholic church.

But churchofChristers ignore church history and logic. They are restorationists like Mormons. They think the church ended when the church stopped following the bible as a strict map of blueprint and only re-emerged when the Campbells and Barton Stone ‘restored’ the church back into existence.

There were no “Christians” according to that theory for most of the history of Christianity.

The “apostacy-restoration” theory is full of holes because the church supposedly stopped stop existing before the bible new testament would not even be canonized until centuries after the church had “apostacised” itself out of existence.

While there are a few correct points in your statement the Disciples of Christ are in no way similar to the Mormans. Their goal was to restore the original New Testament Church which had fallen into errors concerning the Lord’s Supper, creeds, etc. They do not believe that the church ceased to exist. The church that the Stone/Campbell movement sought to restore was a simpler form of Christianity that believed in open communion, was against the use of creeds as tests of faith for membership, and practiced believers’ baptism. They looked to scripture for a pattern of worship free of false man made dogma and unessential liturgy. So you see they did not believe that the church ceased to exist but sought to restore simple New Testament Christianity.

 

[eddie_too]

so the church of christ does not even believe in the apostles creed?

who do they think was responsible for establishing the Church?

the mormons do teach that the Church founded by Jesus went apostate.

where in sacred scripture does it state that all of the teachings of Jesus are written down in sacred scripture?

that is what the church of christ teaches, right? if it is not in scripture, they do not practice it.

where does scripture teach people that?

i know scripture says that Jesus taught the apostles things He did not teach to the masses. i know scripture says that everything Jesus taught and did is NOT in sacred scripture.

why does the church of christ want to ignore those teachings of Jesus that are not written down in sacred scripture?

 

[franc1sc0]

While there are a few correct points in your statement the Disciples of Christ are in no way similar to the Mormans. Their goal was to restore the original New Testament Church which had fallen into errors concerning the Lord’s Supper, creeds, etc. They do not believe that the church ceased to exist. The church that the Stone/Campbell movement sought to restore was a simpler form of Christianity that believed in open communion, was against the use of creeds as tests of faith for membership, and practiced believers’ baptism. They looked to scripture for a pattern of worship free of false man made dogma and unessential liturgy. So you see they did not believe that the church ceased to exist but sought to restore simple New Testament Christianity.

Sounds like watered down Christianity to me.

Also no where in the Bible does it say Bible only or Sola Scriptura…

 

[andrewstx]

While there are a few correct points in your statement the Disciples of Christ are in no way similar to the Mormans. Their goal was to restore the original New Testament Church which had fallen into errors concerning the Lord’s Supper, creeds, etc. They do not believe that the church ceased to exist. The church that the Stone/Campbell movement sought to restore was a simpler form of Christianity that believed in open communion, was against the use of creeds as tests of faith for membership, and practiced believers’ baptism. They looked to scripture for a pattern of worship free of false man made dogma and unessential liturgy. So you see they did not believe that the church ceased to exist but sought to restore simple New Testament Christianity.

Except I was speaking about the “churches of Christ” and not the Disciples.

There are many simularities between the Mormons and the Campbellites . They were both founded during the same period. They both ascribe the apostacy/restoration theory. They both believe themselves to be the only true church. They both believe in baptism for beleivers only, by submersion only for the forgiveness of sin. They both celebrate communion every Sunday and Sunday only as a mere symbol. They both have no ordained clerics but a lay ministry.

That’s a lot in common.

But note, I am speaking about the so called “churches of Christ” and not the Disciples. The coc hates the Disciples for the things that began the split. Calling the minister “reverend”, having musical instruments, having missionary societies. organisation beyond the local congregation.

There are huge differences between the “churches of Christ” and the Disciples!

 

[in_servitude]

I agree. Follow the history and you will find it goes back to the church established by Christ through the Apostles; the Catholic church as we know it today grew out of that church as did the many other churches. The splits were all the result of abuses and human error which is why Christ’s own prayer “that they all might be one” is so prophetic.

How is it that a flawed human institution could produce an infallible book?

Of course, we know that the flaws were rampant even at the time of the Apostles. Paul’s letters had to teach against errors that were already starting - strange teachings and the like.

Then, there was the very popular Gnostic Heresy - how did that get resolved? Who was responsible for fixing the problem?

Add to that the Arian Heresy - how did that get resolved? That was floating around after scripture was already generally agreed upon for the NT.

If it is true - as you say - that there was NO institutional church, then there was NO WAY to resolve these errors. From what I hear you saying, guy 1 in his own house would be on equal footing with guy 2 in his own (different) house. How can you reconcile the history with your teaching?