Talking to someone in the Church of Christ

[Jacob_Morgan]

One last stab at it, something I was thinking about the other day.

Chesterton (the Well and the Shallows, I think) said that Protestantisim was the religion of fossils. Not in the Darwin sense, but in that the various Protestant movements are like fossils. Not that they are as old as fossils, but that they are like a fossil in that the form is the same but the substance has been replaced with somethig very different. The rituals, form of worship, church governence, etc. (the form) may bear resemblance to what it was more than one hundred years ago. But what it stands for, what animates it (the substance) has generally been replaced with something profoundly different, sometimes even on foundational issues.

No one joins the Episcopal church out of a desire to have nobility as the head of the Church. The Baptist church started off insisting on re-baptizing adults and now can’t agree if baptisim is needed at all. The Methodists are not driven by a need to be more methodical than the Anglicans. Mainline Lutherans are not concerned about reforming the Roman Catholic excesses, but are more concerned about “social justice” and such. An so on. An adherent from any of those movements from one hundred years ago might recognize the rituals of today (done mainly out of tradition, or to keep the old ladies from complaining when things change too much Sunday morning) in those same movements, but would be there for reasons almost incomprehensible to the adherents of today.

The Church of Christ has an odd, defining, twist to this. The form became the substance. Instead of being animated by a substance, having ritual, then later keeping the ritual and changing the substance (or even keeping the substance), the ritual became the substance. The original substance (from Stone / Campbell to the split with the Disciples of Christ) was discarded at the split, and the new substance was that the form that had been employed was the one true way. The form started off as an arbitrary simplification of worship, and the split was when the people (who eventually became the Disciples of Chirst) wanted to have a piano; the worship, sans piano, was then the one true way. I think that the CofC is distinct from other denominations in this regard.

They may claim that *sola scriptura *is the animating substance, but that is not really true. The worship was arbitrary, then proof texted, not the other way around.

 

[rinnie]

Hey all,

I could use some help, especially from anyone here who converted from Church of Christ. My sister (not Catholic), because she’s dating someone from a Church of Christ congregation, seems to be likely to convert from Methodism to Church of Christ (a slight disappointment for me, since I had hoped she would follow my brother’s and my footsteps and swim across the Tiber). I’m trying to read up as much as I can so I can gently (and non-confrontationally) give her some things to think about.

Obviously, I know it all has to start with prayer. Does anyone have any other good resources, though, in addressing Church of Christ in particular? It seems there’s very little at Catholic.com. If you’re a Catholic convert from CoC, what got through to you?

Some questions I’ve got mulling to pose to her have to do with authority (who decides when you disagree with your friend or pastor regarding interpretation of a specific bible passage or disciplinary practice?) and structure (where are the bishops, governing multiple church bodies, that the New Testament talks about?) and sola scriptura (where is this practice of “bible only” found or taught in the bible?). Does anyone else have any ideas of questions to pose?

On the one hand I’m thrilled that it seems to be prompting her to read and study her bible more. On the other, it saddens me that she won’t be receiving the amazing grace from the sacrements soon. I guess it will take more prayer.

Thanks for your help! I’m not really interested in debating CoC vs Catholic as much as just looking for some questions to ask her to consider.

The best thing you and your brother can do is be kind, love her and live out your Catholic faith.

When she is ready she will come to you for answers, Learn your Catholic faith, and have the right and true answers.

For now, Love her, respect her choices now, as she has respected yours, and give the Holy Spirit time to do its work.

When you were called to the Catholic faith, it was by the grace of the Holy Spirit. You were ready to receive the truth and it will now be given to you.

But for now love, and repect your sister and be the best Catholic you can. Let God take care of the rest.

 

[solarguy17]

I am currently a member of a church of Christ. I attend worship service every week, but here’s the kicker; my wife is Catholic and she attends with me. I also attend Mass with her every week. Now, granted my heart isn’t exactly opening to considering becoming catholic but every week at Mass I find myself saying (to myself), “well, thats not Biblical, becuase XXXX in teh book of XXXX”

But I thought this list of opening was interesting. Ill throw some answers out for them. Remember becuase each church is autonomous you might get a slightly different answer from me then someone else.

She’ll hear that “the Church of Christ” is the name in the Bible for the One True Church. Christ is a Greek word for anointed. It really ougt to be the church of Jesus, or really the church of Yeshua as “Jesus” is sort of a Greek corruption of Yeshua and better translated as Joshua if it is to be translated.

True - but the term church of Christ is used to describe churches in the NT. Modern day churches will follow that pattern because it is a Biblical term. But also becuase it denotes whom the church belongs to. The church doesn’t belong to Luther or Calvin, but to Christ. The Christian Church (any denomenation) is supposed to be a church owed by Christ, the term church of Christ describes that relationship. I have also seen term “Christ’s church”. Same thing, denotes ownership. I would then pose the question to you, where is the term catholic church or universal church at in the Bible? The concept is there, but not the term.

She’ll hear that they are just “Christians”. But in the New Testament they were followers of “the Way”. “Christians” was a derogatory term applied to them by outsiders.

