Information On The Church Of Christ

[Richca]

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.

Hello brother in Christ believerdoc,

One issue I have with our protestant brothers and sisters and their respective denomiations is this: they claim the Bible and especially the New Testament as their rule of faith. Now it was the Catholic Church that put together which books or writings of the Old and New Testaments should be regarded as inspired by the Holy Spirit and is now known as the Bible. Yet the protestant denominations try to tell the Catholic Church how the Bible should be interpreted and understood!

 

[eddie_too]

are their church of christ congregations?

do they include people who are not in the invisible church?

how are these people identified?

who tells members of the church of christ what the scriptures mean?

what if the person that a member of the church of christ listens to for instruction is not a member of the invisible church?

how would anyone know since it is invisible and its members are known only to God?

how can any human being be in communion with another human being in Christ when all members are invisible (and i do not mean literally invisible, i mean knowing who is a member of an invisible church is impossible).

 

[andrewstx]

are their church of christ congregations?

do they include people who are not in the invisible church?

how are these people identified?

who tells members of the church of christ what the scriptures mean?

what if the person that a member of the church of christ listens to for instruction is not a member of the invisible church?

how would anyone know since it is invisible and its members are known only to God?

how can any human being be in communion with another human being in Christ when all members are invisible (and i do not mean literally invisible, i mean knowing who is a member of an invisible church is impossible).

Yes
Yes
Those people are not identified
The theologically uneducated Elders and preachers, tell individual “christians” what the scriptures latterly say. They are only interested in what the scriptures literally say.
That never comes up
That does not come up either
Once again, never mentioned.

 

[cmodrmac]

Are there not several “Church of Christ” organizations -in the North east the Conregational Church exists and I thought the Southern Branch was the Church of Christ and the United Church of Christ was a separate entity altogether?

 

[andrewstx]

Believerdoc: I was speaking about the subject of this thread the so called “churches of Christ” and not the Disciples of Christ.

I was raised and dunked in the churches of Christ. Not only are they radical fundamentalists they think the only path to unity is for everyone to abandon the church they originally belonged to and join the church of Christ congregation. They are extremely particular about any and everything. They don’t use the word church because to them a church is a congregation only. A church “assembles” in a “building”. They sing from “songbooks” and not hymnals because the word hymnal does not exist in the bible.
As a kid we drove past a church of Christ one block away because that congregation did not support “institutions”.

I was also a member of the Disciples for a time, and they are extremely different from the “churches of Christ”. The ministers at the DOC churches I belonged to and visited all were graduates of theological seminaries. They had pipe organs. And the did church unity much better through ecumenism. I still admire and respect the Disciples of Christ.

But the churches of Christ hates the Disciples, calls them the ultimate insult “liberal” and “dayum Yankees”.

When I left the “churches of Christ” I was disowned a common reaction. When my Father died I discovered that I had been disinherited as well.

 

[andrewstx]

Are there not several “Church of Christ” organizations -in the North east the Conregational Church exists and I thought the Southern Branch was the Church of Christ and the United Church of Christ was a separate entity altogether?

They are completely different from the Southern Accapella “churches of Christ”.

 

[FreciaMarie]

…

As a kid we drove past a church of Christ one block away because that congregation did not support “institutions”

…

.

We used to drive past one of those, too, on our way to the “real” Church of Christ. We called it an “anti-group”…until we started going to that one, lol! Then IT was the “real” one and the other was “going to Hell”. They stayed non-institutional.

 

[BLP]

I grew up in the very strict, fundamentalist, Southern church of Christ where there was only acapella music. It is very different from the United Church of Christ and the Disciples of Christ. One more thing not previously mentioned about the church of Christ is that they do not let women speak in church or take leadership roles. Women are not allowed to make announcements, read a scripture, lead a prayer or song, or teach a Bible class except to children. They are to be silent in church.
One more thought to ponder: They supposedly take the Bible so literally, why don’t they believe John 6 about the Eucharist and James 5 about anointing the sick?

