Skip navigation

Tag Archives: church of christ denomination

 

Vodpod videos no longer available.

 

 

 

 

 

Questions From Those in the Church of Christ Answered

by Doug Bower

Why is is that you put baptism after salvation when Jesus put it before (Mark 16:16)?

Mark is writing here that there are two results of preaching the gospel. Some would believe and be baptized and be saved. Some would not believe. Notice the lack of the word *baptize* in the second clause. This tells us that the use if the word baptize in the first clause, not being emphasized in the second clause is not the issue or point if this text.

To understand what words in scripture mean they must be defined contextually. What does baptism mean in the context of this text. It is simply a mistake to quote verses and fail to present the verse and your conclusions in the immediate as well as the *remote* context of the rest of scripture. Baptism, in the texts of Scripture, can mean many things. To look at the word and assume it always means *water* baptism is an absurd conclusion and again shows a lack of even the basics of hermeneutics.

The word baptism comes from the “dyers” trade. It was used in secular language to mean to dye a piece of cloth. When someone wanted to dye their white, bleached cloth they would go see the dyer. After looking over the selection of colors available and choosing one, the dyer, would take the cloth and “dip”, or “dunk”, or “immerse” the cloth into the vat of colored dye. When the cloth was removed it was then “identified” with the color of the dye in the vat. This was how the word originated and was used. It can have many meanings depending upon the context in which it is used.

Metaphorically it is used to indicate “union” or “identification” with Christ in His death and resurrection. Literally it can be used to signify the “immersing” of someone or something into water, dye, etc.

The verses you question in Mark 16:16 cannot mean that water baptism is a necessary condition for salvation for the following reasons:

The thief on the cross was not baptized with water but was assured of being in Paradise with Christ (Luke 23:43).

The Gentiles in Caesarea were baptized *AFTER* they were saved (Acts 10:44-48).

Jesus Himself did not baptize (John 4:1-2) — a strange omission if baptism is a necessary condition for salvation. In fact there too numerous passages to cite here where Jesus forgave sin in the gospels but there was absolutely no mentioning of water baptism when He forgave them their sins (Matthew 9:1-8, 15:21-28).

The Apostle Paul thanked God that he baptized very few of the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 1:14-16) — an insincere thanksgiving if baptism was a necessary condition for salvation… In fact Paul goes on to say in verse 17 that he did not come to baptize but to preach the gospel. Here he makes a clear distinction that water baptism, which is what is clearly in view here, is NOT a necessary condition of salvation.

There are more than 150 verses pertaining to salvation, in the NT, which clearly teach that salvation is by Faith Alone! No one verse, i.e., Mark 16:16 could contradict this overwhelming testimony of scripture.

Baptism, in its metaphorical sense, is not associated with spiritual rebirth but with death and resurrection.

So what does this text of scripture, Mark 16:16, mean? What it *can not* mean is that water baptism is a necessary condition for salvation. To accept this interpretation would contradict the bulk of verses which form the Biblical Doctrine of salvation being by Faith Alone. It would clearly add a “good work” to the salvation process making salvation not of Grace but of Works.

“Now to him who works, the wages are not accounted as grace but debt. But of him who does not work, but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted as righteousness.” (Romans 4:1-8 — read the whole passage for context).

This says two things:

Faith is not a human work or else our belief on Him who justifies the ungodly would be not of Grace but of debt. God would “owe” us something for our Faith. Other texts of scripture clearly teach that the “faith that saves” is a gift of God (Ephesians 2:1-10).

It teaches that baptism is not a necessary condition for salvation. If it were, then salvation would be of works and not grace but debt thus again, God would “owe” us something for our work. And it would contradict our Covental relationship with God which was unilaterally established by God because of His mercy and Grace.

Therefore the Mark 16 passage has to mean that baptism is “an expected outward expression” of Faith. A proclamation of one’s faith. Not all get to be baptized such as the thief on the cross. But all who are saved are by Grace as the means, and through Faith as the instrument through which the Gift is received.

If baptism is not necessary, why was Cornelius “commanded” to be baptized in water (Acts 10:48).

Because Peter was obeying the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20), and because just as circumcision was a sign and seal of entrance into the Old Covenant signifying the cutting away of sin, undergoing a change of heart, and being including in the household of faith (Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4, 9:25-26; Ezekiel 44:7-9), so is baptism a sign and seal of “washing” away sin”, undergoing a change of heart, and being included in the household of faith. This is the purpose of water baptism. It is an outward sign and seal of the spiritual baptism whereby the Holy Spirit places us in Union with Christ in His death and resurrection.

Baptism is not identical to circumcision but corresponds to it in essence and has replaced it as the sign and seal of our Covental relationship with God as believers.

After 3 days of fasting and praying, why was Paul told by Ananias to wash away his sins through baptism if he was already saved (Acts 22:16).

An examination of the Greek text reveals the grammatical constructions which gives us clues to the meaning of this difficult text. IN the Greek there is a finite verb modified by a participle in each half of the verse. The literal rendering would go as follows: “Having arisen be baptized, and have your sins washed off (by) calling upon the name of the Lord”. This last clause would be supported by properly exegeting the rest of general biblical teaching (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21; Romans 10:13).

In the clause, “be baptized and have your sins washed off”, both verbs are in the middle voice. As a general rule the verb “to baptize” is used in the passive when referring to the subjects of water baptism. But here the subject is seen as doing something for himself and not merely as receiving: “get yourself baptized”. The seeking of the outward sign and seal, and claiming for oneself of what it signifies is the response of faith to God’s Grace.

If “grace only” saves, why did Paul say baptism puts us in Christ (Galatians 3:27)?

As I said before … baptism can mean many things depending upon the context in which it is used. It can mean being dipped into water or it can mean the Spirit placing us into the Body of Christ in Union with Him and much more.

What does baptism mean in 1 Corinthians 10:2 when Paul writes that the Nation of Israel, the “fathers” (vs. 1), being under the cloud, passing through the sea, were BAPTIZED into Moses?

According to your understand implied in your “text proofing” you would have this mean that the Israelites exercised the necessary condition of salvation and were saved by Moses unto eternal life.

What 1 Corinthians 10 means is that all the Israelites went through the ordeal and deliverance of the Exodus by virtue of their identification with Moses their leader. This is one use of the word baptize which does not mean into water nor having anything to do with a necessary condition for salvation.

You need to read the 1 Corinthians 10 passage with 1 Corinthians 12:13 text. The same sense of the language is being used to convey the thought of identification or union. The similarities are striking.

There is water baptism, a sign and seal of the New Covenant, and there is the baptism of the Holy Spirit whereby we are placed in Union/Identification into the Body of Christ and whereby we are united in the likeness of His death and resurrection (Romans 6).

Galatians 3:26-29 is the Holy Spirit’s baptism. It is the Spirit placing us in Union with Christ. We are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12) and into the likeness of His death and resurrection (Romans 6) thus putting on Christ (Galatians 3). It is a work of Grace and not of man’s. Union with Christ, which takes place at the time of conversion, is confessed in water baptism.

http://www.gospeloutreach.net/cocques.html

=======================================================

CLICK THE LOGOS ABOVE TO GO TO THE HOME PAGE AND LISTEN TO THE RADIO SHOW

—————————————————————————-

Advertisements
Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “25 Bible Verses on the Names of Jesus“, posted with vodpod

 

 

 

 

“Restorationists” and the “Name of the Church”

By Bob L. Ross
Director, Pilgrim Publications

I have a whole book (unpublished) on the “Restoration Movement

Alias the Church of Christ.” Here is one of the chapters:

“Restorationists” and the “Name” of the Church By Bob L. Ross

“Church of Christ” adherents are not in the least backwards about claiming that they only “wear the Bible name;” they even condemn their “relatives,” the “Disciples” or “Christian Church,” because they don’t wear the “right name.” Some of them have even proclaimed that “Christian Church” is a “heathen” name.

We would like to ask a few questions about this so-called Bible name.

1. In the first place, where in the Bible are we commanded to wear this name?

If it is a name to be worn, and if it is essential to salvation to wear it, surely we are commanded by the Lord to wear it. Book, chapter, and verse, please; not opinions, theories, and reasoning. Of course, Romans 16:16 is often quoted in an effort to support their claim, but this verse does not command any one to wear any name. There are other passages which refer to the church under different terms, but they do not contain a commandment for using such terms as a “name.” We are commanded to do many things—repent, believe, be baptized, assemble, observe the Lord’s Supper, pray, preach, etc.—but never are we commanded to wear a name. Does not one, therefore, go beyond “that which is written” when he adds a “name” as if it were a commandment? If there is such a commandment, where is it? Alexander Campbell, one of the founders of Campbellism, and its “scholar,” translates Romans 16:16 as follows:

The congregations of Christ salute you (LIVING ORACLES, page 305). Campbell is recognized as the greatest scholar the so-called “Restoration Movement” ever had. But notice: Campbell does not translate Romans 16:16 so as to support “Restorationist” claims. Why so? He says that the word “church, or kirk, is an abbreviation of the words kuriou oikos, the house of the Lord and does not translate the term ekklesia.” (LIVING ORACLES, appendix, page 55). On this Campbell is right, for the Greek authorities tell us that ekkesia is best translated by the words “assembly” or “congregation.” Church is a word which refers to a material building, rather than to people. The word church, like baptize, appears in the King James (Episcopalian) Version because the “rules” of King James dictated that the word be used. Therefore, if Romans 16:16 gives us the name of the Lord’s assembly, what should it be? Not “Church of Christ,” for “church” is an improper translation, according to Campbell and Greek authorities. Campbell himself asserted that “Disciples” should be the name, while Barton W. Stone, another one of the “Reformers,” insisted upon “Christians.” Actually, Campbellites have been fussing over a name for their “baby” ever since it was “born.” In the CHRISTIAN REVIEW, edited by Mr. Martin, there appeared several years ago, this statement: There is, perhaps, no question about which our people are more divided than that about the name. So divided are we upon this question that the census takers cannot ascertain who we are, what we believe, or our number.

What confusion! — and on such a petty matter!

2. A paper entitled THE VINDICATOR says that any term which describes the church is all right to use as a name. But THE VINDICATOR fails to give a single verse that commands us to wear “any term.” Here is what the paper says:

I see where some Baptists are offering $100 for a Scripture which teaches that the name of the church is “The Church of Christ,” or any other particular name . . . Personally, I wouldn’t be interested in proving the foregoing for any amount of money—because I would be trying to prove something I do not even believe. Any Bible term that describes the church is acceptable to me, not just one particular name. One of the terms in the Bible, however, is the ‘Churches of Christ’ (Rom. 16:16). (Alan Highers, May 1, 1958 issue). That’s all very interesting, but you will notice that he did not tell us where we are commanded to wear “any Bible term” as a church “name.” The writer refers to “any Bible term that describes the church;” all right, suppose they start calling themselves “The Pillar and the Ground” (I Tim. 3:15), which are Bible “terms” that “describe” the church; will these “terms” be all right as the “name”? Why did they settle on the one name, “Church of Christ,” instead of several? And why do they insist that everyone else is going to Hell for not wearing this “name”?

Why don’t they hang out this sign: The Body, Temple, Building, Pillar and Ground, Household, Flock, Bride, City, and Candlestick of Christ? All of these “terms” are descriptive of the church. If all these are right to use as “names,” then is it right just to hang out one? Yet this is exactly what “Restorationists” do. Can they tell us why? How strange for a man to say he “wouldn’t be interested in proving . . . something I do not even believe,” then proceed to assert that very thing!

This is sometimes called “double-talk.” We have no objection to using terms to “describe” the Lord’s church, but we do object to making names out of terms, demanding that we wear them or go to Hell. There are many terms used of God’s people, such as “sheep,” “elect,” “living stones,” etc. Would it be right to say, then, that those in the church must wear the name “Sheep of God,” or some other name? Nonsense.

3. Actually, “assemblies of Christ” in Romans 16:16 is in the possessive case, and is no more giving a “brand name” than any other verse in the Bible. The verse simply tells us who is saluting (assemblies) and whose assemblies they are (Christ’s).

I challenge any person on the face of the earth to give one single verse that commands us to wear the name “Church of Christ” or any other “term” or name. The reward ($100) still stands, too. H. A. “Buster” Dobbs of FIRM FOUNDATION magazine claims there are several “New Testament names” for the church, and one may use whichever “name” he “prefers!” (Mar. ‘92, p. 4). This simply magnifies the fact that there is no command to use a certain “name.” Yet Dobbs also says “it is all right” to use “church of Christ exclusively!” You may “prefer not to use” other Bible “names” and use the lower-case “church of Christ” only! In the New Testament, this was neither practiced nor commanded – Dobbs himself being the witness, as he says Romans 16:16 is the “only time” in the New Testament where “church of Christ” is used. So where is “Bible authority” for the exclusive “preference” of this so-called “name?” None whatsoever! This “hobby-horse” is a “deduction” of the distorted “logic” which permeates “Restorationism.”

http://sites.silaspartners.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID43667%7CCHID152162%7CCIID443614,00.html

=======================================================

CLICK THE LOGOS ABOVE TO GO TO THE HOME PAGE AND LISTEN TO THE RADIO SHOW

—————————————————————————-

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “A question for Johnny Robertson (the …“, posted with vodpod

 

 

FROM biblebelievers.com

The religious sect known as the “Church of Christ” has many peculiar and aberrant doctrines that are contrary to the word of God. It is a most deceptive and dangerous cult. Their teaching of baptismal regeneration is an age-old heresy that has damned millions to hell, and is still doing so today. The idea that they are the one, true and restored church of Jesus Christ puts them in the same league with the Mormon and Roman Catholic churches.

If you are a member of this “church” or have been influenced by its teachings, we challenge you to ask your preacher the questions that follow, then get your King James Bible out, open it up, and ask the Holy Spirit to show you the TRUTH (John 16:13). If you have never been saved in the Bible sense, for heaven’s sake, do not mistake being “washed in the baptistry of the church” for being washed in the blood of Christ.

If you ask one of these “preachers” any of the questions in this tract, you won’t get a straight answer due to their “screwball” theology. You’ll have them in “hot water,” “swimming in circles,” trying to explain their heretical positions. They’ll be “hopping all over the pond” because they can’t stay too long in one spot without sinking in the mire of their false doctrines.

Don’t YOU wind up being baptized in the “Lake of Fire” by accepting a “waterworks” based plan of salvation and rejecting salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ. (Matt. 3:11; Rev. 20:15; Eph. 2:8,9; Rom. 5:9; Rom. 11:6).

Here are Questions for Campbellites

1. According to the history of the “Church of Christ,” God used certain men to “restore” the New Testament Church in the early 1800’s. Where was the true New Testament church before then? Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18). What happened to the church and where was the truth it was responsible for preaching before God restored it?

2. If a “Church of Christ” elder refuses to baptize me, will I be lost until I can find one who will? Do I need Jesus AND a Campebllite “preacher” in order to be saved? If I do, then Jesus Christ is not the only Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) and the Holy Spirit is not the only Administrator (1 Cor. 12:13) of salvation – the “Church of Christ” preacher is necessary to salvation for he is performing a saving act on me when he baptizes me! Is this not blasphemy against Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost?

3. If the water pipes broke and the baptistry was bone dry, would my salvation have to wait until the plumber showed up? If I were to die before then, would I go to hell? If obedience to water baptism is the means of forgiveness of sins, then I would.

4. If my past sins are forgiven when I am baptized in water, and it is possible for me to “lose my salvation” and go to hell after being baptized, then wouldn’t my best chance of going to heaven be to drown in the baptistry?!! – before I had a chance to sin so as to be lost again? If I wanted to be absolutely sure of heaven, isn’t that my best opportunity?

5. If as a Christian I can sin so as to “lose my salvation,” just what sin or sins will place me in such danger? Is it possible to know at what point one has committed such a sin, and become lost again? Please be specific and give clear Bible references.

6. If as a Christian I can fall and “lose my salvation,” is it possible to regain it? If so, how? If God “takes away” my salvation, doesn’t that make Him an “Indian giver”? How could I ever know for sure that I was saved or lost?

7. After becoming a Christian, are there any sins that will put me beyond the “point of no return” so that I cannot regain salvation? What sin or sins will put me in such jeopardy, so that, after becoming a Christian, I would be doomed to hell without any recourse? Please be specific and give me clear Bible references.

8. If I committed some sin -whether in thought, word, or deed, one minute before a fatal car crash – would I go to hell if I did not have time to repent of it? And, please, don’t just say that it’s up to God without giving me a specific Bible reference.

