What do you believe?

Hi, JM, I run into you everywhere. I was Church of Christ once. The idea is simply that the church can be patterned after the New Testament writings alone, usually the Book of Acts being used strongly due to its historical orientation. The problem is that there never was a "pristine church". Heck, just read the letters to the Corinthians. Also, no one TRULY wants to follow what's in Acts. No one is giving ALL their possessions to the church to be redistributed!

A defining feature is baptismal regeneration, which most Protestants badly refute by trying to show how Acts 2:38 doesn't read that way. Unfortunately it does. But, it does so because Peter was wrong (he would be wrong again in Galatia and get rebuked by Paul, so there goes apostolic perfection, eh?). Later in Acts 15 at the Jerusalem Council, Peter admits that the events at Cornelius' house corrected his doctrine. He emphasizes that Cornelius' household was saved by faith alone at the completion of his preaching the whole gospel! That council, btw, was to nail down doctrine. If the church had no precise doctrine for 15 years, how are we going to restore ourselves to the earliest church "model"?

They also use "Where the scriptures speak, we speak; where the scriptures are silent, we are silent" to the advantage of each local congregation. Example: no instrumentation in service. Why? "Well, um, there's no apostolic authorization to use them in the New Testament!" Okay, so if the scriptures are silent, why can't you use them? .....crickets......

Also, the preacher (not a pastor) has all the responsibility with no authority. He can be fired the moment the elders don't agree with his interpretation. So there's a huge turnover among teachers which creates stability problems.

JM said:

Interesting stuff, thanks for the answer...I'm not sure I can continue to ask questions without seeming a little hostile so I'll leave it at that.

Thank you

Click to expand...

Oh, you won't seem hostile to me! I left that legalism. They know their scriptures very well, but in the way gamaliel knew them-- thus producing lots of sauls and few pauls.

Poor Beggar said:

Oh, you won't seem hostile to me! I left that legalism. They know their scriptures very well, but in the way gamaliel knew them-- thus producing lots of sauls and few pauls.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry this was your experience friend. I have known many in the Church's of Christ that I would consider more of a Paul than a Saul.

John The Recorder Player said:

I'm sorry this was your experience friend. I have known many in the Church's of Christ that I would consider more of a Paul than a Saul.

Click to expand...

I think this has a lot to do with the fact that every single congregation is entirely autonomous. I have been a lifelong member of the Churches of Christ, and while every church can look vastly different, you can still tell it's the same. Some churches do use scripture's silence and voice as legalism, while others do not. That's true you can find that in every denomination,

JM said:

Hi folks, just curious...what does the Restoration Movement teach and believe?

Thanks,

jm

Click to expand...

This question is really hard to answer because we don't really have a standard set of beliefs outside of probably baptism. You can go to two different Churches of Christ and almost come away wondering how these two are of the same denomination.

Wouldn't the extreme autonomy of CoC congregations support the fact that they're not a denomination? There's no curated creed...and the common denominators among them, such as baptism that you mentioned, are clearly scriptural.

The Restoration Movement began in Scotland in the late 1700's and was brought to America by Robert Sandeman, the son-in-law of John Glas. Many groups came out of the Restoration Movement besides the Disciples of Christ, the original name of Churches of Christ. Some of those are the Mormons, Christadelphians, and Christian Church Scientist. The four primary founders of the Churches of Christ were Thomas Campbell, Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone and Walter Scott. All were ordained Presbyterian ministers. The Campbells and Scott joined the Baptist Church after coming to America. Barton Stone was still a Presbyterian but also a Unitarian. The Campbells were Baptists for 16 years. The Campbells and Scott were part of the same Mahoning Baptist Association and became acquainted with one another. Walter Scott claimed that God had shown him that the Church had not preached the ancient gospel for hundreds of years and had stopped practicing water baptism for the proper reason - the remission of sins. Alexander Campbell was impressed with Scott's claim and took it for his own (as confirmed by Walter Scott). After the Campbells split from the Baptists they joined with Barton Stone in 1832 to form the Disciples of Christ denomination. This is an nutshell overview. The Restoration Movement in Scotland was based on the desire to get away from the hierarchy of Presbyterianism and other church groups of England and revert to independent self-ruling congregations. The Churches of Christ claim that their "non-denominational" effort makes their group like the first century church which was not tied to a particular organization. And the Restoration connection is that they claimed to "restore the ancient gospel with water baptism for the remission of sins."