Again, that is true. Christians was intended to be a racial slur. But early Christians, including catholics adopted this term and changed it meaning.

She’ll hear that they are just simple honest First-Century-New-Testament-Christians. But the New Testament did not exist in the first century. The individual books existed, but it is unlikely any one person had them all, or knew which ones were valid, and the typical Christian had none. What defense would she have for the Dan Brown (daVinci Code) rubbish? And what to make of 2nd Thess 2:15 where the Thessalonians where they were told not only to follow the letter, but to do as Paul had instructed them while he was with them.

The books of the NT did exist prior to the end of the 1st century. I believe Revelation was written in about 70AD and was the last book written. I know that this is a big thing catholics try to use to disprove “sola scriptura”, but consider this and ask your selves these questions.
1.) Is God perfect? If no, why worship Him. If yes, proceed.
Since God is perfect, what ever He creates is perfect in His eyes, even if we disagree.
Since whatever God creates is perfect, would it stand to reason that the Bible is perfect? If not, again, why worship an imperfect God? If yes, proceed.
If the Bible is perfect and God created it, would God permit the men that wrote it to put imperfection in it?
If the Bible is perfect would God allow some parts to be missing and some non-perfect things added?
So assuming that the Bible is perfect, and God protects the Bible from imperfection, why not believe Sola Scripitura? By assuming you need an addendum, cathecism, or magistorium to help determine God’s will, aren’t you assuming the Bible isn’t perfect to answer all questions? And then are you questioning God’s perfection?

I honestly dont see how people can justify adding and subtracting from the Bible, in particular the NT if you are a Christian, with the knowledge that God is perfect. By questioning the perfection and completeness of the Bible, you are by way questioning the perfection of God.

She’ll hear that women are to remain silent in church (usually explained by that theyare not allowed to teach men). Ask her if she sings. She’ll say yes, so ask her if she can lead singing. The answer is no. But if one is singing from a printed song they did not write, how is that teaching? Or could she read a scripture, again, the answer is no. But again, if it is simply reading scripture how is that instruction, is it not the original writer who is really instructing? If they have Sunday School can she say anything there at all? If so, how is “Sunday School” different than worship assembly in the New Testament.

The passage you mention, 1 Cor 14:34, is talking about women having authority over men. They are to be silent in submission. Singing is a command, and by singing a women is not exhibiting authority.
As far as Sunday school or a Bible class goes, that is not “church” as mentioned in the context of this verse. This verse is talking about worship service. Sunday school isn’t aspect of church and thus wouldn’t be subject to the silent in church rule, however, women do still need to be careful and not take charge of a learning situation for the possibility of becoming the person doing the subjecting and the being in submission.

Ask her what would happen if she committed a small sin, forgot about it, and then died. All sins are mortal to them, which is kind of scary. Ask about a person on the way to be baptized who dies in a wreck? They have no baptism of desire.

Well, I would say that’s when you trust God’s grace. I know that sinning will send of to Hell and the is no alternative. None is seen in the NT. But I also have faith that God know our intentions and His grace will help us find our way to Heaven.

1. Ask her if everyone outside of her church is “lost.” If the answer is yes, then ask if that might be extraordinarily judgmental if she is wrong.

Again, this isn’t for us to judge. God make the ultimate decision. The best I can do is follow the Christ and His teachings. If more then just sola scriptura Christians get into Heaven, then great. If not, then I have to trust God that He does what is best.

Ask her what repentance means, in terms of sins after baptism. Whatever she says it will probably be vague and fuzzy. How is she sure if she has repented enough? Is presuming God’s forgiveness a sin? What does she think blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is?

Repentance is when you ask God for forgiveness of your sins and you are truly sorry for them with the endeavor not to commit the sin again. You can’t sin say, “Yo God, I’m sorry.” and go back to the sin. Thats not repentance. Again, I don’t presume to know what God is thinking regarding forgiveness only do what I can to follow God.

Ask her how she would know if artificial in vitro fertilization were to be moral or not?

I honestly don’t see why it is considered immoral. I understand the rate of embryos that actually implant is around 25% but I don’t think people are trying kill babies by do in this method of pregnancy and I think they truly are trying to have a baby. I also think they need to be smart about how many they implant. Some people purposely implant a lot of embryos to ensure at least 1 takes and if more do they may selectively abort. I think that is dead wrong. If you choose to implant 4 and all take, you raise all 4, not 1 or 2, but all 4.

TBC

 

[solarguy17]

continued

Ask her if she thinks the earliest Christians thought that the Eucharist was a symbolic remembrance only. Have her read Justin Martyr’s description of the Eucharist in his first apology.

Yes, I do. The Apostles understood the symbolism, this is seen several times in the NT. What a man thinks is irrelevant because man can be wrong.

Ask her if she is going to sell all she has and live in common with the others (as some in Acts were recorded to have lived). She’ll say no. Ask her if she can have a glass of wine, she’ll say no. Why is it OK then to go against scripture (literally interpreted) but then turn around and make a moral law that has no basis in scripture (other than drinking to drunkenness)?

