- Church christ dating website - LLNELLNE
- News & Articles
- The Top Five Myths of Christian Dating
- Editor's Picks
- Church of Christ Singles Mingle
They are never to speak ill of him.
Church christ dating website - LLNELLNE
Is she to be condemned or chastised for this act of love? Aren't there innumerable ways to honor God out of our love which are not specifically mentioned in the Bible chapter 15, Worship by Demand? Maybe, just maybe, playing beautiful instrumental music in church might fit into this category!
Did you know that there is in fact NO pattern to worship in the Bible chapter 26 beginning on page 91, Sickness. Nothing wrong with these, for sure. But they are indeed traditions, no? Cecil Hook documents in his books Free to Change chapter 33 beginning on page and Free as Sons chapter 20 beginning on page 56, Pattern that: None of us is willing to follow those three rules consistently.
We accept what seems to fit our understanding, and we reject or overlook teachings of the same classification that do not fit our mental picture. Is Hook correct that patternism is evidence of legalism? Does such patternism subtract from the focus on Christ? What is the vital factor which God sees to be known by him? Is it loving God 1 Cor 8: If patternism is so important, why do you limit your patterns to the book of Acts? Why not follow the pattern of Jesus, who consistently tended to the weak, sick, and needy?
What is the core message of the Bible? These formulas bring up a long list of questions that we might ask, especially regarding necessary inferences. It seems that what is a necessary inference varies even among CC folks. But suffice it to wonder whether a "necessary" inference becomes any doctrine or practice that someone in the Church of Christ deems necessary or whether the formula is a necessary tool to exclude many other Christians and Christian practices.
Since these formulas are not specific commands in the New Testament and since "necessary" seems to be merely an interpretation, shouldn't others necessarily infer that these formulas themselves are traditions of men rather than the word of God?
See Al Maxey's comments on Necessary Inference. Are examples and incidental details in the Bible binding? How does one answer the issues raised by Mr. Is it the detail or the purpose that is important, such as at the Lord's Table? Is it correct to assume that breaking bread on the first day of the week Acts Remembering that the Jewish day was from sundown to sundown, and since this gathering in Acts Since that was the only such instance in the New Testament, how can one be certain to the point of law that this was not an isolated example?
How can you even be certain that this was Communion rather than a fellowship meal? Would Jesus pronounce a woe on such sacred cows? Where in the Bible is this command found? Cecil Hook demonstrates that the proof text of Heb 8: We would be interested in your comments on this reference and also from Al Maxey: Church of Christ folks love debates. Here is a great one, a debate on patternism: Do you really think that you are following the New Testament pattern? Well, let's just do a little check. Are you following all of these New Testament patterns?
Or are you arbitrarily assigning reasons why some should not be followed? If so, isn't this contrary to the warning of Jesus, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. See chapter 23 beginning on page 81, Route to Heaven. What about methods of carrying on church business and of selecting of elders—are such laid out in the Bible chapter 22, Organization , and chapter 23, Autonomous? Edward Fudge argues that Hebrews 8: Indeed, Fudge further argues that patternism is a tradition of men rather than the word of God.
Please offer your rebuttal. The Church of Christ also teaches that tradition is to be avoided based on Mat But doesn't the Bible itself teach that there are verbal traditions to which one must hold 2 Thes 2: If it is not okay to use tradition in the Christian faith, how do we even know who wrote the first book of the New Testament? While the Bible contains all truth, is all truth in the Bible? Isn't it reasonable to think that there are as many ways to honor God as his infinite nature would imply? Is our sufficiency in a written code in the New Testament, or rather in the Spirit 2 Corinthians 3: Do we have eternal life via the Scriptures or simply in Jesus John 5: Imagine hearing that at fifteen years old.
For two years I would cry myself to sleep I was so scared. But Jesus has opened my eyes! The CC seems to think that other professing Christians are lax in obedience. That may be so. A true saving faith must be a living faith James 2. There is little room in the Christian faith for " easy-believism " which could be defined as turning one's back on clearly understood biblical instruction. Certainly, the believer should seek to conform his life to the will of God as best as he understands it. The New Testament speaks often of such concepts as the obedience of faith.
The protestant reformers put it this way: Salvation is through faith alone, but not through a faith that is alone. So, we stand with you in attempting to overcome the shallow view of easy-believism in Christianity. As we will point out below, we get conflicting opinions from Church of Christ folks that visit our website. Some insist that we are saved only by grace and then go on to explain that our obedience is required to earn God's grace.
News & Articles
Others flatly say that we do not even need the righteousness of Christ at all to be saved. Justification is the process by which God declares us righteous even though we are not! Put another way, justification is the authoritative declaration that a person's status is changed. Rather than justification, it is divine wrath which man has merited. The love of God is the source of our justification, but the death of Christ is its grounds. He [Jesus] came voluntarily under the curse of God, in order to set us at liberty from it cf. In fact, the Law was 'added' Galatians 3: We are saved by grace.
Just as Abraham was not justified by any work of the Law, neither are we today justified by any "Law of Christ" which is a set of rules that replaces the Old Covenant. In trying to explain the impossibility of adding works to grace for justification, it is argued that those accepting Church of Christ theology are not doing ENOUGH to satisfy God! Tim Keller in his book The Reason for God explains how a legalist he knows came to understand the problem. She said that the new message of the true gospel was scary. When asked why, she responded:. I would be like a taxpayer with 'rights'—I would have done my duty and now I would deserve a certain quality of life.
But if I am a sinner saved by sheer grace—then there's nothing he cannot ask of me. Yes, works are necessary for salvation; but not our works—rather the work of Christ! While our works are a test of our spiritual hearing, they are the result of our salvation not a cause of it. We will spend the rest of this section attempting to demonstrate this. What is meant by obedience within the CC seems to be different in the CC than in other parts of Christianity.
How about reading this essay by Cecil Hook: We do not think you can possibly comply with this request. The word legalism is derived from the word law. Since you believe that the Mosaic Law has been replaced by a new law code the Law of Christ , doesn't that make you legalists by definition? Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments John Have you subtly abstracted the law of God from its original context? Jesus warned the scribes and Pharisees: For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law—justice and mercy Matthew What message do you seek to send to non-Christians?
Have you added legislation to God's law and treated it as if it were from God? If so, this is a perilous danger! Have you added regulations that seek to bind the conscience? Have you added prohibitions against card playing, lipstick, dancing, wine, etc. Where are such prohibitions in the Bible? Have you moved subtly from Godly morality into moralism? If so, as theologian R.
The Church of Christ's view on justification seems confused and contradictory to us. It always seems to end up with obedience as the way one is justified. When we asked a dear CC friend—who is an elder in a Church of Christ—how he knows that he is saved, he responded, "Because I have been pleasing to God.
Is there anyone who is righteous: Isn't our justification imputed by the righteousness of Christ rather than from ourselves? As put by C. Moser, "If man pleads his own works, he ignores the blood of Christ. Whoever does that will most certainly be ignored by God. After reading this, what do you now think about the concept of imputed righteousness? We cannot help but wonder whether the CC fails to appreciate the depth of our sin. The Bible says that "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked Jer It also says that "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it Jas 2: So, if you believe the Bible, your heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.
And assuming that you acknowledge at least some sin, you are guilty of breaking the whole law. Thus, if you are guilty of breaking the whole law, are you really pleasing to God? How can one possibly say that he is pleasing to God?! What seems most ironic is that in spite of its insistence on New Testament commands, the CC seems to have missed the New Testament purpose of the law—which is to show us our own sin Rom 3: There are other examples of how CC theology seems to us to contradict itself.
Here is what one CC teacher says: We teach salvation by the grace of God, which is given to those whom God says will receive it: In explaining Ephesians 2: What then is a straight forward answer to how one is saved? If a Christian can sin so as to lose one's salvation, just what sin or sins will place him 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. The first law of logic—The Law of Non-Contradiction—says that two distinctly different or opposite things cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense.
