Churches of Christ changing their name?

[Splayd]

If the denominationalists are truly your brothers and sisters in Christ, then the denominational teaching on salvation must be true (e.g. salvation by grace through faith alone without works). However, since you also acknowledge Catholics as brothers and sisters, then you also have to accept salvation by works without faith e.g. infant baptism. Those concepts oppose each other. Please explain how you resolve the conflict ... from a biblical perspective, of course.

There are 2 things about your statement that immediately strike me as ridiculous.

1. The notion that the correct intellectual understanding of doctrines of grace determines the realisation of that grace. Those formulas are manmade summaries of God's word. They are but our feeble attempts to comprehend the magnitude of what God has done and does for us. Are any such endeavours perfectly complete? Of course not! But the good news is that there isn't an academic test on doctrine when we reach the pearly gates. Our understanding now is but rubbish compared to the fullness of God's truth.

2. The notion that these ideas are contradictory anyway. I so tire of the Faith Alone vs Faith + Works debate. The irony is - the more mature 'christians' in each camp actually mean the same thing anyway. Thankfully, the Catholics and Lutherans came to realise that very fact not long ago. Together they released a joint statement that more fully expressed their independant understanding of their doctrines. It can be summarised from this excerpt:

"Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works."

 

[cremi]

There are 2 things about your statement that immediately strike me as ridiculous.

1. The notion that the correct intellectual understanding of doctrines of grace determines the realisation of that grace. Those formulas are manmade summaries of God's word. They are but our feeble attempts to comprehend the magnitude of what God has done and does for us. Are any such endeavours perfectly complete? Of course not! But the good news is that there isn't an academic test on doctrine when we reach the pearly gates. Our understanding now is but rubbish compared to the fullness of God's truth.

2. The notion that these ideas are contradictory anyway. I so tire of the Faith Alone vs Faith + Works debate. The irony is - the more mature 'christians' in each camp actually mean the same thing anyway. Thankfully, the Catholics and Lutherans came to realise that very fact not long ago. Together they released a joint statement that more fully expressed their independant understanding of their doctrines. It can be summarised from this excerpt:

"Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works."

I would agree.

I was thinking of people who have just to the knowledge of Christ and have chosen to follow him. They just want to follow him---they don't really stop and ask if they are following the rules correctly.

Even in Acts, the Ethiopian talking to Philip asked if he could be baptized....and that was after reading Isaiah!!! Apparently he got the message...he was able to understand enough to be saved.

The rest comes later...not out of a desire to fulfill an obligation to God, but out of love and a thankful heart to God for what he has done for us.

BTW...what does this have to do with coC's chanigng their name? I don't mind the rabbit trail...just wondering.

 

[- DRA -]

I am jumping in late into this conversation so I risk being off base in this reply to DRA: Yes, Satan quoted scripture but it was misapplied in the temptation of Jesus. Jesus was Divine and made perfect application of all of God's teachings as you can read in the sermon of Matt. 5, 6, and 7 as well as his temptations in Matt. 4.

Welcome to the discussion.

Agreed. The devil misapplied Psalm 91:11-12. His application made it contradict Deuteronomy 6:16, which was Jesus' point. No disagreement with Jesus being Divine nor of His ability to make perfect applications of God's word. However, as I have asked Wes, and am now asking you, was Deuternomy 6:16 specifically addressing whether or not one should jump from the top of the temple? Clearly, it wasn't. In its context, it was specifically dealing with idolatry. However, did the principle taught in Deut. 6 apply to satan's application of Ps. 91? That is the issue at hand. Jesus thought it did. Therefore, he used the principle taught in Deut. 6 to counter satan's handling of Ps. 91. See the point? The specifics were different, but the principle applied!

Regarding 2 John 9-11 this is speaking directly to the Gnostic doctrine that denied Jesus was the Christ the Son of God. In principle it holds up the fact that we should abide by the teachings of God in every area, however every person I know errs in some application of some truth, so you could not fellowship anyone (not even yourself) if you held literally to the idea that anyone who believes ANY error or practices ANY error is outside my circle, "I can't welcome him into my house, nor bid him God-speed...".

Agreed. Just like Deut. 6:16 was specifically addressing idolatry. However, didn't Jesus show us that it had a broader application? Why not apply what He taught us to this passage? Wes wasn't willing to do that. You on the other hand, acknowledge that 2 John 9-11 indeed has a broader application than just the specific points being addressed (which I agree with) -- but then try to undermine what the passage says by saying we are all involved in error of some sort. If this is true -- we all are involved in error to some extent -- then why did God have John write the instructions in 2 John 9-11 -- since, according to your reasoning, we cannot apply nor follow them. See the confusion? You say the passage has a broader application, but then explain how we can't really apply it. Frankly, I have a problem understanding how that can be.

May I be so bold as to suggest taking a really close look at 2 John 9-11. Note this expression in verse 9 in the NIV: the "teaching of Christ." You see, it is really not an issue of what "is outside my circle," but of what is outside the teaching of Christ.

Yes, there are Christians in denominations. Anyone who has placed their faith in Jesus Christ and been baptized in submission to His will (born of water and the Spirit) is a Christian.Some of these will join a denomination after they are saved, but they are still Christians.

The issue for us to resolve is if one remains faithful to Christ by "joining" a denomination and having fellowship with their teachings i.e. the plan of salvation they teach (grace through faith only), Calvinism (once saved always saved, inherited sin, etc.), the idea that the church is made up of churches instead of individual Christians (1 Cor. 12), etc. Wes couldn't produce a single passage or biblical principle that suggests that we should do this. Perhaps you have some biblical support that will show us which passage(s) support what you are proposing.

Churches of Christ have been very exclusive in approaching the problems of different understandings of Scripture. I became a Christian in 1963. From then till now I have changed my mind, and yes, my doctrinal understanding, of many things. The one thing that I have not changed my mind about is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and proved that by his resurrection from the dead! The creed of the NT Church was just that - Jesus Christ is the Son of God. As you can see by reading Corinthians (the Church of God at Corinth) people can have many problems and still be referred to as brothers and sisters in Christ.

By the way, I expect to continue to discover misapplications of truths and failure to understand truths and corrections that I will need to make along the way to honor the Lordship of Christ.

To equate the rejection of Jesus coming in the flesh and being raised from the dead with someone wearing a denominational name is to take this principle argument way to far, in my judgment.

I am left with the distinct impression that anyone who acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God is worthy of fellowship, right? That is what I understand you to be saying. Sorry, but that won't work for me. I simply couldn't begin to harmonize it with other passages.

As for the church in Corinth, they repented. Which is the same thing that I recommend to brothers/sisters who have departed from the Lord's church and embraced denominationalism.

If not too much trouble, can you please tell us we should apply 2 John 9-11? For instance, does it apply to those who teach false things other than those specified? Would it apply to Hymanaeus and Philetus (2 Tim. 2:17-18). To Demas (2 Tim. 4:10)? How about to those who teach that there is more than one body (church), one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God (Eph. 4:3-6)?

In closing, I appreciate your response, but need some additional information to better understand why you believe what you do.

 

[Splayd]

I'm curious DRA - Did the church exist in the centuries prior to the RM? When the illiterate masses only had denominations to reveal scripture to them, was God there at all? Were only the intellectual saved perhaps?

It seems to me that you reduce truth to the intellectual, when it is first and foremost a matter of the heart. It's by far better to know God, than to know about Him.

 

[Theophorus]

Let's see now ...

You say the attitude is the basis for people not wanting to be associated with the church of Christ. I beg to differ.

For starters, who has said anything about sending people to either heaven or hell? I don't think I have. If so, please specify the thread and post with the exact quote. If not, then please don't use such a broad brush when you attempt to discredit the efforts of those who are striving to serve the Lord.

You affirm that people need Christ to get to heaven. Does that include practicing the unity that Ephesians 4:1-6 teaches? Specifically, do the followers of Christ need to understand and accept that Jesus built one body (or one church i.e. Eph. 1:22-23). Yes? Or, no? If yes, then please explain how one can "fellowship" a denominationalist. If not, then please explain how one doesn't really mean one in the passage in Ephesians 4.

Know what I think? I suspect there are folks like yourself that take offense to being pressured to explain your thinking and reasoning based on what the Bible says. Not on all issues, but definitely on some. Think back. You and I worked well together in several threads discussing baptism. Didn't we encourage folks to address passages such as Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, and to be certain their understand of those passages harmonized with the many accounts of conversions in the book of Acts? We did. Now, does it make sense (from a spiritual point of view) to have fellowship with them anyway, even though they continue to embrace the denominational concept e.g. salvation by grace through faith only, Calvinism, the church being made up of churches, etc.? Wouldn't having fellowship with the denominationalist cause problems in light of 2 John 9-11?

I suspect the real reason that people are changing what they are being called and the name on the church building is because they are no longer a church of Christ. They have grown weak, weary, and no longer have the zeal to contend for the faith (Jude 3). Therefore, they fall away and compromise the truth.