The point their isn’t that you have to do it, but you have to be willing to do it if needed. If you do great, if you don’t, fine. Same thing as the celibacy, if you do it, great. If not, fine.
Wine in the NT was actually was refer to as grape juice today. This is why at the wedding in Cana, the guest marveled that the ‘new wine’ was hid until the end instead of the ‘old wine’, which would have had more of an alcoholic taste.

Ask her if she will do missionary work in obedience to the “great commission”.

Every Christian I know is trying to encourage people to become Christians and will pass The Word on to any one that will listen.

Ask her about the trinity. Ask her where that is in the Bible.

The concept of God in 3 persons is Biblical, the word isn’t seen but the concept is their.

If she starts talking about Greek words (e.g., the Greek definition of Baptize being to immerse, etc.) ask her if Jesus really said Baptize or said something in Aramaic that was later translated into Greek. There is some evidence that some of the New Testament Gospels were written in Aramaic and then later translated into Greek. Why should those translators have been infallible any more than the RSV translators were infallible?

Really, where is that evidence. I have never heard of that. Greek was the common language of the day. In addition to that dialect of Greek, Kone Greek being very precise. I would hesitate to believe the Aramaic idea until it can be proven.

In the book of Acts ask her why the gentile believers asked the Apostles to let them into the Church. Why did the Apostles, including a successor to the vacancy of Judas, need to do anything? Could not the gentile believers just make their own church given the Bible (which did not exist yet, but that is another issue).

Really that is correct, the Gentile believers could have formed their own church without apostle support, but thats not how things would have been done. Remember there was false teaching being spread that you had to be Jewish prior to being Christian. This could have been related to that.

1. In Paul’s letters that admonish local churches to clean up their acts, ask why the faithful members had not gone off and made their own church and left the fallen ones behind? Why wasn’t having church splits a means of keeping the faith back then? Where is there a record of a do-it-yourself church popping up in the New Testament? If the Apostles established churches then, should Apostles establish them now?

There is not examples of each church mentioned being formed by an Apostle, it is probable that some formed without Apostle support. And the splitting of churches do occasionally happen.

Sorry for the long reply.

 

[SteveLy]

Thanks for the question and original posting. Here are 2 links which will help shed light on the Christian Churches/churches of Christ. A lot of information covered has been mentioned in previous posts. Basically they wanted to re-create the “purity” of the 1st century Christian Church.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_churches_and_churches_of_Christ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Movement

As a former member of a Christian Church I’ll say they are the largest denomination which does not call themselves a denomination. The founding was built strictly to get away from denominational politics, which it has done, but has substituted congregational politics.

Just keep loving her and educate yourself on the the CC/coC. There are a lot of positives about their system, but they are definitely not creedal or sacramental.

One aspect not mentioned which she will probably bring up is that they “teach the Bible”. If you are from an Anglican/Methodist background a great resource is the Book of Common Prayer 2011 (BCP2011) which is a trial format for the Reformed Episcopal Church. The great benefit of this version, which is a modern language rendition of the 1549 bcp, is that after all the prayers it lists the scriptures from where the prayers were taken. It is amazing that almost the whole service is scriptural reference. Add in the 4 readings from the lectionary and there is NO WAY a Bible Church has as much scripture in their service.

Good luck.

 

[bumchecks]

Great post Mark.

The churches of Christ (Romans 16:16) seek to be the church described in the New Testament. God has given a “pattern” (2 Tim. 1:13, ASV) to follow and this pattern allows things like worship to be done in “spirit and truth” (Jn. 4:24). The Bible specifically warns about “abiding in the doctrine of Christ” (2 Jn. 9) and “continuing in the word” (Jn. 8:31). Going “beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6, ASV) is condemned, and this is reinforced by the principle from Rev. 22:18-19.

If you would like an overview of what is commonly taught in many congregations of the churches of Christ, see the study on New Testament Christianity at abiblecommentary.com/newtestamentchristianity. I hope this helps address this question, Brda

Yes it is always important to find and express common beliefs.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

The churches of Christ (Romans 16:16) seek to be the church described in the New Testament. God has given a “pattern” (2 Tim. 1:13, ASV) to follow and this pattern allows things like worship to be done in “spirit and truth” (Jn. 4:24). The Bible specifically warns about “abiding in the doctrine of Christ” (2 Jn. 9) and “continuing in the word” (Jn. 8:31). Going “beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6, ASV) is condemned, and this is reinforced by the principle from Rev. 22:18-19.

If you would like an overview of what is commonly taught in many congregations of the churches of Christ, see the study on New Testament Christianity at abiblecommentary.com/newt…ntchristianity. I hope this helps address this question,

Brda

Brda,

I am glad that the CoC seeks to be “church described in the New Testament”. I also agree that God has given a pattern.
Unfortunately - and I do not wish to be offensive but - the CoC model seems to either miss this pattern altogether or ignores it in so far as ekklesial authority goes because the CoC endorses local church independence - something that is quite un-scriptural.