Walter Scott devised their "five-finger gospel." The "fingers" are: Hear, Believe, Confess, Repent and Be Water Baptized. This is what they claim is necessary for salvation. They say they do not have any creed but I'll give an example of why that's not right. Alexander Campbell published his teachings in The Millennial Harbinger newsletter for twenty years and he claimed that his efforts of proclaiming the Restoration message would bring about a worldwide conversion to Christ and then Christ would be able to return and rule over His Millennial kingdom. Of course, the Civil War came along and proved that Campbell had assigned an importance to himself that God had not assigned to him. Campbell also produced his own translation (really an interpretation) of the New Testament called The Living Oracles. He was credited with being a Greek scholar but his main accomplishment was to change mentions of "baptism" in the Scriptures to "immersion" to ensure that readers would know that that baptism required being fully submerged under water.

The CoC has somewhat drifted away from the "5 steps of salvation", and hopefully for the better...because there are more than 5 things we must do to continue in God's grace. Such as forgiving others...or else we will not be forgiven. But for the most part those 5 steps make up the initial point of salvation of starting with a clean slate.
I do agree however that we over-emphasize the 5 steps, particularly baptism to the point where it becomes potentially misleading.

notreligus said:

Campbell also produced his own translation (really an interpretation) of the New Testament called The Living Oracles. He was credited with being a Greek scholar but his main accomplishment was to change mentions of "baptism" in the Scriptures to "immersion" to ensure that readers would know that that baptism required being fully submerged under water.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting he was wrong with that translation? Or just making note of one of his facts?

The Syriac word for baptize means "sink, penetrate, submerge" ( see http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr=2:15873&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&source= )
So it matches to the Greek, which means "dip". Immersion is clearly the correct means of water baptism. Especially since its physical imagery parallel's to Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection.

Brokenhill said:

Wouldn't the extreme autonomy of CoC congregations support the fact that they're not a denomination? There's no curated creed...and the common denominators among them, such as baptism that you mentioned, are clearly scriptural.

Click to expand...

Which is why we're technically not a denomination, but we also technically are in the same way non-denominational/evangelical churches are. Also, in the CoC, especially most modern CoCs (there are a few of the most conservative churches that aren't) pretty open concept about being "in communion" with others. I was talking with a Catholic friend of mine about this very thing and he asked "How can you feel in communion with those who severely disagree with you on major issues?" I believe what I've always been taught: The only thing that truly matters is that you call Christ Lord and follow him, everything else doesn't really matter. Basically, we're either really loose about who we consider to be "in" or very strict about it.

TX_Matt said:

Which is why we're technically not a denomination, but we also technically are in the same way non-denominational/evangelical churches are. Also, in the CoC, especially most modern CoCs (there are a few of the most conservative churches that aren't) pretty open concept about being "in communion" with others. I was talking with a Catholic friend of mine about this very thing and he asked "How can you feel in communion with those who severely disagree with you on major issues?" I believe what I've always been taught: The only thing that truly matters is that you call Christ Lord and follow him, everything else doesn't really matter. Basically, we're either really loose about who we consider to be "in" or very strict about it.

Click to expand...

I'm apart of the CoC too. Although I still get the impression that fellowship between congregations is rigid. We have like 10 or so "c/Churches of Christ" in Tucson, and we're kind of sub-grouped...certain sets of congregations consider each other to be "sound". It's unfortunate how we betray the foundational principal of unity for the sake of number of communion cups or the act of supporting a orphan home.

I believe that goats and sheep are everywhere in all congregations around the world (whatever denomination/association), and that we're all going to have to answer to God on an individual basis in the last day.

Brokenhill said:

I'm apart of the CoC too. Although I still get the impression that fellowship between congregations is rigid. We have like 10 or so "c/Churches of Christ" in Tucson, and we're kind of sub-grouped...certain sets of congregations consider each other to be "sound". It's unfortunate how we betray the foundational principal of unity for the sake of number of communion cups or the act of supporting a orphan home.

I believe that goats and sheep are everywhere in all congregations around the world (whatever denomination/association), and that we're all going to have to answer to God on an individual basis in the last day.

Click to expand...

In Texas, at least, I don't really notice that much betrayal of the principal of unity. I'm sure there are churches out there that see churches like Highland or Richland Hills, or even your average CoC church as "outside", but I've never been personally involved in that circle. I do also believe the sheep and goats are everywhere and not limited to specific groups and congregations, but are simply individually located.

TX_Matt said:

In Texas, at least, I don't really notice that much betrayal of the principal of unity. I'm sure there are churches out there that see churches like Highland or Richland Hills, or even your average CoC church as "outside", but I've never been personally involved in that circle. I do also believe the sheep and goats are everywhere and not limited to specific groups and congregations, but are simply individually located.

Click to expand...

