Churches of Christ changing their name?

[- DRA -]

Don't mistake what I'm saying to mean that someone can get to heaven without Christ - I'm not saying that at all.

Just to clarify - I'm saying that I believe there are people who fellowship with Baptists, Methodists, etc. who are saved and who are apart of the biblical church of Christ. I'm not saying that we shouldn't teach what we believe to be true either - I am saying that we need to be very, very careful about who we say is going to hell and who isn't. I seem to remember the Bible making it clear that its not our place to do that - its God's.

Understand this: I'm making a distinction between a building that has "Church of Christ" on the outside with the real church of Christ which is the universal body of Jesus.

I believe the attitude you've just displayed, whether inadvertently or not, is the very reason many people are changing the name of their fellowship so that the people in their area don't confuse the attitude of their group with those who apparently think like you do.

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.

 

[Splayd]

DRA - You're sounding kinda like the denominationalists you condemn. There is one church. I agree, but it isn't identified by a label.

There are plenty that attend the "Church of Christ" who aren't a part of the true Church of Christ just as there are plenty who don't attend the "Church of Christ" who are.

Should we compromise for unity? No! But neither should we be legalistic in our practice, nor blind to recognising Christ in each other. Not one of us has our belief system just right or our practice just right or our faith just right. It's important to strive for truth, but ultimately it's not the "getting it right" that makes us a member of the church.

Even if our congregations have a better biblical understanding of how the NT church was organised and baptism etc... it's all empty and worthless if we aren't in Christ, exhibiting the fruits of the Spirit and the love of God. Find a couple of believers full of the Spirit, with a heart for Him but a few mistaken intellectual understandings and the church is indeed there. Find a couple of believers with the right label, the right doctrines but a heart full of pride, void of the love of Christ and all you've found is whitewashed tombs.

In your zeal for truth, be mindful that you don't become hypocritical or judgemental. It seems to me that Jesus took these things more seriously than so many of the things we let divide us.

 

[SoulFly51]

Mr. Denny I hope you don't take what I'm saying as being disrespectful to you. I do love you and do respect you - I simply disagree with you.

If baptism is the issue - I know many people who underwent biblical baptism who are now apart of denominations. I don't believe that their involvement with denominations (while I don't agree with it or support it) disqualifies them from their status as a member of the universal church of Christ.

Again, I'm making a distinction between the universal body of Christ (which I refer to as the universal church of Christ), and the Churches of Christ (a fellowship of believers who congregate in a building that says "Church of Christ" on the outside).

 

[cremi]

I think that the more I study my bible, the more that grace becomes very real to me. The more grace becomes real to me, the more I let go of the "rules".

When there a a lot of "rules" in place, you have to spend a lot of time micro-managing everything to make sure you and everyone else are following the "rules." When you let go of the "rules" and let God lead, then God is the one who does the micro-managing for us.

It's very freeing, because you don't have to question anyone's salvation or status with God--only your own.


It is also freeing because if you are listening to the Holy Spirit, he will be the one to guide you as to the rightness/wrongness of anything, anyone and any situation.

 

[- DRA -]

Mr. Denny I hope you don't take what I'm saying as being disrespectful to you. I do love you and do respect you - I simply disagree with you.

If baptism is the issue - I know many people who underwent biblical baptism who are now apart of denominations. I don't believe that their involvement with denominations (while I don't agree with it or support it) disqualifies them from their status as a member of the universal church of Christ.

Again, I'm making a distinction between the universal body of Christ (which I refer to as the universal church of Christ), and the Churches of Christ (a fellowship of believers who congregate in a building that says "Church of Christ" on the outside).

No offense taken. Disagreeing with me is not the problem. The problem that I perceive is how the situation you describe is one that the faithful of God should have fellowship with in light of what God's word says. For instance, it is my understanding that a brother or sister that embraces denominationalism cannot be shown fellowship i.e. 2 John 9-11, Eph. 5:11. Is this the wrong understanding? Are we supposed to fellowship those who embrace a system that is founded on the exact opposite of the unity of the Spirit as revealed in Eph. 4:1-6?

Although we haven't met in person, I have learned many things about you during the time we have interacted. I immediately recognized, as you probably did, that there were things that we would not see eye-to-eye on. Out of respect, and genuine care and love for you I have tried to initiate private studies with you. I have noted a notable shift in your thinking and posts since your return to the Forum. You left pretty frustrated. Now that you have returned, I am especially alarmed and concerned.