What a shame!

Preaching the truth is tough. It hurts people's feelings. It steps on their toes. It does that to all of us. However, we must come to grips with this idea that God doesn't sugar-coat the truth. The Lord was very blunt at times in His teaching. It angered people. However, He made it clear where people stood in light of what God expected from them. If they were to be commended, they were. However, if they were to be rebuked, that happened as well. Like it or not, God's faithful must do what must be done i.e. 2 Tim. 4:1-4.

You are right DRA concerning your statements about the Church being unified, being one body. But the Church you claim is disappearing, and fast.

 

[GreatBigAl]

You are right DRA concerning your statements about the Church being unified, being one body. But the Church you claim is disappearing, and fast.

First off, Let me say that I have encountered the attitude within congregations that have a sign in front that says "church of christ" that Only the members within this group will be going to heaven.
I have heard the comment that the sign should say "We are the only true Christians"
While this may or may not be true depending on the congregation, I can say with all honesty that I have encountered the arttittude at certain coc congrgations of "You must be a member here or you will go to hell."

I of course, don't agree. It is not what is on the sign where you worship, but what is in your heart while you are worshipping. All people need to look beyond what you call "denominationalism" and see the bigger picture.

As for the Bible, I will bring up Mathew 7 15 to 20
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

And also Luke 6 43-45 43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

For every tree is known by his own fruit. Mt. 12.33 For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.

A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh
________________________________________

Now I am not a fundamentalist, A "Bible Thumper" or anyone likethat, I placed those quotes for the benefit of anyone who needs to see that titles, labels, names are not the issue; denominations are NOT the issue. The issue is whether the "denomination" (or cult sect movement or whatever label you need to here) needs to change it's name because of the bad reputation it has fostered over so many years.

Changing the name will not help; changing the attitude away from evil and deception and into love and truth will.

I am not saying that all coc congregations are hateful and deceptive, elitist and isolated, but I have certainly encountered some who are and I have named one previously. And I certainly believe that there are still many within the movement who believe that the only key to heaven is membership in a congregation that has a sign out front that says "church of christ."

But again, names are not the issue...actions are, and if, I see , as in the Bible, a church with ANY name in front of it, who is practicing negativity, deception, hatred, dishonesty, which is thriving on chaos instead of love,
I will not walk away , I will RUN!

 

[Theophorus]

First off, Let me say that I have encountered the attitude within congregations that have a sign in front that says "church of christ" that Only the members within this group will be going to heaven.
I have heard the comment that the sign should say "We are the only true Christians"
While this may or may not be true depending on the congregation, I can say with all honesty that I have encountered the arttittude at certain coc congrgations of "You must be a member here or you will go to hell."

I of course, don't agree. It is not what is on the sign where you worship, but what is in your heart while you are worshipping. All people need to look beyond what you call "denominationalism" and see the bigger picture.

As for the Bible, I will bring up Mathew 7 15 to 20
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

And also Luke 6 43-45 43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

For every tree is known by his own fruit. Mt. 12.33 For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.

A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh
________________________________________

Now I am not a fundamentalist, A "Bible Thumper" or anyone likethat, I placed those quotes for the benefit of anyone who needs to see that titles, labels, names are not the issue; denominations are NOT the issue. The issue is whether the "denomination" (or cult sect movement or whatever label you need to here) needs to change it's name because of the bad reputation it has fostered over so many years.

Changing the name will not help; changing the attitude away from evil and deception and into love and truth will.

I am not saying that all coc congregations are hateful and deceptive, elitist and isolated, but I have certainly encountered some who are and I have named one previously. And I certainly believe that there are still many within the movement who believe that the only key to heaven is membership in a congregation that has a sign out front that says "church of christ."

But again, names are not the issue...actions are, and if, I see , as in the Bible, a church with ANY name in front of it, who is practicing negativity, deception, hatred, dishonesty, which is thriving on chaos instead of love,
I will not walk away , I will RUN!

I don't mean to speak for DRA, but his issues are not reputations. He also does not see or accept the pluralistic view of the Church the way you do. He sees the Church as containing the truth, and that those who are true members of the body, will be united in these truths. I agree with him.

Salvation outside of the Church is a different issue. Maybe some in the CoC have claimed that it is impossible, and I do not know DRA's views on this matter.

 

[Splayd]

So - you're a fan of brand names Theophorus? It's the either/or church scenario. Either Orthodox is the church or Catholic Church is the church or Church of Christ is the church or etc...

Frankly, that sounds more like a pluralist model of church. It suggests there are many "churches" but one that is right. Personally, I believe there is only one church, a church that isn't identified by brand names, but by Christ Himself. I believe that not everyone that attends any specific brand of church is necessarily a part of the true church. Likewise, I believe that the true church is not limited to attendees from any specific brand of church.

 

[Theophorus]

So - you're a fan of brand names Theophorus? It's the either/or church scenario. Either Orthodox is the church or Catholic Church is the church or Church of Christ is the church or etc...

Frankly, that sounds more like a pluralist model of church. It suggests there are many "churches" but one that is right. Personally, I believe there is only one church, a church that isn't identified by brand names, but by Christ Himself. I believe that not everyone that attends any specific brand of church is necessarily a part of the true church. Likewise, I believe that the true church is not limited to attendees from any specific brand of church.

I am not a fan of "brand names". I am a fan of unity and truth, and not unity for its own sake, but unity as described in the scriptures.

You probabhly don't even mean what you say, because if you do, then Christ has united you to Gene Robinson, and Warren Jeffs in some strange interpretation of being unified in mind spirit and practice. Or you mean that Christ has united us not by grace, but united those who follow Christ, and follow the truth. Which truth?

Funny that you should mention "brand names" in this of all threads. The irony is perfect. According to some, they are needing to re-brand themselves, even to the point of removing Christ's name from their signs in favour of the brand, "community", or whatever.

(I will not post anymore since I have probably already trespassed some CF rule)

 

[Splayd]

I am not a fan of "brand names". I am a fan of unity and truth, and not unity for its own sake, but unity as described in the scriptures.

Well we can agree on those words, though I suspect we disagree in interpretation.

You probabhly don't even mean what you say, because if you do, then Christ has united you to Gene Robinson, and Warren Jeffs in some strange interpretation of being unified in mind spirit and practice.

I have no idea who they are or what you mean. Sorry.

Or you mean that Christ has united us not by grace, but united those who follow Christ, and follow the truth. Which truth?

Hmmm... which truth indeed? The thing that amuses me with comments like that is that Catholics always say the same thing and I see more diversity of beliefs within Catholicism than I do within the Mainstream Protestant denominations in Australia. Likewise there are difference in practices, understandings and interpretations between different churches within Orthodoxy.
The problem with those "unities" based in "truth", is that it isn't absolute at all, but based on recognition of truth by adherants of specific brands of church who first assume that their traditional interpretation is the full truth and then determine how much deviance from that tradition is permittable as determined by that tradition. It leads to contradictions is the definition of "church" as different brands of church accept different brands at the exclusion of other brands which are accepted by other brands... etc.. etc... Getting a headache yet?

Funny that you should mention "brand names" in this of all threads. The irony is perfect.

Ironic? It was deliberate! It's pertinant to the thread as that's exactly what some have determined the thread to be about.

According to some, they are needing to re-brand themselves, even to the point of removing Christ's name from their signs in favour of the brand, "community", or whatever.

Au contraire. Those that are changing brands recognise that the brandname doesn't define the church. They don't do so to identify themselves as the true church. The one's who take offense to the practice are the one's who seem to think the brandname matters. Frankly - if God needs to see the sign out the front to know they are His, we're all in trouble.

(I will not post anymore since I have probably already trespassed some CF rule)

Fair point. If you feel a need to respond to my post, I'll happily continue the dialogue via PM's.

 

[Koey]

There are mainly just two reasons that churches do this:

1) The "churches of Christ" have a bad name in many places, and these Christians want to distance themselves from the judgemental, "we're the only ones going to heaven," "we're the only ones teaching the right way," "we're the only ones who really understand the Bible" types of attitudes.

2) The Boston movement has ruined the name of the Church of Christ in their area and the community believes any group called "Church of Christ" is a cult. This is especially true of churches with campus ministries.

#2 is something we'll have to deal with in San Francisco.

Here in the little town of Searcy where I'm currently going to school, I've run into a ton of non-Christians who wouldn't dare set foot in a "church of Christ" around here because church members have been such jerks to them or they've had family members who are CoC disown them for being 'sinners.'

There are plenty of biblical names besides "church of Christ" that could be used.

Yeah, good points. Some that use the name Church of Christ are definitely cults, some are abusive, some are legalistic, some are wacko and many are very healthy. That's one of the problems with the movement, no central control gives freedom, but it also does not filter out the crapola, the heresies and abuses which are bound to creep in.