So, how is it reconcilable to say that we are saved by a free gift Romans 5: This method of interpretation makes the Bible contradict itself at every turn. Grace does not mean grace; a free gift is not free. Man is not hopelessly sinful; but then again he is. Christ is necessary; but then he isn't. The law does not save; but yes it does and only a Church of Christ preacher can interpret all the details of which works save and which ones don't. This hermeneutic leaves the Bible in hopeless shambles.
Is not this exactly what Paul is arguing in Romans Let us ask this question of biblical logic: Is grace necessary for salvation? Thus, no matter how hard you labor to earn God's favor, there is still something missing, namely God's grace? We may be very wrong, as we often are. It seems to us that the hermeneutic error that the CC makes is to make biblical statements about justification additive rather than reconciled.
So, instead of making conflicting statements about, on the one hand, how we are saved by grace and elsewhere saying that we must be obedient to be saved —a contradictory construction—a better and non-contradictory construction would be to say that we are saved by grace through a type of faith which leads one to conform his life to the will of God. Does the Bible contradict itself?
If so, it cannot be the Word of God. The distinction here may be subtle, but crucial.
The Top Five Myths of Christian Dating
A friend sent me to your website and I was so enlightened about all of their doctrine. They proudly state that 'where the Bible is silent they are silent' and 'where it speaks they speak. I have never seen people twist Scripture so much, or take what they want and omit the rest. I have heard them give long-winded, circled-around explanations of Scripture. My heart breaks for them.
I truly believe in my heart that church is a cult. Gresham Machen explained that, "Paul as well as the Judaizers believed that the keeping of the law of God, in its deepest import, is inseparably connected with faith. The difference concerned only the logical Paul said that a man 1 first believes on Christ, 2 then is justified before God, 3 then immediately proceeds to keep God's law. The Judaizers said that a man 1 believes on Christ and 2 keeps the law of God the best he can, and then 3 is justified.
Here is where we think the Church of Christ misinterprets the Bible on a very important point.
- dating in the us rules!
- Website for married couples!
- Relationship Game: Dating.
- is my partner on dating sites.
- florida minor dating laws?
But no one can be saved by keeping the law. This is the Bible's point when Romans 6: This is far different from saying that the Christian is not obligated to obey the law as a standard of righteousness. Prior to regeneration, a person is unable to keep the law and is condemned for his 'lawlessness. Christians are not sanctified by the law if one means that the law is added to faith to save someone the Judaizing heresy. If there is anything that man can do to merit or retain his salvation, then there is room for boasting. The Bible says that rebellious sinners do not even add faith ; it too is a 'gift of God' Ephesians 2: Why would one choose to emphasize anything?
Do some passages of Scripture have more authority than others? Is the message of the Bible slanted by arbitrarily emphasizing obedience over grace, when there are over passages in the New Testament that emphasize grace or faith or election as the means to salvation? If you would like to see a comprehensive list, you may email us at mail faithfacts. Are we obedient in order to be saved or because we are saved? Did God choose us before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless?
Further, did God choose us, or did we choose God? Perhaps a more poignant question is—Are you now free Gal 5: Or do feel like you are in bondage? Is your burden easy or light chapter 25, What God Requires? What does God really require? While liberals think the Christian faith is a country club, does CC doctrine make it seem like a prison? Is the message of the New Testament simply that one legal system replaced another? Please see these links from those within your own tradition and offer your comment on them: Are these men possibly correct that legalism is indeed the "fatal error" of CC theology?
But isn't it correct that the Bible teaches that "the law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul" Psalm And isn't the law of Christ described as perfect James 1: What law is then perfect—both the "law of God" and the "law of Christ," because they are one and the same! What source does Jesus quote when he declares, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself"? Isn't it Leviticus Aren't all Ten Commandments repeated or alluded to in the New Testament? What is the context of the law of Christ in Galatians 6?
Isn't it bearing others' burdens with the glory only in the cross of Christ? Please bear with us on some further thoughts on the Law of Christ. It would be like someone pushing you down into a well, then throwing you a rope. Besides making Jesus into a nasty character, this idea is not biblical. We have heard Church of Christ people say that when Paul speaks of not being saved by "law" he is only saying he is not saved by the "Law of Moses. Here Paul does not use the term law or law of Moses.
He uses the term "works. Isn't Paul making a general case that we are not saved by works of any kind? Doesn't Paul make it clear that no law can give life?
- oz dating.
- What Is the Church of Christ?.
- Faith Facts Update?
- dating buzz match.
- Bible Questions for the Church of Christ.
- Recently On Singles.
- Bible Questions for the Church of Christ - Faith Facts!
Do you think that only those laws that are repeated in the New Testament from the Old Testament are valid? Where is such principle of interpretation found in the Bible? Is there any new law in the New Testament, or only new forgiveness and the fulfillment of the shadows of this forgiveness found in the Old Testament? Do you notice a theme? How can that be?
It has to do with the New Testament view of the purpose of the law. This brings up another point. Non-believers are told to repent and believe for example Acts We argue that all other commands in the Bible, including baptism! Are we reconciled to God by what we do or by what God did to present us holy in his sight Col 1: How does the CC respond to those who may accuse them of following the letter-of-the-law and not the spirit-of-the-law? For example, the Bible says we should care for widows and orphans the letter of the law , and were astounded to hear a CC person tell us that charity should thus be limited to these groups.
But Jesus gives the example of caring for the outcast and others who need help example, the Good Samaritan and commands us to be merciful Mat 5: Is the CC attitude legalistic in this regard too, adding insult to injury to the Christian faith? Is not faith very much alive before good works are performed, and not because of good works? Christians in the historic orthodox faith thus believe that we are saved by grace through faith and strongly agree that a faith without works is dead; that is, a true saving faith will be accompanied by works.
Christians also believe that faith before it has a chance to work is a saving faith—for example, the thief on the cross. The CC would have others believe that faith is dead until one rises out of the water. Thus, someone on his way to be baptized could not be one whose faith is working by love. Christians throughout the ages have pointed out that Christianity is uniquely different from all other religions and cults because salvation is through faith and not through works.
Can you see that the view of salvation through works puts the CC in close company with false religions and cults? While we are not saying the Church of Christ is a cult, we cannot help pointing out the similarities between the Church of Christ and Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons:. Don't we become sons of God by the power of God and not by the will of man John 1: Does anyone really seek after God on his own Romans 3: Don't these verses clarify that it is the work of God, not of man, that saves us?
Are we dead in our sins, or just merely sick Ephesians 2: Can a dead man respond? Aren't we therefore made alive by the work of Christ alone, just as Larazus was raised from the dead? Just as our physical birth is not something we earn nor have any control over, isn't our spiritual birth likewise something we do not earn nor have any control over 1 Peter 1: Here is a single question that may quickly determine whether the CC is in fact legalistic: If it would bring more people to your church to hear the gospel, would you allow instrumental music? Then, if you are a CC member, would you consider taking this Legalism Questionnaire?
The Church of Christ is under the impression that evangelicals have no part for works in the salvation formula. We have attempted above to show above that the Church of Christ hermeneutic of of legalistic patternism is flawed. So how should the Bible be interpreted? Because this is so crucial, we repeat. If the Bible is contradictory, it cannot be God's word. Let us examine a statement made to us by a Church of Christ preacher regarding justification how we are saved:. No person who has ever lived, is living, or will live, can in and of himself do something by which he earns, merits, deserves, or is given salvation.
Every person, however, who hears and does what God has said to do in the way that God has said to do it will be saved by the grace of God through the blood of Christ. Is it not clear that this statement—which is typical of how CC folks state justification—is contradictory? If grace is a free gift Rom 5: As Paul says in Rom Paul clarifies what the Church of Christ is risking in its hermeneutic.
Church of Christ Singles Mingle
He states, "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose Gal 2: It is giving too much credit for sinful man and too little credit to God and Christ's finished work on the cross. Moser, "If man must still work for salvation we have in Christ an atonement that does not atone! This is incomprehensible for our Church of Christ brothers and so too for Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Jews, and every other religion. Yet the Bible insists over and over again that we are saved by faith and specifically not by our works Romans chapters , Galatians chapters , Ephesians chapter 2, Titus chapter 3, etc.
Yet the Bible commands us to obey! So how do we reconcile faith and works? We have asked the CC why they keep coming back to James 2 in an attempt to show that salvation is through works, and the answer has been, because others "keep denying what it clearly teaches. Is James contradicting the rest of the Bible?
Most theologians down through the ages have insisted that the way to reconcile the biblical message of faith and works is to explain that works describe a true saving faith but do not save unto themselves? James gives us the clues we need. He insists that even one single sin on our part is equivalent to breaking the entire law James 2: Of course he means, no it cannot. Then in verse 18 he says that a living, saving faith is shown by our works. So James is not saying that we are saved by works, rather our obedience is evidence of a legitimate faith.
So, there is, then, a simple way to reconcile faith and works in a way that is faithful to Scripture without making Scripture contradict itself. We are saved by a living faith—that is, one which expresses itself in obedience. Note that this is very different from saying that we are saved by faith plus works or any such construction.
We are saved by grace through faith, not of works can we boast. Moser gives several biblical examples of how it is faith that saves, regardless of whether or not that faith is expressed in some sort of action. He cites the stories of Jesus healing the blind in John 9 and Matthew 9. In one case, the blind man did something—washed in the pool of Siloam. In the other case, nothing was done other than what Jesus did. Moser asks, "Were these blind men cured upon different principles?
In both cases the blind received sight upon the principle of faith in Christ. In one case faith expressed by overt acts, in the other case it was not. After all it is faith that the Lord wants Faith expressed remains faith. What about repentance— isn't that a work? Please see this link: Was this an action or a change of mind?
Moser continues, "But salvation is by faith. Repentance, then, must in some way relate to faith. And it must relate to faith in such a way as not to oppose it. If you turn to Jesus y o u will by definition turn from your life of sin and selfishness. You will automatically repudiate your fleshly nature. This is the deep meaning of repentance. So, repentance is technically not a work per se. After we are saved by faith, we begin to show outward confirming acts such as confession and good works because of our gratitude for what God has done for us. Confession is faith expressed in words Romans Again, it is the faith that saves, not any expression of it.
Isn't it a work? This leads us into the next section. But before that, one last word. If we are wrong in this, our error is putting too high a view on God and his work and too low a view on our own work. If the Church of Christ is wrong on justification, your error is putting too low a view on Jesus and too high a view on man's work! Most of my friends in the church believed that because he had not been baptized that this boy was in hell for eternity. This event started me questioning the teachings of the Church of Christ.
In time, I studied my way out of this sect. Among many other points in this article, Garrett says, "We as immersionists must rid ourselves of the ungracious notion that those who do not baptize the way we do have rebellious and disobedient hearts. They can be mistaken without being degenerate. And they can be mistaken and still be Christians who are pleasing God, just as we can still be Christians when we are mistaken. CC theologian Everett Ferguson in his book instructs against such practice page Ferguson also warns page That may lead to the subtle temptation to trust in baptism for salvation instead of trusting in God, his act in Christ, and his word of promise.
- Dating? - Mooresville church of Christ.
- young professionals dating dallas.
- speed dating formation;
- zircon age dating.
What is the difference, according to Hook, in baptism for remission of sins and baptism to receive the Holy Spirit? First, just a point of logic. In the rest of this section we will attempt to prove this biblically. Moser argues about baptism similarly as he does about repentance: Now, as confession is faith expressed by words, baptism is faith expressed by deed This view of baptism sanctioned by scripture lifts baptism from a meaningless act of legalism to the high plane of salvation by faith in Christ.
Or were they children of God filled with the Holy Spirit and later got baptized? Doesn't Peter in Acts Doesn't Peter make it clear in Acts Is there any record in the Bible that the apostles received water baptism? Doesn't 1 Corinthians Your motto is, "Where the Bible speaks we speak; where the Bible is silent we are silent. For example, you say, "He that is baptized not shall be damned. What does appear in the Bible is, "He that believeth not shall be damned. Such Church-of-Christ-isms like all other 'isms' are an insult to the persons and dignity of the Holy Spirit by whom we 'are all baptized into one body.
Is Jesus Christ the head of the church of Christ? What kind of baptism did the apostles receive? Were they saved or lost? What kind of baptism did the disciples, who who were baptized by the apostles on the authority of Christ during his personal ministry, receive John 4: Was this before Pentecost? If so, why were they re-baptized in Acts If not, what does that say about your insistence on baptism for "remission of sins"?
Other things are listed in the Bible besides baptism for remission of sins—belief, confession, repentance. The act of signing the gift check in no way earns it, or even merits it, nor does this action make it any less of a gift. Baptism is simply how we "endorse" and identify with what God has done for us in Christ Jesus. Therefore, in baptism we express our faith that His check won't bounce; that His righteousness is credited to our account; that our name is entered on His ledger. What do you think of R. By the way, Sproul is a man who has written over 70 books and is considered by many to be one of the top theologians of our age.
However, the modern CC undeniably traces its lineage to it, and so one would think that CC folk would have at least some respect for the views of the founders. Alexander Campbell was rebaptized as an adult upon a simple confession of his faith in Jesus as the Messiah. He never changed his views on this and was never baptized "for the remission of sins. Since Alexander Campbell was baptized by a Baptist preacher Elder Luce and was thus put into the Church of Christ, why will not Baptist Baptism do the same for people today? If Elder Luce did not baptize Campbell into Christ, when and where and how did Campbell ever get into Christ, since he died with Baptist Baptism and never repudiated it?
If Campbell was baptized into Christ by Luce's act, then was not the Church of Christ in fact already here? For the record, when the Campbells founded their first church, the Brush Run Church, they accepted "sprinkled" people as baptized, and the Campbells would not then rebaptize such ones.
Included in the group who were baptized included a baby. Also of note, Thomas Campbell immersed three people before he himself had been immersed. The seal of the Holy Spirit requires no external ordinance to perfect it. Is it true that anyone who is not baptized according to the CC formula is considered an "unsaved child of the devil? Could they be "fellowshipped" by their congregations today? Indeed, there is a more fundamental question about the CC teaching that a person who is to be baptized should profess to be an unsaved child of the devil. Is this not missing the point entirely—that it is a child of God who is to be baptized —one who is saved by grace?!
Isn't it true that faith and repentance always precede baptism in the New Testament, and never follow it? The fruit I saw in their lives had a huge impact on me. Over time, I began to question several of the CC doctrines because the answers they gave seemed lacking, incomplete, or just plain wrong Biblically. The real change came when I questioned the whole essence of salvation. Of course, they teach baptismal regeneration. I read that I was justified by faith. They told me I had to have faith before I was baptized, but that it was actually baptism that saved me.
Why did I need to be saved if I was already justified by faith? The more I questioned this, the more I began to understand that my obedience could never satisfy an absolutely holy, righteous God who demands absolute perfection from me. How strong did my faith need to be to be acceptable to this perfect God? What a comfort it is to know that I can stand before God judged not on my own merits, but on the merits of Jesus. Lanny Tanton is a former Church of Christ preacher that changed his mind on Acts 2: For his detailed analysis see Change of Mind.
Regarding the conversion of Paul in Acts See this detailed analysis by Lanny Tanton: The Gospel and Water Baptism. Did Jesus know the plan of salvation John If so, where and when? Does the word water as used in John 3: Why didn't Christ say what he meant to say? If he really meant baptism— when he said water— by the same reasoning he evidently meant baptism in the next Chapter John 4: Read again the story of the Woman at the Well and substitute the word baptism for water everywhere it is found in the story exactly as you substitute the word baptism for water in John 3: False doctrines always lead to muddy water.