Jesus gives clear instruction in Mt 18:15-18 on the matter of dealing with “sin” within the Church - and sin certainly includes teaching a false Gospel -
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
Tell it to th eChurc - Listen to the Church or be put out…The Church has authority of “Bind and Loose” - “Whatever” This is from the mouth of Our King Himself. The King who prayed that His church be one as he and the Father are one. (John 17:20-21)

Scripture not only provides this instruction from our Lord But also a most wonderful example of the instruction in action. Just read Acts 15 and note that the matter in dispute was between two distant church locations and was settled by council of the general Church leadership. Antioch was not permitted to interpret things one way and Jerusalem another way. The matter needed to be settled by the whole Church and for the whole Church…Thus it was that the matter was told tot he Church in council (tell it to the Church) and the decision of the council covered ALL church locations (Listen to The Church)

These two passages simply destroy the man made tradition of “locally independent” church bodies and “invisible church”. I have searched for any NT reference to support the view of the CoC on this matter. I have repeatedly asked protestants who hold to such a view to show me the clear and compelling biblical support for such a church structure.
So far - none has been provided except an occasional verse from here or there. No one has yet shown me that one NT church location could, for example, believe in the “real presence” and another church location believe in the “symbolic presence”…

Like I say - I am happy that you seek to be like the church in the NT…
I hope that I have been able to help you to see more fully what the NT church was like.

Peace
James

 

[Jacob_Morgan]

The books of the NT did exist prior to the end of the 1st century. I believe Revelation was written in about 70AD and was the last book written. I know that this is a big thing catholics try to use to disprove “sola scriptura”, but consider this and ask your selves these questions.
1.) Is God perfect? If no, why worship Him. If yes, proceed.
Since God is perfect, what ever He creates is perfect in His eyes, even if we disagree.
Since whatever God creates is perfect, would it stand to reason that the Bible is perfect? If not, again, why worship an imperfect God? If yes, proceed.
If the Bible is perfect and God created it, would God permit the men that wrote it to put imperfection in it?
If the Bible is perfect would God allow some parts to be missing and some non-perfect things added?
So assuming that the Bible is perfect, and God protects the Bible from imperfection, why not believe Sola Scripitura? By assuming you need an addendum, cathecism, or magistorium to help determine God’s will, aren’t you assuming the Bible isn’t perfect to answer all questions? And then are you questioning God’s perfection?

I honestly dont see how people can justify adding and subtracting from the Bible, in particular the NT if you are a Christian, with the knowledge that God is perfect. By questioning the perfection and completeness of the Bible, you are by way questioning the perfection of God.

Perfect? Sure, but perfect in what way or perfect at what? A perfect hammer will only make a perfect mess if one uses it to drive screws. A prefect key will not open the wrong lock, much less open a telephone pole. An answer can only be perfect given the question it goes with. It comes back to premise, i.e., what is it supposed to be perfect at doing?

The two premises here are: 1) was the New Testament written as to be a self-contained guide to how one may make a church and it gives perfect instructions on how to do just that, or 2) was the New Testament the early history of a Church once made and it perfectly reflects enough of that history so as to edify people and to let them recognize that Church.

If the New Testament is perfect as a guide for do-it-yourself church making, then how is it that it has been used 20,000+ times to make different churches? If a draftsman drew a house plan that resulted in 20,000+ different houses being built, if the plan resulted in fist fights bewteen the stone masons, if the plans required complex hermeneutics to be formulated by the carpenters’ union just to figure out if it was a one story or a two story, well that is not a perfect set of plans, that is cruel joke. The “obvious” way of interpreting the plans would only be obvious if the template was described to someone ahead of time; a priori, no one would have the same conclusion twice.

The other premise is that a Church was created by Jesus, to be developed and lead by Apostles, and that while staying true to form it can and should and must grow and develop. The New Testament is the history of the early days of that Church. Any and every unbiased person who were to pick up a New Testament, having no prior knowledge of it, would say “ah yes, this is what happened over in the middle east 2,000 years ago, what remarkable things went on.” They may find good ethical teachings, but I really doubt anyone, seeing it for the first time, would rent an empty building, hang out a shingle advertising a church and then try to figure out what they should be doing inside of it. They would be more likely to ask what became of the churches that were established in that book. If they then found a church that had actually put that book together way back when, and where the leader of that church could trace the hands laid on him back to the apostles that were in the book, then they would reasonably conclude that they were in The Church that was described in the Bible.

The New Testament was compiled, protected, and kept pure for hundreds of years after Jesus and the original Apostles left. Were not those who compiled, protected, and kept it pure inspired in some way? How utterly bizzare that they would be perfectly inspired in one way, but immediatley went off the tracks in every other way. It defies logic.

It is impossible to say that one is a “First Century New Testament Christian” as there was no New Testament in the first centruy, and the New Testament letters exhort people to do as they were told in person, so the New Testament itself tells people do do things that are “un-Biblical” in that they were being told to do things that were not in the Bible that was to be.

The passage you mention, 1 Cor 14:34, is talking about women having authority over men. They are to be silent in submission. Singing is a command, and by singing a women is not exhibiting authority.
As far as Sunday school or a Bible class goes, that is not “church” as mentioned in the context of this verse. This verse is talking about worship service. Sunday school isn’t aspect of church and thus wouldn’t be subject to the silent in church rule, however, women do still need to be careful and not take charge of a learning situation for the possibility of becoming the person doing the subjecting and the being in submission.

The point I was making was an inconsistency. Why can women sing but not lead singing, why can they sing the written songs but not read scripture? How would simply reading a scripture be exerting authority? This is an example of a cultural bias from the 1800’s in America being adopted arbitrarily by the CofC, then tenuously proof-texted ever since then.

There is a splinter group in the CofC that does not allow Sunday school as they consider class discusions where women can speak to be unBiblical. The context of the verse from Paul is that they should ask questions privately at home, asking questions isn’t something that would go on in a sermon, but would go on in something akin to a Sunday school. Again, if the New Testament is a perfect set of instructions, how odd that no one can understand the instructions.

Well, I would say that’s when you trust God’s grace. I know that sinning will send of to Hell and the is no alternative. None is seen in the NT. But I also have faith that God know our intentions and His grace will help us find our way to Heaven.

This is slipping into the classic Protestant Either-Or. Either every sin is deadly, or they are not (grace covers all). The problem is this can slip into what Bonhoffer called “cheap grace.” The Catholic approach was first seen, by the reformers, as being entirely too lenient, and today it is seen as being too strict. Some of the Epistles point to faith, some to works. Taken as historical letters, one would conclude that one church was ignoring works (or not sinning, which really is hardly a work), and another was ignoring faith. One church needed to shift this way, one needed to shift that way. The Protestant delima is to pick one or the other. The CofC picked works in the begining, and maybe they are sliding to the grace now. The Catholic church picks both, which is where the distinction between mortal / veniel sin comes in.

Regarding repentance, the danger is that wen it is completley subjective (how I feel about it) it simply becomes an emotional exercise. Drum up some saddness and we’re done. This may have more to do with the emotional state of the person than with true repentence.

(Regarding what C-of-C elders would say if asked about artifical invitro fertilization)

I honestly don’t see why it is considered immoral. I understand the rate of embryos that actually implant is around 25% but I don’t think people are trying kill babies by do in this method of pregnancy and I think they truly are trying to have a baby. I also think they need to be smart about how many they implant. Some people purposely implant a lot of embryos to ensure at least 1 takes and if more do they may selectively abort. I think that is dead wrong. If you choose to implant 4 and all take, you raise all 4, not 1 or 2, but all 4.
TBC

This example was picked to demonstrate the futility of going to CofC elders at the neighborhood church to ask them about a fairly new and very complex issue. And one doesn’t go to the CofC elders for moral guidance, then what are they there for? The Catholic Church will recognize a morally ambiguous phenomenon on the horizon and call meetings of world wide authorities to explain what it is, then theologians will take that knowledge and use logic to apply the deposit of faith to the question. Only a church with a centralized organization has the wherewithal to do that. It also points to the need for a Church to be able to address developments in technology and in society. The paragraph above has the word “I” six times, and says that the people involved need to be “smart”. Well, I’m not smart enough to just scan the newspapers and make moral judgements on such things. I appreciate belonging to a Church that watches out for immoral things in the flood of biotechnology, and other modern things, coming down the pike.

I once heard, in a CofC church, a preacher say that abortion was OK, given his interpetation of Gensis (i.e., no soul until first breath according to him), and that he had suggested that a woman who might be carrying a Down’s syndrome baby to have it aborted (whcih she did). This (abortion) is out of the mainstream in the CofC, but the point is, it is every person for themselves in moral questions like that. That is scary, and destructive.

My lunch hour is over.

 

[bumchecks]

Brda,

Hi James,

Regarding church organization:

Every organization has some type of structure, including a headquarters or main office, and this is also true for the New Testament church. Jesus is the head of His church and He resides in heaven (Acts 1:11). Jesus’ heavenly enthronement (Acts 2:30) suggests the “headquarters” for the New Testament church is in heaven. Certainly we do not find any Bible passage that speaks about having a “church headquarters” in Jerusalem or somewhere else on earth.

 As illustrated by Acts 14:23 and Phil. 1:1, each congregation of the Lord’s church is to have local leaders known as “elders” (these men are also referred to as bishops, presbyters, pastors, overseers, shepherds.  Each of these words describes a different aspect of an elder’s work).  Paul described the qualifications for these men in 1 Tim. 3:1-5 and he said elders “take care of” (they are the rulers for and in) a local congregation (1 Tim. 3:5).  Titus referred to “elders” in Tit. 1:5 and then described them as “bishops” in Tit. 1:7.

 We read of elders in Judaea (Acts 11:29-30), southern Galatia (Acts 14:23), Jerusalem (Acts 15:6), Ephesus (Acts 20:17), and Asia Minor (1 Pet. 5:1).  There are implied references to them in 1 Thess. 5:12 and Heb. 13:17.  In Tit. 1:5 we learn that elders were needed throughout the island of Crete (“every city”).