9. Why does the “Church of Christ” insist that their name is scriptural when it cannot be found anywhere in the Bible? The church is referred to as the “church of God” eight (8) times in the Bible, but never is it called the “church of Christ.” The verse they use is Romans 16:16, but it doesn’t say “church of Christ.” Where does the Bible call the church the “church of Christ”?

10. If the “Church of Christ” claims to worship God only as “authorized” by scripture because they sing only (and do not use instrumental music), then where do they get the “authority” to use hymnals, pitchpipes, pews, and indoor baptistries in their worship services? If the answer is that they are “aids to worship,” where does the Bible allow for that? Where is your required authorization? If a pitchpipe can be an “aid to worship” for the song service in the “Church of Christ,” then why can’t a piano be an “aid to worship” for Baptists who may need more help in singing?

11. The “Church of Christ” teaches that a sinner is forgiven of sin when he is baptized in water by a Campbellite elder. Where does the Bible teach that water baptism is required in order to have one’s sins forgiven? Every time the phrase “for the remission of sins” occurs it is speaking of the fact that sins have been forgiven previously! The Bible plainly teaches that the forgiveness of sins is conditioned upon repentance of sin and faith in Christ – never upon water baptism! (Matthew 3:11; Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; Acts 5:31; Acts 10:43; Acts 20:21; Romans 1:16; Romans 4:5; et.al.) Where does the Bible teach that forgiveness of sin is linked with water baptism? When Christ made the statement in Matthew 26:28, “for the remission of sins,” it had to be because they had been forgiven all through the Old Testament! Christ shed His blood because God forgave repentant and believing sinners for thousands of years before the Son of God came to “take away” sins and to redeem us and pay the sin-debt with His own precious blood. How can one say that “for the remission of sins” means ‘in order to obtain’ in light of the fact that God never uses the phrase in that sense? In the Old Testament God forgave sin on the basis of a blood sacrifice (Heb. 9:22) – the Old Testament saints had their sins remitted (i.e., forgiven) but they were not redeemed until Christ came and shed His blood at Calvary. Their sins were covered (Romans 4:7; Psalm 32:1), but the sinner was not cleared of his guilt (Exodus 34:7) until the Cross (Heb.10:4). Before Calvary, the sins of believers were pardoned, but they were not paid for (i.e., redeemed) until the crucifixion (see Romans 3:25 and Heb. 9:12-15). When Jesus said, “It is finished,” (John 19:30), all sin – past, present and future – was paid for, and the plan of salvation was completed, so that ‘whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins’ (Acts 10:43). In Acts 2:38, the people were baptized because their sins were forgiven (at Calvary when Jesus said, “Father, forgive them,”) and they received the blessing of forgiveness when they repented of their sin of rejecting Christ and accepted Him as their Saviour and Lord. Friend, heaven or hell depends on what you believe about this.

12. If salvation is not by works of righteousness which we have done, and baptism is a work of “righteousness,” then how can water baptism be a part of salvation? (Titus 3:5; Matt. 3:16) In the Bible, we are SAVED BY GRACE, and grace does not involve human effort or merit grace is grace and work is work! (Just read Ephesians 2:8,9 and Romans 11:6.)

13. The “Church of Christ” teaches that “obeying the Gospel” includes being baptized in water in order to be saved. If this is true, then how is it that the converts of Acts 10 were saved by faith before and without water baptism? The Bible says in Acts 5:32 that only those who obey God may receive the Holy Ghost – so what did those in Acts 10 do to obey and receive the Holy Ghost and be saved? In the light of Acts 10:34-48, Acts 11:14-18, and Acts 15:7-11, how can anyone honestly believe that water baptism is necessary to salvation? Simon Peter said their hearts were “purified by faith” (Acts 15:9) and that we are saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ like they were (Acts 15:11); that is, before and without water baptism! We know that unsaved people do not receive or have the Holy Spirit (John 14:17; Romans 8:9). We know that the Holy Spirit is given only to those who have believed on Christ (John 7:39). We know that the Holy Spirit seals the believing sinner the moment he puts his faith and trust in Christ as Savior, before he is ever baptized in water (Ephesians 1:12,13). How does the warped theolgy of Campbellism explain away these clear passages of Scripture without “muddying the waters” of truth and drowning its members in eternal damnation?

It would be impossible to discuss all the false doctrines of the “Church of Christ” in this small article. If you have a particular question not dealt with here, or need clarification on the issues discussed, contact us via email or at the phone number or address listed. We will provide you with sane, sensible and scriptural answers to your Bible questions.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/david_martin/martin_church-christ.html

RELATED post

Is the Church of Christ a denomination?  Comments and questions on Baptism by Truthseeker 24  RePost: The Heresy of Restorationsim by Damon Whitsell  WATER BAPTISM: A PAGAN AND JEWISH RITE,BUT NOT CHRISTIAN by James Moon  The “ONE TRUE CHURCH” by Damon Whitsell   PUTTING GOD IN A BOX , the result of the personification of the bible as the Holy Spirit. By Damon Whitsell  Falsely viewing the Holy Spirit as a poetic device known as personification!  The “Church of Christ” Denial of the Present-Day Ministry of the Holy Spirit by chocd.org  DANGER: The Church of Christ By David J. Stewart Church of Christ Legalism Questionnaire What was the fifth century Pelagian Controversy? How was it similar to what is taught in the Church of Christ?  The “Church of Christ” is not the “one true church”! It is a Cult. By Damon Whitsell

CHECK OUT THE How2BecomeAChristian,info Church of Christ PAGE with many articles, videos, blogs, discussions and forums @ http://www.how2becomeachristian.info/churchofchrist.htm

=======================================================

CLICK THE LOGOS ABOVE TO GO TO THE HOME PAGE AND LISTEN TO THE RADIO SHOW

—————————————————————————-

=======================================================

CLICK THE LOGOS ABOVE TO GO TO THE HOME PAGE AND LISTEN TO THE RADIO SHOW

—————————————————————————-

Most of the information in this article is taken from the sources footnoted.

Restorationism is the claim that the Christian Church fell away from the truths of Jesus and the NT apostles and had to be “RESTORED” to it’s NT state and practice. The whole Christian church had become apostate and non-existent, is their claim. But this allegation is pure folly and uninformed speculation. This is also in total contrast and contradiction to the idea of “REFORM” and the protestant reformation.

The main influence and emphasis of the Restoration Movement of the Cambellite’s and their subsequent offsping religions of the “restorationist” that followed and was spawned from them, is seriously flawed and based on the false assumption that the true Christian Church had been wiped clean from the face of the earth (needing to be completely restored) and that Gods promises about his church and word are not true. In the face of much persecution and attempts to abolish God’s church and word from the face of the earth, there has always been at least a large remnant of true believers and members of the incorporeal and invisible church of God. “’Restorationism’ is based on a belief called the Great Apostasy, that traditional Christianity has departed so far from the original Christian principles that it is not redeemable.” (2) 

The bible contains these promises about itself and Jesus’s Church.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

1Pe 1:25A But the word of the Lord endureth forever.

Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand forever.

The Restoration Movement (also known historically as the “Stone – Campbell Movement”) was started by Alexander Campbell when he opened this church the “Old Philadelphia congregation of the Church of Christ, this congregation came into existence in 1804. The records are in the possession of the church in Warren County, Tennessee.“ (1) The “Church of Christ” denomination had not existed until this point.

Although we mostly know of Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone and Walter Scott to be the founders of the restoration movement, it’s principles and precepts had already been laid by others.

The key principles of the Restoration Movement and the Restorationist are,

1. Christianity should not be divided, Christ intended the creation of one church.

2. Creeds divide, but Christians should be able to find agreement by standing on the Bible itself (from which they believe all creeds are but human expansions or constrictions) instead of on the opinions of people about the Bible.

3. Ecclesiastical traditions divide, but Christians should be able to find common ground by following the practice (as best as it can be determined) of the early church.

4.Names of human origin divide, but Christians should be able to find common ground by using biblical names for the church (i.e., “Christian Church,” “Church of God” or “Church of Christ” as opposed to “Methodist” or “Lutheran”, etc.). It is in this vein that conservative members of the Churches of Christ object to the phrase “Stone-Campbell Movement.” (1)

The Heretical Restoration Movement is comprised of the Campbellites; Disciples of Christ, Church of Christ., Independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ.(2) And it is also comprised of members defecting from mainline Christianity. The Religious Affiliation of Alexander Campbell by adhernats.com (3)

The Heretical Churches of Restorationism are, Christadelphians, Latter Day Saint [LDS] movement (The Mormon Church and it’s sub-groups), Adventism, Millerites, Sabbatarianism, Seventh-day Adventists, Charismatic Restorationism, and more. (2)

The false doctrines of restorationism where perpetuated by these silly mottos! Great Slogans of the Restoration Movement by John Wadely.

Each of these false traditions give a different reason for believing the GREAT APOSTACY had taken place and necessitated a total “restoration”.

Restorationist dates for the Great Apostasy (2)

Restorationism is often criticized for rejecting the traditions followed by the early church, but different restoration groups have treated tradition differently. While some view all the Church Fathers as unreliable witnesses to the original Apostolic Church, others find in the earliest Church Fathers proof that the early church believed and practiced as some restorationists do, and the late Church Fathers differences as evidences of a gradual or sudden falling away. Common to all restorationism is the belief that the Church Fathers or post-apostolic church leadership had no authorization to change the church’s beliefs and practices, but did so nevertheless.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the apostasy started after the death of the last apostle, John. They believe that the Holy Spirit held the apostasy back in full force but after John died the spirit let the apostasy grow. They believe that it came in full after the First Council of Nicaea. Still, they believe that throughout all that time there were true Christians alive until the beginning of the restoration.

The Latter-day Saints also assign a very early date for the apostasy, beginning shortly after the deaths of the original Twelve Apostles at approximately 100 AD, and certainly being in a full state of apostasy by the 4th century. With this early date, they claim the least need to reconcile known writings and practices of the early church and Church Fathers. Although their writings are sometimes cited to show reminiscences of earlier true practices, they are also used to demonstrate that doctrine and understanding had been already altered.

The Sabbatarians have generally agreed on the approximate date of 135 AD as the start of the apostasy. Justin Martyr in about 160 AD had specifically defended the first day assembly, and so is considered an apostate to Sabbatarians. Nevertheless, the early church history recorded the continued keeping of the Saturday Sabbath for creation and Sunday Sabbath for the Resurrection in Hippolytus’s time. They view the apostasy as not complete until the church stopped keeping the Sabbath sometime after Constantine.

The Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement views the Great Apostasy as a gradual process. Ignatius promoted obedience to the bishop in about 100 AD,[23] which is viewed by some as signaling the introduction of the idea of a professional clergy, who began to elevate themselves over the people, leading by a gradual process of corruption to the prophesied “man of lawlessness”. Infant baptism, which restorationists condemned as coercive church membership, is similarly viewed. They believe that only adult baptism was practiced at least to the time of Tertullian, but that infant baptism was introduced locally around the time of Irenaeus. They often reject notions of original sin which entail a corruption of human nature, and admit only a defilement of mankind’s habitual environment, traditions or culture. As do other Restorationists, they saw the church-state alliance under Constantine (see also Constantine I and Christianity and Christendom) as a kind of captivity of the church through the centralized power of the bishops. Finally, the development of the idea of the supremacy and universal authority of the Bishop of Rome is considered the completion of the Great Apostasy from which the Protestant Reformation only partially recovered, but most nearly did so among the Anabaptists and the Baptists

If you will investigate for yourself you will see that each of these scenarios is NOT TRUE and purely false. The Restoration movement and all of it’s associated religions or churches are cults based on false doctrine.

In his 1955 book The Rise of the Cults: An Introductory Guide to the Non-Christian Cults, Walter Martin gave the following definition of a cult: “By cultism we mean the adherence to doctrines which are pointedly contradictory to orthodox Christianity and which yet claim the distinction of either tracing their origin to orthodox sources or of being in essential harmony with those sources. Cultism, in short, is any major deviation from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith.”

These “cardinal doctrines” are generally agreed to be,1. the Trinity 2. the full deity and humanity of Christ 3. the spiritual lostness of the human race 4. the substitutionary atonement and bodily resurrection of Christ 5. salvation by faith alone in Christ alone 6. the physical return of Christ 7. the authority and inerrancy of Scripture.

Certainly all the churches, groups or movements listed in this article meet the criteria to be called cults and in NO WAY could be considered Christian.

All this information and more is covered in the awesome video series “Salvation through water? Church of Christ” 1-14 from Dr. Robert Moory available for viewing on the How2BecomeAChristian.info web site on the “Church of Christ video page” and the VODPOD widget on this blog. The video series is also on the H2bac.info “COC” vodpod @ http://h2bacinfococvideos.vodpod.com/ which has 32 + videos on the COC and it’s doctrines.

Sincerely, IJN, IHS

Damon Whitsell H2bac.info

____________________________________________________

(1) http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Restoration-Movement

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism

(3) http://www.adherents.com/people/pc/Alexander_Campbell.html

This work is licensed (FOR YOUR FREE USE) under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.

Please visit our main site, and our forums @
http://how2becomeachristian.proboards83.com/

“Church of Christ” Topical Video – Campbellism

 Bob L. Ross, author of the book, “Campbellism, Its History and Heresies,” joins Larry Wessels, director of Christian Answers, in this brief review of this 19th-century religious movement. This movement known as “Campbellism” and adhered to by groups known as “Church of Christ,” “Christian Church,” and “Disciples of Christ,” had its beginning primarily through the influence of two immigrants from Ireland. Thomas Campbell, the father, and Alexander Campbell, the son, rebelled against Presbyterianism and ultimately created the Campbellite movement. The Campbells had arrived in America in the early 1800s and later with the help of Walter Scott and Barton W. Stone “restored” the “ancient Gospel” with an emphasis on Acts 2:38 and baptismal remission. Works righteousness is a common feature of Campbellism and plays a large part in many of their strange doctrines such as their denial of the use of musical instruments in the church worship service (among some of their sects).

19  For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

1Co 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

 

 

 

For years I have heard it taught that the Church of Christ is NOT a denomination or sect like the Baptist, Methodist, etc.
 
Let’s Examine The Evidence
 
World Book Dictionary defines denomination as: (1) a name for a group or class of things (2) a religious group or sect.
 
Holman Bible Dictionary defines a sect as: a group having established their own identity and teachings over against the larger group to which they belong. especially the different parties making up Judaism in the N.T. times.
 
New Englishman’s Greek Concordance and Lexicon defines sect as: the persons holding a certain opinion, that is a sect, a faction.
 
The evidence is clear; the Church of Christ according to the definitions above is a denomination or sect. (1) they have a name and they are a group of believers (2) they are a religious group (3) they have established their own identity and teachings to set them apart from a larger group, which makes them a sect or denomination.
 
Here is what we read in the bible: Then the high priest rose up, and all that were with him, which is the sect of the Sadducees ( Acts 5:15 ) … and …There rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees ( Acts 15:5 ) … KJV
 
IT SEEMS TO ME; that a DENOMINATION or SECT is a smaller group of believers within a larger group of believers, and different from other groups due to their teachings and beliefs.
 
Groups…Sects…Denominations…Church of Christ
 
(1) One Cuppers…these believers teach that it’s a sin to use more than one cup during the Lord’s Supper.
(2) Fellowship Rooms…these believers teach that it’s a sin to have a fellowship room in the church building where believers can come together to eat and share a meal.
(3) Musical Instruments…these believers teach that it’s a sin to use musical instruments when singing songs during worship to God.
(4) Still Others…see nothing wrong with using multiple cups, fellowship rooms, or musical instruments.
(5) And Many…of these divided sects teach that you are sinning and must repent and come back to the TRUE CHURCH, ( their sect ), in order to be pleasing to God.
 
Many people in the Church of Christ will not admit that they are a SECT or DENOMINATION of the larger part ( Christianity ). They will tell you that they belong to the TRUE CHURCH that Jesus started 2000 years ago.
 
But if you look closely at the Church of Christ, you will find many sects, with each sect claiming to be the one and only true church that Jesus started. And you will find these sects or denominations pointing fingers at each other and demanding that they repent and join their sect. The End Lee Howell

=======================================================

CLICK THE LOGOS ABOVE TO GO TO THE HOME PAGE AND LISTEN TO THE RADIO SHOW

—————————————————————————-