Frankly, I sincerely desire better things for you than are in store at the end of the pathway you have chosen to follow. If I am mistaken, as you know from past experience with me, it will take an open Bible and sound Scriptural reasoning to persuade me otherwise. I am from the old school i.e. Matthew 11:28-30, Acts 4:13, 1 Peter 4:11a.

I am familiar with the difference between the universal church and the local church. I am also aware that when Christians depart from the Lord, those who are faithful must try to restore them (Gal. 6:1). That is what I suggest you do with the brother or sister who has left the Lord's church and now stands on common ground with the denominationalist. Disagree if you must. But, make sure you are doing what God's word says you should be doing. And, if you are, then please share the scriptural basis for it so we can do it together.

 

[- DRA -]

I think that the more I study my bible, the more that grace becomes very real to me. The more grace becomes real to me, the more I let go of the "rules".

When there a a lot of "rules" in place, you have to spend a lot of time micro-managing everything to make sure you and everyone else are following the "rules." When you let go of the "rules" and let God lead, then God is the one who does the micro-managing for us.

It's very freeing, because you don't have to question anyone's salvation or status with God--only your own.
It is also freeing because if you are listening to the Holy Spirit, he will be the one to guide you as to the rightness/wrongness of anything, anyone and any situation.

Thanks for bringing grace into the discussion. Grace is discussed early in Ephesians 2. I understand it to mean that God offers us far better than we deserve. However, once we accept His grace, like it or not, there are "rules" to follow. Consider what is commonly called the great commission in Matthew 28. It begins with teaching that makes one a disciple (verse 19). Does the teaching stop then? Nope. See verse 20. In the NASV it says, "Teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Like it or not, there are "rules" that must be followed. I certainly am not advocating making rules where God hasn't. However, I am all for respecting the ones that are in place.

Not to be offensive, but have you ever studied Matthew 7:21-27? The Lord gives a preview of the judgment. Many are convinced they are saved and serving Him -- but are not! They lack something. They didn't do the Father's will (verse 21) nor act upon the words of the Lord (verse 26). Think about it. Obviously, God expected them to obey His "rules."

The Holy Spirit guides us today through the word that He inspired i.e. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 ... if we are willing to do what it says i.e. James 1:21b-25.

 

[- DRA -]

DRA - You're sounding kinda like the denominationalists you condemn. There is one church. I agree, but it isn't identified by a label.

There are plenty that attend the "Church of Christ" who aren't a part of the true Church of Christ just as there are plenty who don't attend the "Church of Christ" who are.

Should we compromise for unity? No! But neither should we be legalistic in our practice, nor blind to recognising Christ in each other. Not one of us has our belief system just right or our practice just right or our faith just right. It's important to strive for truth, but ultimately it's not the "getting it right" that makes us a member of the church.

Even if our congregations have a better biblical understanding of how the NT church was organised and baptism etc... it's all empty and worthless if we aren't in Christ, exhibiting the fruits of the Spirit and the love of God. Find a couple of believers full of the Spirit, with a heart for Him but a few mistaken intellectual understandings and the church is indeed there. Find a couple of believers with the right label, the right doctrines but a heart full of pride, void of the love of Christ and all you've found is whitewashed tombs.

In your zeal for truth, be mindful that you don't become hypocritical or judgemental. It seems to me that Jesus took these things more seriously than so many of the things we let divide us.

While I appreciate your concern about legalism, may I point something that is almost always overlooked? Matthew 23:1-3 (NASV) says,
1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,
2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, [emphasis mine] but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.

Therefore, if your concern is accurate and I am like the Pharisees, aren't you still obligated to follow the Lord's instructions concerning our teachings? Are you doing that?

I appreciate your concern for my zeal. However, I think I could appreciate it more if you could share some biblical reasoning with us. Specific examples would be nice. Principles will work. For instance, if the church isn't identifed by a "label" (as you call it), then was Paul wrong to label the church as the church of God in Acts 10:28? The church of Christ in Romans 16:16?

If you don't mind my asking, which church do those attend who don't attend the church of Christ but are members of the true church of Christ?

 

[cremi]

Thanks for bringing grace into the discussion. Grace is discussed early in Ephesians 2. I understand it to mean that God offers us far better than we deserve. However, once we accept His grace, like it or not, there are "rules" to follow. Consider what is commonly called the great commission in Matthew 28. It begins with teaching that makes one a disciple (verse 19). Does the teaching stop then? Nope. See verse 20. In the NASV it says, "Teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Like it or not, there are "rules" that must be followed. I certainly am not advocating making rules where God hasn't. However, I am all for respecting the ones that are in place.

Not to be offensive, but have you ever studied Matthew 7:21-27? The Lord gives a preview of the judgment. Many are convinced they are saved and serving Him -- but are not! They lack something. They didn't do the Father's will (verse 21) nor act upon the words of the Lord (verse 26). Think about it. Obviously, God expected them to obey His "rules."

The Holy Spirit guides us today through the word that He inspired i.e. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 ... if we are willing to do what it says i.e. James 1:21b-25.

No offense taken. I know we see this very differently and yes, I have studied Mt.7.

Though I agree in part, that once the gift is accepted and grace is extended to us, we "should" follow certain rules. I am by no means, advocating a "do as you please" notion. However, if keeping the rules were the key to us having salvation, then Christ truly did die in vain. AND...I'm not talking about throwing away the "rules".

What I was trying to say is that if the Holy Spirit is your guide, then He gives you the rules you need to follow. He guides you. As a true believer, you will be doing doing good things, not simply because you should, or because it is required, but as an outpouring of thankfulness for the gift that has been freely given to us.

God doesn't want our obligation. He wants our hearts. Worrying about whether or not we have broken a rule is not where God wants us to be. To put it simply and stay on topic, a man-made rule states that you must have a certain name for the church. God never said that. Nor Jesus. Nor Paul. They simply referred to the names that NT church was called, but it was by no means a command that all churches be called church of Christ.

 

[- DRA -]

... a man-made rule states that you must have a certain name for the church. God never said that. Nor Jesus. Nor Paul. They simply referred to the names that NT church was called, but it was by no means a command that all churches be called church of Christ.

The church of God ... which He purchased with His own blood (Acts 20:28) ... is synonymous with the church of Christ (He is the one who purchased the church with His own blood).

The bride of Christ (Eph. 5) is used to describe the relationship between Christ and the church. The bride of Christ is a reference to the church of Christ.

The body of Christ is synonymous with the church of Christ (the body = the church in Eph. 1:22-23).

The church is a reference to the the church that was established in Acts 2 ... the one that Jesus promised to build in Matt. 16:18 ... which is the church of Christ, right? If not, what else would you call it? He promised to build it. He built it. It is His. Why shouldn't it wear His name? His people wear His name, right i.e. Acts 11:26, 1 Peter 4:16?

The churches of Christ (Romans 16:16) should be self-explanatory.

You are correct about the command. No command to call the church a church of Christ. Likewise, no command to call God's people Christians. Nor saints. Nor disciples. But, a Christian is a saint. And, a saint is a disciple. It's a privilege. A blessing. Not a command. The same is true for the called out of God (the church) to wear the Lord's name.

However, there is a command that we should keep in mind. Colossians 3:17. We need authority for all that we say and do. That would include the name(s) the church calls itself by, as well as the name(s) that God's people call themselves by.

 

[SoulFly51]

No offense taken. Disagreeing with me is not the problem. The problem that I perceive is how the situation you describe is one that the faithful of God should have fellowship with in light of what God's word says. For instance, it is my understanding that a brother or sister that embraces denominationalism cannot be shown fellowship i.e. 2 John 9-11, Eph. 5:11. Is this the wrong understanding?

Yes, I do believe that's the wrong understanding. I don't believe those verses are referring to denominationalism at all, and I believe its taking them out of context to say so.

The verse is 2 John is dealing with the Gnostics. I'll quote it beginning with verse 7 in order to keep it in context:

2 John 1:7-11
7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.
8 Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully.
9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.
11 Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.
(NIV)

Consider also:

1 John 2:21-23
21 I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth.
22 Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist-- he denies the Father and the Son.
23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
(NIV)

 

[Splayd]

While I appreciate your concern about legalism, may I point something that is almost always overlooked? Matthew 23:1-3 (NASV) says,
1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,
2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, [emphasis mine] but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.

Therefore, if your concern is accurate and I am like the Pharisees, aren't you still obligated to follow the Lord's instructions concerning our teachings? Are you doing that?

Your logic makes no sense to me at times. If we're to obey the Pharisees to the extent that is implied in your post, we'd be Orthodox Jews or perhaps ultra-conservative Messianics. If, on the other hand, you're trying to make some scriptural analogy between the authority of the Pharisees and any group today, you're really going to have to flesh it out a bit more. I think I'll start a new thread to explore the concept of legalism so as to not derail this one further.

I appreciate your concern for my zeal. However, I think I could appreciate it more if you could share some biblical reasoning with us. Specific examples would be nice. Principles will work. For instance, if the church isn't identifed by a "label" (as you call it), then was Paul wrong to label the church as the church of God in Acts 10:28? The church of Christ in Romans 16:16?

Of course he wasn't. Mind you, it's a description and not a brand name though. If we're to be so picky about the name we really should fix it a little more. First of all - when the scriptures were written, there wasn't such a word as "church". That's an English invention. The Greek word that was used was really just the same as the word used for "assembly". Also the term was never exclusive. As we've both noted in these forums that assembly was also called numerous other things such as the body of Christ and the bride of Christ. Followers of Christ were called followers of the way and even Nazerenes in the early church. Individual congreagations were often acknowledged simply as assemblies from their town, without any title mentioning Christ. While we're at it - we probably should ditch the word "Christ" too. It's another English invention derived from Meshiach or Messiah. A more accurate translation from the word as used at the time would be "anointed one". If being pedantic counts for anything we might call ourselves "Assemblies of the Anointed One" but even then we wouldn't be using the phrase most commonly used in scripture to describe the church.

Realistically, if we consider the brand names used in Christianity to be of any real importance, many of them are equally acceptable according to scripture. For that matter, many of the cults have acceptable names too. Aren't we called to actually be Jehovah's witnesses and latter-day saints of the Church of Jesus Christ?

If you don't mind my asking, which church do those attend who don't attend the church of Christ but are members of the true church of Christ?

I've met brothers and sisters in many of the mainstream denominations. Believe it or not - I'd contend that there are even some in the Catholic and Orthodox churches

 

[- DRA -]

Yes, I do believe that's the wrong understanding. I don't believe those verses are referring to denominationalism at all, and I believe its taking them out of context to say so.

The verse is 2 John is dealing with the Gnostics. I'll quote it beginning with verse 7 in order to keep it in context:

2 John 1:7-11
7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.
8 Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully.
9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.
11 Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.
(NIV)

Consider also:

1 John 2:21-23
21 I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth.
22 Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist-- he denies the Father and the Son.
23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
(NIV)

Thank you for studying the issue before us.

We are in disagreement about the application of 2 John 9-11.

If I understand your reasoning correctly -- that the passage applies only to Gnostics -- then it does not apply to denominationalism, or for that matter, any other false teaching, right? Just Gnosticism, right? In fact, it would apply only to the specific points of Gnosticism that are identified in the context, right? Yes, that is the reasoning presented.

I explain basic Bible study as a two-step process. Reading, studying, and developing an understanding from a particular passage or text of Scripture is step 1 (see Nehemiah 8:8). However, step 2 must also be applied. At least, Jesus thought it should. What we have to do is take the understanding derived from a passage and ensure that it harmonizes with other passages. Jesus shows us how it works in Matthew 4:5-7. The devil quoted Psalm 91:11-12. He quoted it accurately. And, it did have an application to Jesus. However, something was wrong with the way the devil was using the passage. He was saying that God promised protection against harm, therefore Jesus could jump from the top of the temple and not be harmed. NOTE: The devil's understanding of the text would be step 1 in the Bible study process. Notice how Jesus responds. He responds by quoting Deuteronomy 6:16. The point? To deliberately jump would be in violation of this passage. It would be putting God to the test. NOTE: This demonstrates step 2 of the Bible study process. Passages must harmonize. Therefore, although God promises protection, that does not mean we should put Him to the test by deliberately putting ourselves in harm's way.

See how the process works?

What I encourage you to do is to take a really close look at Deuteronomy 6:16 in its context. Is it discussing jumping from the temple? No, it is not. However, doesn't Jesus use the passage anyway to counter the devil's use of Psalm 91? Yes, He does. Why? Obviously, because the devil's understanding of Deut. 6:16 violated the principle taught in Deut. 6:16 -- not the specific point being addressed in Deut. 6 ("Do not follow other Gods" - verse 14a).

Now, go back to your reasoning of the Gnostics in 2 John and see how it compares to what Jesus taught us. Does your understanding of how we should apply verses 9-11 agree or disagree with what Jesus taught in Matthew 4? Think about it.

 

[SoulFly51]

The point I meant to make clear is that John saying those who rejected Christ and claimed that said Jesus is not Lord are the liars.

My friends who go to a church that is affiliated with a denomination would really take issue with you telling them that they were rejecting Christ. They are trying to please the Lord just like you and I are trying to please the Lord - they simply understand things differently.

I'm not saying I agree - but I believe saying that they aren't apart of the church is wrong.

 

[- DRA -]

The point I meant to make clear is that John saying those who rejected Christ and claimed that said Jesus is not Lord are the liars.

My friends who go to a church that is affiliated with a denomination would really take issue with you telling them that they were rejecting Christ. They are trying to please the Lord just like you and I are trying to please the Lord - they simply understand things differently.

I'm not saying I agree - but I believe saying that they aren't apart of the church is wrong.

I believe the point you made was very clear. Here it is once again:

"Yes, I do believe that's the wrong understanding. I don't believe those verses are referring to denominationalism at all, and I believe its taking them out of context to say so.

The verse is 2 John is dealing with the Gnostics. I'll quote it beginning with verse 7 in order to keep it in context:

You said it was wrong to apply the principle taught in John 9-11 to denominationalism. That's what you said. Therefore, I took you to Matthew 4:5-7 to show you how Jesus used Deut. 6 to respond to the wrong understanding of Psalm 91, even though Deut. 6 didn't deal with the specific situation under consideration. Don't you have any kind of response to that passage?

Wes, I think you know me pretty well by now. You are backpedaling. May I be so bold as suggesting that you should stop, gather your thoughts, and decide if your understanding of 2 John 9-11 is in agreement or conflict with Jesus' teaching method in Matt. 4:5-7? Don't try to save face. Dig for the truth. See the truth. Accept the truth.

Which Scripture(s) do you use to show how those who are a part of denominationalism are really a part of the church and worthy of our fellowship? Eph. 4:1-6? 1 Cor. 1:10-13a?

 

[SoulFly51]

The denominationalists are not denying that Jesus came in the flesh, nor are they denying that Jesus is Lord! Many have a high view of Scripture, many love God, and many are striving to do right.

I don't know what else I can say about this subject other than God knows which are His and which aren't. I still say you're taking those Scriptures out of context and trying to make them apply where they don't.

 

[- DRA -]

The denominationalists are not denying that Jesus came in the flesh, nor are they denying that Jesus is Lord! Many have a high view of Scripture, many love God, and many are striving to do right.

I don't know what else I can say about this subject other than God knows which are His and which aren't. I still say you're taking those Scriptures out of context and trying to make them apply where they don't.

Did Jesus take Deuternomy 6:16 out of context when He quoted it in Matthew 4:7? Was He trying to make it apply where it didn't?

Do you really think that 2 John applies only to the specifics given John's epistles? In essence, you are saying that we should accept anything and everything except those things specifically addressed. How far do you think that reasoning will "fly" from a scriptural perspective?

I've asked for some scriptural support for what you are proposing. Thus far, there has been none. You have expressed concern for the feelings of the denominationalists, but shown no biblical reasoning for us to accept their erroneous teaching on the salvation that Jesus offers. Nor to accept their idea that the church is made up of different churches, and not individual Christians per 1 Cor. 12.

I agree that God knows who are His are who aren't e.g. Acts 2:38,41,47. How many denominationalists do you know who appeal to those particular passages as a part of God's plan for salvation? Or, are those passages also among those taken out of context? After all, they were given to Jews in Jerusalem. Do they really apply to Gentiles in America and other countries? Think about it. Be consistent with your reasoning.

 

[SoulFly51]

I've said all I have to say. Talking more is pointless.

God bless.

 

[- DRA -]

I've said all I have to say. Talking more is pointless.

God bless.

Okay. Please understand my position. I have asked for the scriptural basis several times for your reasoning. You have given none. So, in essence, you have given me nothing to work with. You don't mind challenging my attitude ... or expressing concern over the feelings of the denominationalists ... but balk when it comes to "speaking the very words of God" (1 Pet. 4:11a - NIV). I see something very wrong with this picture.

If at some point in the future you desire to open God's word and discuss things, then feel free to contact me.

 

[- DRA -]

I've met brothers and sisters in many of the mainstream denominations. Believe it or not - I'd contend that there are even some in the Catholic and Orthodox churches

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.

 

[Jim Woodell]

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.

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.

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.

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...".

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.

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.