Regarding your citation of Acts 15 - “was settled by council of the general Church leadership” - please notice Acts 15:28 (“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us” (the Holy Spirit directed these men). This was no “church council” where men came together and decided something; they were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Regarding Mt. 16:18 - Heaven has **already **determined what the rules for things are. The Greek text uses the perfect tense to show that these decisions have already been established and this fact is brought out very well in the NASB: “and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

Instead of heaven “ratifying decisions of the church,” the church of the New Testament (and in the context of Mt. 16 especially the apostles) merely carried out (bound and loosed) what God had already bound and loosed. An example of this is found in Acts 15. The Holy Spirit had decided what was right, and those involved in this situation agreed to it. Today we also must agree with what we find in the scriptures and then “bind” (tell people to obey) this information. May God bless your study of His word.

I am glad that the CoC seeks to be “church described in the New Testament”. I also agree that God has given a pattern.
Unfortunately - and I do not wish to be offensive but - the CoC model seems to either miss this pattern altogether or ignores it in so far as ekklesial authority goes because the CoC endorses local church independence - something that is quite un-scriptural.

Jesus gives clear instruction in Mt 18:15-18 on the matter of dealing with “sin” within the Church - and sin certainly includes teaching a false Gospel -
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
Tell it to th eChurc - Listen to the Church or be put out…The Church has authority of “Bind and Loose” - “Whatever” This is from the mouth of Our King Himself. The King who prayed that His church be one as he and the Father are one. (John 17:20-21)

Scripture not only provides this instruction from our Lord But also a most wonderful example of the instruction in action. Just read Acts 15 and note that the matter in dispute was between two distant church locations and was settled by council of the general Church leadership. Antioch was not permitted to interpret things one way and Jerusalem another way. The matter needed to be settled by the whole Church and for the whole Church…Thus it was that the matter was told tot he Church in council (tell it to the Church) and the decision of the council covered ALL church locations (Listen to The Church)

These two passages simply destroy the man made tradition of “locally independent” church bodies and “invisible church”. I have searched for any NT reference to support the view of the CoC on this matter. I have repeatedly asked protestants who hold to such a view to show me the clear and compelling biblical support for such a church structure.
So far - none has been provided except an occasional verse from here or there. No one has yet shown me that one NT church location could, for example, believe in the “real presence” and another church location believe in the “symbolic presence”…

Like I say - I am happy that you seek to be like the church in the NT…
I hope that I have been able to help you to see more fully what the NT church was like.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Hi James,

Regarding church organization:

Every organization has some type of structure, including a headquarters or main office, and this is also true for the New Testament church. Jesus is the head of His church and He resides in heaven (Acts 1:11). Jesus’ heavenly enthronement (Acts 2:30) suggests the “headquarters” for the New Testament church is in heaven. Certainly we do not find any Bible passage that speaks about having a “church headquarters” in Jerusalem or somewhere else on earth.

Likewise we do not find any Bible passage where different church locations are permitted to hold to different views on doctrinal matters. Yet - by what I have read on this thread it is entirely possible for different CoC locations, even within the same city - to hold to different doctrinal beliefs.
The idea of a physical location of a “church headquarters” is secondary to the idea of unity in the ekklesia and the authority of the Church as given by Christ. The fact that councils have been held in many different locations speaks to this point. Jerusalem, Nicea, Constantinople, Hippo, Carthage etc…No matter where they met, the Bishops and others prayed and worked as laborers in Christ’s Church.

Every Catholic would agree with you that Christ is the head of the Church so we have no no disagreement at all on that point.

As illustrated by Acts 14:23 and Phil. 1:1, each congregation of the Lord’s church is to have local leaders known as “elders” (these men are also referred to as bishops, presbyters, pastors, overseers, shepherds. Each of these words describes a different aspect of an elder’s work). Paul described the qualifications for these men in 1 Tim. 3:1-5 and he said elders “take care of” (they are the rulers for and in) a local congregation (1 Tim. 3:5). Titus referred to “elders” in Tit. 1:5 and then described them as “bishops” in Tit. 1:7.

We read of elders in Judaea (Acts 11:29-30), southern Galatia (Acts 14:23), Jerusalem (Acts 15:6), Ephesus (Acts 20:17), and Asia Minor (1 Pet. 5:1). There are implied references to them in 1 Thess. 5:12 and Heb. 13:17. In Tit. 1:5 we learn that elders were needed throughout the island of Crete (“every city”).

No disagreement here…The Church has always had local leaders. And those leaders have communicated one with the other for the purposes of building up the faith and dealing with various issues…and when things reached a point where it seemed wise to get together, a council would be held - sometimes regional - sometimes ecumenical.

Regarding your citation of Acts 15 - “was settled by council of the general Church leadership” - please notice Acts 15:28 (“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us” (the Holy Spirit directed these men). This was no “church council” where men came together and decided something; they were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Thank you so much for mentioning this. So few ever do in these discussions.
Indeed the decision is not merely the decision of men but of the Holy Spirit guiding these men - in council. I bold “in council” because of the very important point that the word Jesus uses and we translate as “Church” is ekklesia. As I am sure you know, ekklesia means a group. Strongs concordance gives this as the very first definition:
)1 a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly

a. an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
​

This is remarkably important when one considers how to understand how Christ set up His Church in Mt 18. It is the group, called together for deliberation - that is empowered to bind and loose - that is - protected by the Holy Spirit from error. It should not take much deliberation on this to realize that if one “group” (local church) comes to one conclusion and another “group” (local church) comes to a different (conflicting) conclusion then one something is amiss and they need to get together to resolve the matter…Following this line of reasoning one quickly recognizes that this lead to a single, doctrinally unified Ekklesia.
The Structure then follows the form (it is not imposed on it). Headquarters and such evolve for the purposes of supporting, collecting, protecting, disseminating etc ALL of those decisions that, “seemed good to the Holy Spirit”.