Hi Matt,
I was raised in a very large CofC in Midland Tx. Golf Course Road Church of Christ. Ever heard of it? I hope I haven't ask you this before. My short term memory isn't so good these days.

zippy2 said:

Hi Matt,
I was raised in a very large CofC in Midland Tx. Golf Course Road Church of Christ. Ever heard of it? I hope I haven't ask you this before. My short term memory isn't so good these days.

Click to expand...

Nope, sorry, but then again I've only ever met one person from Midland and she was not CoC.

Brokenhill said:

The CoC has somewhat drifted away from the "5 steps of salvation", and hopefully for the better...because there are more than 5 things we must do to continue in God's grace. Such as forgiving others...or else we will not be forgiven. But for the most part those 5 steps make up the initial point of salvation of starting with a clean slate.
I do agree however that we over-emphasize the 5 steps, particularly baptism to the point where it becomes potentially misleading.


Are you suggesting he was wrong with that translation? Or just making note of one of his facts?

The Syriac word for baptize means "sink, penetrate, submerge" ( see http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr=2:15873&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&source= )
So it matches to the Greek, which means "dip". Immersion is clearly the correct means of water baptism. Especially since its physical imagery parallel's to Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection.

Click to expand...

Thanks, but even though I'm no Greek scholar I have studied the meaning of baptism in the original language. I think it's pretty much a grade school level exercise.

Immersion was the method practiced by the Jews. Many wrongly think that immersion began with the Church. The imagery, as you say, parallels Christ's death, burial and resurrection. But Christ Himself also spoke of his baptism of death on the cross. (Mark 10:38) His obedience to the cross, along with His shed blood (the New Covenant is a Blood Covenant), is that which God Almighty would accept to reconcile mankind back to Him. When we are baptized that demonstrates our accepting the leadership and lordship of Christ. That was Peter's call to the Jews in Acts Chapter Two that they turn away from being under the leadership of Moses and accept the leadership of Christ. (Repentance is a change of mind.) As we know, only a remnant of Jews accepted Christ and most stayed under the Law and Moses.

I am suggesting that Campbell's translation was focused on water baptism, but the focus of the Scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation, is Christ. Alexander Campbell stated that "immersion is the gospel in water." So it is rather naïve to deny that Campbell did not have an ulterior motive. This teaching emphasis of Campbell (and especially Walter Scott) is still in the Churches of Christ today and it is responsible for the dipped and done condition of many who think they were saved because they were baptized. I spent over forty years with Restoration Movement congregations and I have been in a Master's program in a Restoration (Christian Church/Churches of Christ) Bible college. I know the main points of doctrine.

The Amplified Bible is a better approach as it parenthetically includes alternate meanings to key words in the Bible and is not skewed.

notreligus said:

Thanks, but even though I'm no Greek scholar I have studied the meaning of baptism in the original language. I think it's pretty much a grade school level exercise.

Immersion was the method practiced by the Jews. Many wrongly think that immersion began with the Church. The imagery, as you say, parallels Christ's death, burial and resurrection. But Christ Himself also spoke of his baptism of death on the cross. (Mark 10:38) His obedience to the cross, along with His shed blood (the New Covenant is a Blood Covenant), is that which God Almighty would accept to reconcile mankind back to Him. When we are baptized that demonstrates our accepting the leadership and lordship of Christ. That was Peter's call to the Jews in Acts Chapter Two that they turn away from being under the leadership of Moses and accept the leadership of Christ. (Repentance is a change of mind.) As we know, only a remnant of Jews accepted Christ and most stayed under the Law and Moses.

I am suggesting that Campbell's translation was focused on water baptism, but the focus of the Scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation, is Christ. Alexander Campbell stated that "immersion is the gospel in water." So it is rather naïve to deny that Campbell did not have an ulterior motive. This teaching emphasis of Campbell (and especially Walter Scott) is still in the Churches of Christ today and it is responsible for the dipped and done condition of many who think they were saved because they were baptized. I spent over forty years with Restoration Movement congregations and I have been in a Master's program in a Restoration (Christian Church/Churches of Christ) Bible college. I know the main points of doctrine.

The Amplified Bible is a better approach as it parenthetically includes alternate meanings to key words in the Bible and is not skewed.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to defend Alexander specifically, but water baptism is important in the scheme of salvation. But you are correct, it's much more than water baptism and some people have been mislead (or just didn't bother to study) that there's much more to salvation than going under water, and that your walk with Christ doesn't stop there.
I've never heard it preached or even implied in a CoC that it is a matter of "dipped and done". Hence why it's often added on to the end of the "5 steps of salvation" to "keep the faith".
Baptism of water & the Holy Spirit (simultaneously) into Christ is the point of having our sins washed away, but that doesn't mean that you're infinitely guaranteed thereafter (no matter what you do) to be eternally saved. I've never heard it preached that way though.