If people fall away, is it possible to tell if they were really saved or not Heb 6: What if the person only appeared to fall away when in fact he was never truly a believer in the first place—but then later does in fact come to a saving faith? If he had been baptized previously, should he now be re-baptized? How does one know if they should be re-baptized? Why use 1 Cor 6: Is there anything here that says washing means baptism? Is it correct that the healing of Naaman in the Jordan River 2 Kgs 5 is used to support this water gospel doctrine? Healing of leprosy is not evidence of salvation, is it?
And Naaman did not even believe in God when he was healed, right? Is it even theoretically possible for someone to have met all the biblical requirements to be saved—but died en route to being baptized—and still go to heaven? Thus, if it is not a necessary requirement to be saved in every situation, it is not a requirement at all?! We have felt that baptism is necessary for obedience, but that baptism doesn't add to what Christ does for us in the cross, and doesn't add to what a person receives by faith I came to a better understanding of grace that I didn't have before There was some latent legalism in me—and there probably still is.
So we started studying the Gospel, and I personally found out that I was kind of overlaying the Gospel with regulations and rules. And so I repented of that, and we began teaching the Gospel. Garrett says chapter 38, Fellowship the Unimmersed , "An interesting book on the history of the dispute about baptism, entitled The Water That Divides , shows that the issue is not as simple as we have supposed.
He notes that while there is universal agreement that baptism was often by immersion in the New Testament, it is not universally agreed that all baptisms were by immersion. And so throughout the history of the church, the author states, baptism has been administered by immersion, pouring, and sprinkling.
Please see this definition of baptism , especially the section that says "Meaning of the Word in the New Testament. Garrett also quotes Barton Stone in the same article: If someone meets all other requirements of the Christian faith but is not immersed, are they saved? For example, in 1 Cor The ceremonial washing, or baptisms, that follow are rites of purification in the Old Testament cf.
In all of these ceremonial washings, the method of application was sprinkling. In fact, all Old Testament purifications or washings were by sprinkling Num 8: Doesn't it stand to reason that New Testament Jewish Christians would have appreciated that method of baptism? It just seems to many this is another example of the CC taking a legalistic stance to separate from other Christians. The churches are independent congregations and typically go by the name "Christian Church", but often use the name "church of Christ" as well. Though isolated exceptions may occur, it is generally agreed within the movement that no personal or family names should be attached to a congregation which Christ purchased and established with his own blood, though geographical labels are acceptable.
The tendency in Restoration churches to choose names such as "Christian Church" and "Church of Christ" can cause difficulties in identifying the affiliation if any of an individual church based solely on its name. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for churches outside of the Restoration Movement to use similar names see Church of Christ disambiguation. The separation of the independent Christian churches and churches of Christ from the Christian Church Disciples of Christ DoC occurred over an extended period of time.
The Disciples of Christ were, in , a united, growing community with common goals. A new convention, the North American Christian Convention , was organized by the more conservative congregations in Because the Christian churches and churches of Christ are independent congregations there is no set creed, but The Directory of the Ministry  contains the following general description:. Members of Christian Churches and churches of Christ believe in the deity and Lordship of Jesus Christ , the inspiration of the Bible , and the autonomy of local congregations.
Following the basic principles of the ' Restoration Movement ', they accept and teach believers' baptism by immersion into Christ for the forgiveness of sins; they assemble for worship on the first day of the week, making the observance of the Lord's Supper a focal point in such worship. They seek the unity of all believers on the basis of faith in and obedience to Christ as the divine Son of God and the acceptance of the Bible particularly the New Testament as their all-sufficient rule of faith and practice. Of the principles cited above, one characteristic marks most Christian Churches and Churches of Christ as distinctly different from other modern Evangelical Christian groups today.
That is the teaching that a person receives the remission of sins, during his baptism. Because there is no official "denominational" structure in the movement, the local colleges often serve as information centers and allow the local churches to maintain connections with each other. Puget Sound Christian College , opened in but closed in A number of slogans have been used in the Restoration Movement to express some of the distinctive themes of the Movement. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
This article is about denomination of Christians known as the Christian Churches or Churches of Christ. For other uses, see Christian Church disambiguation. This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. September Learn how and when to remove this template message. This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources.
July Learn how and when to remove this template message. Baptism in early Christianity.