 

[NorthTexan88]

I grew up in the very strict, fundamentalist, Southern church of Christ where there was only acapella music. It is very different from the United Church of Christ and the Disciples of Christ. One more thing not previously mentioned about the church of Christ is that they do not let women speak in church or take leadership roles. Women are not allowed to make announcements, read a scripture, lead a prayer or song, or teach a Bible class except to children. They are to be silent in church.
One more thought to ponder: They supposedly take the Bible so literally, why don’t they believe John 6 about the Eucharist and James 5 about anointing the sick?

I also grew up very strict CoC in Alabama, and the church I grew up was exactly like what you describe. There were 4 churches of Christ in the town that I grew up in, and those 4 churches rarely intermingled because one of the churches always did something “wrong,” they would be too conservative and strict, or too liberal (aka clapped), its a whole big mess. As a side not, I learned from a very early age that if you were not baptized then you went to Hell, and they do not allow you to get baptized till at least age 7, then you have to get permission, long story short, I didnt get baptized till I was 14, so I spent years thinking I was gonna go to Hell because I wasnt baptized…

Reason #1 for infant baptism

 

[KendraDZ1902]

I also grew up very strict CoC in Alabama, and the church I grew up was exactly like what you describe. There were 4 churches of Christ in the town that I grew up in, and those 4 churches rarely intermingled because one of the churches always did something “wrong,” they would be too conservative and strict, or too liberal (aka clapped), its a whole big mess. As a side not, I learned from a very early age that if you were not baptized then you went to Hell, and they do not allow you to get baptized till at least age 7, then you have to get permission, long story short, I didnt get baptized till I was 14, so** I spent years thinking I was gonna go to Hell because I wasnt baptized…**
Reason #1 for infant baptism

Me too! I was 12 when I was baptized and for years before that I thought that I was going to go to Hell. I asked one time why we didn’t go to a different Church of Christ that was on the other side of town (small town, btw) and I was told that they weren’t really the Church of Christ.

 

[JHow]

I too grew up in a non- denominational Campbellite Church, a so-called “Christian Church”, related to the Churches if Christ and the Disciples of Christ.

There is so much I could say about that, but to be brief, I think the straightest line to take with a Campellite is to discuss communion. They say it is only a symbol but they don’t treat it as such. Practice and attitude belie their stated belief. Get them to really wrap their head around “this is my body” and “lamb of God” and there is only one conclusion.

 

[Traverse]

Hello JHow,

As a member of a church of Christ I’d be interested in you continuing that thought of how communion is considered a symbol and yet not treated as such.

From my own experience, we treat it very seriously and use it as an opportunity to examine ourselves and remember His sacrifice, but I don’t think solemnity and care equate to inadvertently believing we handle the real presence. Did you mean something else?

As for the subject of baptism mentioned a couple posts above, the catholic church also teaches that baptism is essential for salvation so I guess you’re only picking at the lack of infant baptism? It really sucks that you thought you were damned before you were baptized, but just because you thought that certainly doesn’t mean that is the church’s teaching on the matter. Children are in an age of innocence so if they die without baptism they aren’t damned. This, in my opinion, would actually be more assuring than the catholic position of not knowing what happens to an unbaptized baby but hoping it all works out.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Hello JHow,

As a member of a church of Christ I’d be interested in you continuing that thought of how communion is considered a symbol and yet not treated as such.

From my own experience, we treat it very seriously and use it as an opportunity to examine ourselves and remember His sacrifice, but I don’t think solemnity and care equate to inadvertently believing we handle the real presence. Did you mean something else?

As for the subject of baptism mentioned a couple posts above, the catholic church also teaches that baptism is essential for salvation so I guess you’re only picking at the lack of infant baptism? It really sucks that you thought you were damned before you were baptized, but just because you thought that certainly doesn’t mean that is the church’s teaching on the matter. Children are in an age of innocence so if they die without baptism they aren’t damned. This, in my opinion, would actually be more assuring than the catholic position of not knowing what happens to an unbaptized baby but hoping it all works out.

Where in the bible does it specifically say that children who understand what baptism is, yet aren’t baptized aren’t damned?

 

[Traverse]

Well, where does it say that children who understand aren’t baptized? I’d say a seven year old is still a child, as was one of the examples of a baptism age given.

My sister in law got baptized when she was 9, as another example.

It’s going to vary based on the maturity of the child. A three year old sure isn’t going to understand what is going on.

I in no way intended to suggest that unbaptized, but knowledgeable children, are preserved. In fact, I would imagine it’d be by the mercy of God that a child who desires baptism and is prevented is preserved for it is no fault of their own.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Well, where does it say that children who understand aren’t baptized? I’d say a seven year old is still a child, as was one of the examples of a baptism age given.

My sister in law got baptized when she was 9, as another example.

It’s going to vary based on the maturity of the child. A three year old sure isn’t going to understand what is going on.

I in no way intended to suggest that unbaptized, but knowledgeable children, are preserved. In fact, I would imagine it’d be by the mercy of God that a child who desires baptism and is prevented is preserved for it is no fault of their own.

So, you don’t have a verse that says that children don’t have to be baptized? Jesus says in John Chapter 3 that *no one *can enter into the Kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.
With that being said, I think I will have my babies baptized like The Church has been doing for almost 2000 years.

 

[andrewstx]

Hello JHow,

As a member of a church of Christ I’d be interested in you continuing that thought of how communion is considered a symbol and yet not treated as such.

From my own experience, we treat it very seriously and use it as an opportunity to examine ourselves and remember His sacrifice, but I don’t think solemnity and care equate to inadvertently believing we handle the real presence. Did you mean something else?

As for the subject of baptism mentioned a couple posts above, the catholic church also teaches that baptism is essential for salvation so I guess you’re only picking at the lack of infant baptism? It really sucks that you thought you were damned before you were baptized, but just because you thought that certainly doesn’t mean that is the church’s teaching on the matter. Children are in an age of innocence so if they die without baptism they aren’t damned. This, in my opinion, would actually be more assuring than the catholic position of not knowing what happens to an unbaptized baby but hoping it all works out.

OK, I know from my own experience from my strict campbellite upbringing that everything must have a bible verse, a “thus saith the Lord” to be accepted.

Where in the bible (new testament) can the phrases “age of innocence” or “age of accountability” to be found? I am going by your own rule after all. Book, chapter, and verse please

The biggest problem I have with the so-called “churches of Christ” is their exclusiveness, pride and lack of acceptance of other people being Christian. In “churches of Christ” theology does everyone that existed before the “churches of Christ” were invented in 1906 just go to hell?

 

[Traverse]

You were asking me for a verse about children not having to be baptized? You asked me for a verse for children who understand baptism, but don’t have to be baptized.

The catholic church even well believes in the baptism of desire, which requires no literal immersion or sprinkling with water. Because God knows a man’s heart and God knows well if a person has the desire and is unable to participate. You say rightly that all must be baptized to enter the kingdom of heaven, but you act wrongly with your implication that God is unable to make exceptions to the rule. For even the thief on the cross was not baptized, nor did he have time to produce good fruits, yet he was preserved.

There is much biblical precedent for the innocence of infants.

[Deu 1:39 NASB] 39 'Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it.

[Num 32:11 NASB] 11 'None of the men who came up from Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, shall see the land which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob; for they did not follow Me fully,

But truly, the case for no infant baptism isn’t based on the age of accountability argument, it’s based on the story of Philip and the Eunuch.

[Act 8:36-37 NASB] 36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 37 And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

I am aware that catholics argue that an adult can speak for their child, but scripture does not give an indication of that. All we DO have is the notion that we should only be baptized if we understand what it’s all about. If we believe with all our heart. The silence in the scriptures to specifically argue against the baptism of infants is not needed, for an infant cannot believe with all their heart. According to early church history, infant baptism only became a widespread practice some centuries later, third or fourth century I believe. If the early church wasn’t worried about it then there’s little reason for us to be worried about it today. Unless we want to assume they doomed their children even while under the teaching of the apostles.

EDIT:

Andrew, I feel that we’ve butted heads before. Hello again!

The church does not teach that everyone before 1906 went to hell, nor does it teach there was no church. Some people might hold to that, that Campbell had to restore the church, but that doesn’t make it right. There’s no real reason to assume the church didn’t exist throughout history and was merely overshadowed in history. The catholic church history is always talking about other divisions here and there. Other beliefs have been out there all along.

The exclusiveness of the church of Christ in appearance only goes so far as it would even for a catholic. Catholics believe they’re the one true church, members of the church of Christ believe they are the one true church. It’s the exact same principle.

 

[andrewstx]

In the “church of Christ” where I was raised and dunked the “Lord’s Supper” was taken very lightly.

One man would say a short extempore prayer over the matsoh crackers which were then passed out to the seated congregation. For extempore prayers they always sounded the same with a word or two changed.

The same thing happened with the grape juice.

The collection was taken after the grape juice was passed.

They were very efficient with a lot of ushers to get it done quickly.

It was always over and done within 10 minutes, to get to the all important sermon 45 minutes out of an hour long service.

After the end women in one of the limited things they were allowed to do would wash the matzoh plates and throw the plastic grape juice cups in the trash after pouring the left over grape juice into the sewer.

Reverent? Important?

 

[KendraDZ1902]

You were asking me for a verse about children not having to be baptized? You asked me for a verse for children who understand baptism, but don’t have to be baptized.

.

We were talking about being afraid of going to Hell because we had to wait to be baptized. You said that children had innocence and that is why it is ok for them not to be baptized. Well, if we were afraid of Hell, we obviously understood what was going on, we just weren’t allowed because others (adults) thought we didn’t understand.

According to early church history, infant baptism only became a widespread practice some centuries later, third or fourth century I believe

catholic.com/tracts/early-teachings-on-infant-baptism
This is a tract about Infant Baptism. It doesn’t look like it was a practice that started centuries later.

 

[andrewstx]

You were asking me for a verse about children not having to be baptized? You asked me for a verse for children who understand baptism, but don’t have to be baptized.

The catholic church even well believes in the baptism of desire, which requires no literal immersion or sprinkling with water. Because God knows a man’s heart and God knows well if a person has the desire and is unable to participate. You say rightly that all must be baptized to enter the kingdom of heaven, but you act wrongly with your implication that God is unable to make exceptions to the rule. For even the thief on the cross was not baptized, nor did he have time to produce good fruits, yet he was preserved.

There is much biblical precedent for the innocence of infants.

[Deu 1:39 NASB] 39 'Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it.

[Num 32:11 NASB] 11 'None of the men who came up from Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, shall see the land which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob; for they did not follow Me fully,

But truly, the case for no infant baptism isn’t based on the age of accountability argument, it’s based on the story of Philip and the Eunuch.

[Act 8:36-37 NASB] 36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 37 And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

I am aware that catholics argue that an adult can speak for their child, but scripture does not give an indication of that. All we DO have is the notion that we should only be baptized if we understand what it’s all about. If we believe with all our heart. The silence in the scriptures to specifically argue against the baptism of infants is not needed, for an infant cannot believe with all their heart. According to early church history, infant baptism only became a widespread practice some centuries later, third or fourth century I believe. If the early church wasn’t worried about it then there’s little reason for us to be worried about it today. Unless we want to assume they doomed their children even while under the teaching of the apostles.

EDIT:

Andrew, I feel that we’ve butted heads before. Hello again!

The church does not teach that everyone before 1906 went to hell, nor does it teach there was no church. Some people might hold to that, that Campbell had to restore the church, but that doesn’t make it right. There’s no real reason to assume the church didn’t exist throughout history and was merely overshadowed in history. The catholic church history is always talking about other divisions here and there. Other beliefs have been out there all along.

The exclusiveness of the church of Christ in appearance only goes so far as it would even for a catholic. Catholics believe they’re the one true church, members of the church of Christ believe they are the one true church. It’s the exact same principle.

Huge difference Catholics acknowledge the existence of other Christians, while "churches of Christ members (at least the ones who educated me) thought they were the only Christians.

The words they used were Christians (coc members) and non Christians (every one else).
The more liberal ones would call other Christians members of the denominations.

But I know that churches of Christ members have differences. I was raised in ultra conservative west Texas and what they taught me I have related here.

You are in southern California where things are not nearly so conservative as they are in isolated west Texas. Were we to meet I think we would get along well.

Did you go to Pepperdine? Around here people in the CofC will not even accept Pepperdine as being related to the churches of Christ, it is that bad.