And yes the Jewish pattern of immersion is one of the evidences to why it remains the necessary way to become symbolically buried with Christ.

Brokenhill said:

I'm not trying to defend Alexander specifically, but water baptism is important in the scheme of salvation. But you are correct, it's much more than water baptism and some people have been mislead (or just didn't bother to study) that there's much more to salvation than going under water, and that your walk with Christ doesn't stop there.
I've never heard it preached or even implied in a CoC that it is a matter of "dipped and done". Hence why it's often added on to the end of the "5 steps of salvation" to "keep the faith".
Baptism of water & the Holy Spirit (simultaneously) into Christ is the point of having our sins washed away, but that doesn't mean that you're infinitely guaranteed thereafter (no matter what you do) to be eternally saved. I've never heard it preached that way though.

And yes the Jewish pattern of immersion is one of the evidences to why it remains the necessary way to become symbolically buried with Christ.

Click to expand...

You and I have run into different Churches of Christ folk. I know of many who claim salvation hinges on water baptism.

You have to assemble your five step program from proof texting. The Apostle Paul never taught a five step "process." Paul would tell you that you reject grace and believe that works are needed to save. You are telling God how to save us. God made the provision and God told us how to be saved, and that is by having faith in the finished work of Christ. Paul tells us in Romans Chapter Five that one man's obedience (i.e. Christ's obedience) has reconciled us back to God. You can follow your five steps and end up nowhere but if you believe that God has provided salvation to you in Christ's finished work then you will be saved. Otherwise you just got wet. A dry sinner comes out of the water a wet sinner. Christ's blood is not in the water but it was presented in the Heavenly Holy of Holies as an ONGOING sin covering. Christ is there representing the believer before God Almighty. Now if He is defending you on the basis of His righteousness, you will be counted righteous; if you expect Him to defend you based on your plunge under the water you will never be counted righteous. The Book of Hebrews is very clear on these things.

notreligus said:

You and I have run into different Churches of Christ folk. I know of many who claim salvation hinges on water baptism.

Click to expand...

Well yes they consider water baptism as one of the hinges on salvation, but there are more hinges.
________
Grace is given by God, yes, regardless of anything any sinner has done. However, grace is conditional, in one sense. We have to act to tap in to that grace. We have to respond to God's call...which is in a sense, a work. Works of THE LAW do not save. But Jesus' death burial and resurrection is still a COVENANT, so both parties are expected to have certain responsibilities for the covenant to be completed in the day of judgement.
Belief only in God's grace/plan of salvation does not save...that's not what scripture clearly teaches.
The definition of faith is a strong trust in something, to the point of acting on one's trust.

James 2:
14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. 18 But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."

Hebrews is very clear about what faith really is. Faith is a verb..."Abraham believed and it was accounted to him for righteousness". What does it mean when it says "Abraham believed"? Well, if we look at Abraham's life, it was a belief resulting in ACTION. When God said sacrifice your son, he did it (attempted), when God said circumcise yourself, he did it.
So any time God tells us to do something in the scripture, regardless of what it is, we do it. So, what must you and I do when Jesus or one of his apostles says to be baptized by the water and the Spirit? We get baptized in water and in Spirit. When God says to stay married for the entirety of your physical life, then you stay married. It's really that simple.

Mark 11:
25 "Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions. 26 ["But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your transgressions."]

Jesus is clear that there is a condition here on the forgiveness of our sins...we have to forgive others.
There is more to salvation than forgiving others, baptism, and God's grace, but i'm trying to keep this post shorter for now.
Don't get me wrong, to God be the glory for ever and ever for His grace and mercy and loving kindness, but that doesn't mean we're absolved for making changes in our life or following some of His commandments. Our good deeds don't earn our salvation, but action is needed to respond to God's call.

Christs' blood is an ongoing sacrifice, only if we remain in the faith of action and ask for God's mercy.

Hebrew 10: 26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.

1 John 1: 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; 7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin 8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
________
I agree that the action of baptism is over-emphasized in the CoC (i'm one of the few), but it's never put on a pedestal above the grace of God.
I don't agree with the 5-step process, seeing as forgiving others isn't apart of it, which is clearly told by Jesus.
But sure, the 5-step process is assembled from various different passages...there's nothing wrong with that. All Christians should always be assembling all scripture to work together. Everyone is guilty of omitting the words of God if we cherry pick verses out of context and focus strictly on them. The "Faith only" crowd is just as guilty as people pushing the 5-step process...because there's more to it than those things...

Another point I forgot to make is that we can't expect salvation from the arrogance of our own actions or by doing things out of habit. Our service to God must be sincere, and humble.

Tit: 2:7 in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified,

1 Pet. 1:22 Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart,

Phil. 1:10 so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ;