Wow!

[seebs]

Hey, there. I'm indirectly familiar with RM churches, having met some RM people online.

I didn't realize you guys had a Congregation forum, though! Ironically, I found it only when I was trying to google up the source of the phrase "No Creed But Christ".

...

So, uhm.

What is the source of that phrase, pray tell?

 

[Rich48]

Hey, there. I'm indirectly familiar with RM churches, having met some RM people online.

I didn't realize you guys had a Congregation forum, though! Ironically, I found it only when I was trying to google up the source of the phrase "No Creed But Christ".

...

So, uhm.

What is the source of that phrase, pray tell?

We, in the COC, do not consider ourselves to be a "congregation", as each church is completely separate, and there is no higher organization. The phrase comes from the fact that in the NT, the Church is never called anything but "Christian." In other words, our only creed is that which is taught in the Bible, and not that of a national board, committee, etc.

Rich

 

[aggie03]

I am not sure of the originator of the quote, but it has been used for at least 120 years. To be honest, I do not think that I will be able to exactly answer your question. However, it seems like something that would have been written either by Thomas Campbell or by Alexander Campbell in the first half of the 19th century. There have been a number of denominations that have sprung up from the things that those men wrote - and there are a number of congregations across the country with no denominational affiliation who deeply respect some of the things that those two people wrote.

Originally, the Campbells were Presbyterian (part of a small group called "seceeders" at the time) and in 1807 Thomas Campbell wrote a document called "The Declaration & Address of the Christian Association of Washington" in which he called for a conformity to only the things that the Bible explicitly teaches, rather than relying on creeds or inference of other people. He said that only the things which the Scriptures state are things that can be bound on other people as necessary. While Thomas Campbell does not actually use the phrase "no creed but Christ, no doctrine but the Bible and no law other than the Lord's" - it is certainly something that he would have agreed with. Much more likely is that it is something that Alexander Campbell would have written in his one of publications, either the "Christian Baptist" or "The Millenial Harbinger". I am not certain that he actually penned those words either.

The first instance that I have been able to find of them in print was a religious encyclopedia that was published in 1894 and was edited by Philip Schaff, a noted historian of Christianity. It is likely, then, that the phrase was in wide spread use before that time.

This is a lot of writing to tell that I don't know exactly where the phrase comes from. What is very interesting, however, is that many of the groups who disagreed with Campbell at the time that he would have been using the phrase, now tout it as being of their own invention. Most groups that claim to "follow only the Bible" are groups that at one time, historically, did not agree with the idea when presented by the Campbells - Baptists in particular. So while that is the caption that has been chosen to be placed in this particular forum, there are many groups who would use it, and it is not an "official slogan" by any means.

I hope that this helps

 

[hoadelphos]

Being an old time RM, the original meaning of "No Creed but Christ" referred to the outright rejection of any external creed of faith, relying only on Holy Scripture to define our faith. Within that single phrase is contained: Having a "Thus Saith the Lord" for every doctrine...On Matters of Faith - Speaking where the Bible Speaks, and Silent where the Bible is Silent; On matters of faith - finality; on matters of opinion - liberality.

That is what defined the RM. The concept was that if you only plant the SEED, the word of God, then only christians and the original church will sprout. Creeds, manuals of faith and discipline, etc., are not the word of God, and thus tare seeds.

The RM believed that denominationalism is condemned in 1st Corinthians 1-3. "I am of Paul, I of Cephas, etc" sounds too much like "I am a Catholic, I am a Baptist, I am a Methodist, etc". Factions=denominations.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Being an old time RM, the original meaning of "No Creed but Christ" referred to the outright rejection of any external creed of faith, relying only on Holy Scripture to define our faith. Within that single phrase is contained: Having a "Thus Saith the Lord" for every doctrine...On Matters of Faith - Speaking where the Bible Speaks, and Silent where the Bible is Silent; On matters of faith - finality; on matters of opinion - liberality.

The outright rejection was only for matters of fellowship. We do not, nor have ever, rejected sound doctrine because it was described in a creed. For instance we can affirm all the points of the Nicene Creed but do not uphold it as a creed. We do not require any creed or statement of faith to be a member of our churches but we also do not and have never shied away from fellowshipping with those who do require creeds.

That is what defined the RM. The concept was that if you only plant the SEED, the word of God, then only christians and the original church will sprout. Creeds, manuals of faith and discipline, etc., are not the word of God, and thus tare seeds.

That was never taught by Campbell of Stone. They even sought to not leave their churches until they were drummed out. They tried with the baptists and were drummed out as well. There was a rejection of the idea of denominationalism but never the idea of tare seeds. This was not and has never been an idea key to the movement. The movement has rejected denominationalism but never rejected fellowship with denominations.

The RM believed that denominationalism is condemned in 1st Corinthians 1-3. "I am of Paul, I of Cephas, etc" sounds too much like "I am a Catholic, I am a Baptist, I am a Methodist, etc". Factions=denominations.

Campbell strived to not leave the Presbyterian church where he was ordained. He fought to get them to fellowship with other churches. He was even disraught over seemingly having formed a denomination based on his ideas. He struggled with the idea of even more seperate churches when the whole thing had been about fellowship regardless of creeds and confessions of faith. As this was rejected and churches formed around his ideas the RM was born but it was never the intention of the founders. So much of the ideals of the movement have been corrupted in this day and age that it has lost a lot of the pure idealism that spawned the movement.

 

[hoadelphos]

The outright rejection was only for matters of fellowship. We do not, nor have ever, rejected sound doctrine because it was described in a creed. For instance we can affirm all the points of the Nicene Creed but do not uphold it as a creed. We do not require any creed or statement of faith to be a member of our churches but we also do not and have never shied away from fellowshipping with those who do require creeds.


That was never taught by Campbell of Stone. They even sought to not leave their churches until they were drummed out. They tried with the baptists and were drummed out as well. There was a rejection of the idea of denominationalism but never the idea of tare seeds. This was not and has never been an idea key to the movement. The movement has rejected denominationalism but never rejected fellowship with denominations.


Campbell strived to not leave the Presbyterian church where he was ordained. He fought to get them to fellowship with other churches. He was even disraught over seemingly having formed a denomination based on his ideas. He struggled with the idea of even more seperate churches when the whole thing had been about fellowship regardless of creeds and confessions of faith. As this was rejected and churches formed around his ideas the RM was born but it was never the intention of the founders. So much of the ideals of the movement have been corrupted in this day and age that it has lost a lot of the pure idealism that spawned the movement.

The initial intentions evolved as they walked the path of seeking the truth. From the beginning of that path they were unable to see its end...actually we have not arrived there yet. Factionalism does exist among the RM...much of it spawned by the caustic environment just before, during, and after the US Civil War.

I have at my disposal the entire publications of the RM...many are "first editions" thanks to my grandpa who passed them down to me. I have been working on sorting out all the the dynamics that has brought us to our present "condition" in the RM.

 

[notreligus]

We, in the COC, do not consider ourselves to be a "congregation", as each church is completely separate, and there is no higher organization. The phrase comes from the fact that in the NT, the Church is never called anything but "Christian." In other words, our only creed is that which is taught in the Bible, and not that of a national board, committee, etc.

Rich

Actually the Church was called the Body of Christ by Paul, and Believers were called "The Way" before they were called Christians. It is believed that when the Jews - of the persecuting variety - first used the term, "Christians," they were actually being disparaging, as though calling those who believed that Christ was the Messiah "little Christs." Christ knows Who follows and believes in Him no matter what society or the group chooses for an indentification name. Just as the RM'ers say there won't be Baptists or Methodists in Heaven, there won't be any Restoration Movement members there either.

 

[hoadelphos]

We, in the COC, do not consider ourselves to be a "congregation", as each church is completely separate, and there is no higher organization. The phrase comes from the fact that in the NT, the Church is never called anything but "Christian." In other words, our only creed is that which is taught in the Bible, and not that of a national board, committee, etc.

Rich

Unfortunately, the word church is not found in the original texts.
The etymology of the word church has no real correspondence to the Greek word ekklasia that in our English translations replaces the original term.

O.E. cirice "church," from W.Gmc. *kirika, from Gk. kyriake (oikia) "Lord's (house)," from kyrios "ruler, lord." For vowel evolution, see bury. Gk. kyriakon (adj.) "of the Lord" was used of houses of Christian worship since c.300, especially in the East, though it was less common in this sense than ekklesia or basilike. An example of the direct Gk.-to-Gmc. progress of many Christian words, via the Goths; it was probably used by W.Gmc. people in their pre-Christian period. Also picked up by Slavic, via Gmc. (cf. O.Slav. criky, Rus. cerkov). Romance and Celtic languages use variants of L. ecclesia. Slang church key for "can or bottle opener" is from 1950s. Church-mouse, proverbial in many languages for its poverty, is 1731 in Eng. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=c&p=13

Ekklesia simply means "called out ones" and can refer to individual christians or an assembly of christians.

Even as we have in the English translations...the word church is followed by several Greek words, and none of them are of any form that we translate in the word christian....churches of Christ, etc.

The word ekklesia in the LXX is translated into English as assembly or congregation...a local gathering of believing individuals.

 

[aggie03]

Acts 19:32 shows that the word has no direct connection with religious bodies and simply refers to a gathering of people, whether believers in Christ or not. In this passage, the word ekklesia refers to the assembly, or ther gathered gentiles that are seeking to kill Paul. Surely we would not consider them to be believers in Christ.

 

[seebs]

Interesting!

I go to a Quaker church, which has no creed at all. In fact, as a matter of historical practice, Quakers don't really require much of anything in the way of beliefs.

The rationale for this is concern that words are imprecise. If we exclude people because they won't agree with us on a given claim, how do we know whether or not we are correct? What if their beliefs are the same in substance, but their use of language is different?

One of the people who goes to my church describes herself as a "non-theist". (In fact, a number of them do.) It might seem that such a person could hardly participate in "worship".

However, having heard her speak about what she experiences in worship, and what she believes, I think she shares my love of God, and merely disagrees with me about how some words are defined. She rejects, not God, but the bronze-age sky fairy that so many atheists think "God" is. While I might disagree with her about this terminology, I do not think that arguing the terminology would be edifying; she's a fair bit older than I am, and has been led to a place where she can experience the Presence, find joy and peace in worship, and be led by the Spirit. I doubt that my clever little theology could accomplish so much.