Regarding Mt. 16:18 - Heaven has already determined what the rules for things are. The Greek text uses the perfect tense to show that these decisions have already been established and this fact is brought out very well in the NASB: “and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

Well - I did not quote Mt 16:18 but the statement there IS the same so - - -
The Catholic Church would absolutely agree with this view. The Church only teaches that which is already determined in heaven.

Instead of heaven “ratifying decisions of the church,” the church of the New Testament (and in the context of Mt. 16 especially the apostles) merely carried out (bound and loosed) what God had already bound and loosed. An example of this is found in Acts 15. The Holy Spirit had decided what was right, and those involved in this situation agreed to it. Today we also must agree with what we find in the scriptures and then “bind” (tell people to obey) this information. May God bless your study of His word.

As I say - We have no problem with this.
However - this is not the issue that I was addressing in my earlier post.
You stated that the CoC, “seeks to be the church described in the New Testament”.
However your church structure of local independence is most definitely NOT the Church as described in the NT.
Now - if you disagree with this - then I ask you to show me the coherent and compelling evidence from the NT that the local churches were doctrinally independent.

Peace
James

P.S.
I know that you are new - but try to post outside of the quote brackets. It makes it easier to know what is your writing and what is mine…Not complaining…well.…maybe a little…
Jim

 

[Jacob_Morgan]

Regarding the real presence versus symbolism:

continued
Yes, I do. The Apostles understood the symbolism, this is seen several times in the NT. What a man thinks is irrelevant because man can be wrong.

If what a mere man thinks can be wrong, then how is the whole CofC based on how mere individual think the Bible ought to be interpreted?

More to the point, the evidence in the New Testament is completely to the contrary: John Ch 6 (esp. starting v 52) the people think that Jesus is saying they must consume his flesh. They freak out, they leave. Jesus doesn’t say “OK, OK, Guys now come on, that was just figurative, come back, I was just taking about a matzo cracker and a thimble of grape juice.” That did not happen, he left it there. Why would he not correct them if they did not understand what he was saying?

There is Old Testament typology: bread came from heaven to sustain the Israelites, the pass over sacrifice involved not only the application of blood to door posts but also the consumption of the lamb. It gives meaning to both the miracle of the wine and of the loaves and fishes.

Why should it be possible to “bring judgment” on one’s self if they take communion improperly if it is only symbolic? Does any baptized person every pass up communion in the church you are in?

A common charge by the Romans against the early church were charges of cannibalism (and being superstitious and simple-minded; sounds like people talking about the Catholic Church today, does it not?)

The earliest Christians (e.g., Ignatius’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Justin Martyr’s First Apology Chapter 66, and Irenaeus’s Against Heresies book 1), where we have writings at all, uniformly support the real presence. And that was while they were under fierce persecution. These were the same people (Irenaeus in particular) who weeded out false gospels from the Bible.

The Bible itself, secular third parties looking in on the early Church, and the people in the early Church, all point to the real presence and do not contradict it. I agree, it is a difficult concept, but a difficulty and a doubt are two different things.

Regarding selling all one has and giving it to the church as some did in Acts:

The point their isn’t that you have to do it, but you have to be willing to do it if needed. If you do great, if you don’t, fine. Same thing as the celibacy, if you do it, great. If not, fine.

Who gets to pick and choose what things in the New Testament must be done, and which ones are optional? They also met on the first day of the week, is that ok if one does, ok if one does not?

Wine in the NT was actually was refer to as grape juice today. This is why at the wedding in Cana, the guest marveled that the ‘new wine’ was hid until the end instead of the ‘old wine’, which would have had more of an alcoholic taste.

Please cite a primary source that supports wine being grape juice in the ancient middle east.

Old wine can deteriorate, thus a distinction between old and new wine. The alcohol in wine was an important antiseptic in those days, mixing wine with water purified water. Grape juice does not purify water. Unpasturized grape juice back then, before it fermented, would have been a petri dish of disease.

The original point though, was that the CofC took a bias from 1800’s America that alcohol was bad, and has then proof texted away ever since. In this case, against something that, if anything, has some support in scripture (short of drunkenness).

Question if believing in the Trinity is OK as Trinity is not in the Bible.

The concept of God in 3 persons is Biblical, the word isn’t seen but the concept is their.
.

You are absolutely correct. The concept is in the Bible. It is a logical development of what is in the Bible. If A = B and B = C then it is logical that B = C, even if B = C is not in the Bible. It is this sort of logical development that explains concepts like purgatory.

Regarding at least some of the original Gospels not being written in Greek. (The CofC places emphasis on Greek words.):

Really, where is that evidence. I have never heard of that. Greek was the common language of the day. In addition to that dialect of Greek, Kone Greek being very precise. I would hesitate to believe the Aramaic idea until it can be proven.

Greek was not the common language of the day in Judea, Aramaic was. When Jesus is quoted directly it is in Aramaic. Mathew may have been written in Hebrew. The Aramaic hypothesis is supported by differences in early Greek manuscripts that have differences that have common roots in Aramaic, i.e., the two different Greek translations make sense as the involved word in Aramaic could be interpreted or miss-interpreted either way. That is not an article of belief of Catholics, but my opinion. In which case the focus on Greek in the CofC is in vain. It points to the need for a living Church to interpret the meaning of the New Testament, instead of pouring over grammar of what could only be an early, uninspired, translation.

Regarding if Gentiles could have made their own Church, or needed to wait for the Apostles to open the Church to Gentiles:

Really that is correct, the Gentile believers could have formed their own church without apostle support, but thats not how things would have been done. Remember there was false teaching being spread that you had to be Jewish prior to being Christian. This could have been related to that.

It (Christianity being for Jews in the earliest days) was not a false teaching, it was fact. Until the Council in Jerusalem there were no Gentile Christians. If the Gentiles could have started their own church without them, then was it not presumptuous, evil in fact, for the Apostles to have given every appearance that they were the ones the Holy Spirit was to speak through to let them in? I’ve heard people claim the Early Church went off the deep end in the second or third century, now the Early Church corrupted itself in the book of Acts.

Regarding epistles seeking to reform wayward churches, instead of telling the faithful members to split, and Apostles founding churches.

There is not examples of each church mentioned being formed by an Apostle, it is probable that some formed without Apostle support. And the splitting of churches do occasionally happen.

The Apostles definitely did found churches, that is in the New Testament. There is no direct evidence that any started without them. It would be plausible that some could have started with people migrating from cities with a churche to a citiy without one, but the Bishops they elected were then approved by the Apostles, and (this point is incontrovertible) the Apostles thought nothing of giving those churches directions.

Churches split now, they split all the time now that it is every man for himiself Sola Scriptura. But where in the Bible was there ever a split?

Sorry for the long post.

 

[texasmavs1985]

Hey all,

I could use some help, especially from anyone here who converted from Church of Christ. My sister (not Catholic), because she’s dating someone from a Church of Christ congregation, seems to be likely to convert from Methodism to Church of Christ (a slight disappointment for me, since I had hoped she would follow my brother’s and my footsteps and swim across the Tiber). I’m trying to read up as much as I can so I can gently (and non-confrontationally) give her some things to think about.

Obviously, I know it all has to start with prayer. Does anyone have any other good resources, though, in addressing Church of Christ in particular? It seems there’s very little at Catholic.com. If you’re a Catholic convert from CoC, what got through to you?

Some questions I’ve got mulling to pose to her have to do with authority (who decides when you disagree with your friend or pastor regarding interpretation of a specific bible passage or disciplinary practice?) and structure (where are the bishops, governing multiple church bodies, that the New Testament talks about?) and sola scriptura (where is this practice of “bible only” found or taught in the bible?). Does anyone else have any ideas of questions to pose?

On the one hand I’m thrilled that it seems to be prompting her to read and study her bible more. On the other, it saddens me that she won’t be receiving the amazing grace from the sacrements soon. I guess it will take more prayer.

Thanks for your help! I’m not really interested in debating CoC vs Catholic as much as just looking for some questions to ask her to consider.

I recently converted to Catholicism from the Church of Christ myself just last year and I can tell you that there is MANY differences between Catholics and the of the CoC. The biggest thing I think the Church of Christ lacks in is the actual spiritual experience.
When I was growing up in the Church of Christ, we did have services and read/recited scripture and all that jazz. The thing though was that they read scripture like as if it were a textbook. They had the usual lesson plans on how we should be like Christ but it really comes to a complete stop at the cross.
Worship services to me was more like attending a Chemistry 101 course at a major university that has like 500 people in a class. Basically show up, sing some songs, pray, listen to someone teach a random topic within the bible, sing some more then go home and watch NFL games all afternoon.

Now being from Texas which has the largest CoC university in the country, Abilene Christian University (ACU), I also experienced a lot of pressure from several members of the CoC to go to that school based upon beliefs of the CoC. Unfortunately I have family associate with Baylor (largest Baptist university in the country) that was beneficial to me financially and geographically. As a result they frowned upon my decision to get an education from a school that is based upon another denomination. Not saying which school was better and what not but when I began going to college and discussing the core beliefs on the CoC with family, friends and classmates I eventually left the CoC due to lack of spirituality during services and based upon differences I had with the CoC overall. After leaving the CoC I decided to visit several other denominations and eventually gave up going to church.

My only fault is that for that is for about 5 years I kept procrastinating on actually going to church and noticed that I was like the sheep who wandered off from the flock. Eventually I had this strange feeling that I should attend Mass at one of the Catholic Churches in my hometown last year and found that the Catholic Church was the way to go. Went through RCIA, got confirmed Easter of this year and been happy since then.