Posted on 05/01/2006 7:14:29 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
[caps and emphasis in the original]
One of the three major movements within the Campbellite family of American Protestantism, and the one most recent in origin (although the Disciples' "Restructure" dates only to 1968). Its separate identity begins officially with action taken at a Christian Church convention in Cincinnati in 1927. By 1971 this body of independent congregations had sufficient particularity and cohesion in its own eyes to request a separate listing in the Yearbook of American Churches.
This "undenominational" fellowship stands to the right of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH (DISCIPLES OF CHRIST) and to the left of the CHURCHES OF CHRIST, the two other movements within the CAMPBELLITE TRADITION, both of which are indigenously American. "Christian Churches and Churches of Christ" is the name by which it is commonly known, but its aversion to denominational character means that no official name has been or can be designated. It is also known as the "middle group," the "Centrists," "Independent Christian Churches," or "Christian Churches,'' or ''Christian Churches/Churches of Christ." A single congregation is most often referred to as a "Christian Church" but sometimes as a "Church of Christ," the latter despite the clear separation between this "middle group" and the non-instrumental Campbellites regularly (but also not officially) called Churches of Christ.
Like the other two Campbellite bodies, this fellowship traces its origins to RESTORATIONISM, a theme with roots in the thinking of the Protestant Reformers. This theme took shape as the Restoration Movement in early nineteenth-century America, which was characterized by a determination to adhere rigorously to the Bible, especially in matters of congregational organization and practice. As led by Thomas and ALEXANDER CAMPBELL and BARTON W. STONE, these Christians intend (in paraphrase) to "speak where the Scriptures speak" and "to be silent where the Scriptures are silent." In practice, the focus fell less on theology than on how to organize congregational life and how to carry out public worship. The recovery and duplication of "New Testament Christianity" was its hallmark from the beginning.
The passion to restore the patterns of Primitive Christianity continues to animate these "Independent Christian Churches." Indeed, that is their stock-in-trade, their only reason for existence. As they see it, the Disciples of Christ wing has largely abandoned the Restorationist concern in favor of ecumenicity, which also was a major commitment of Campbell; however, it was to be "undenominational" rather than explicitly cooperative Christianity, especially in the earlier years of his career. On the other side, the Churches of Christ are viewed as having turned conviction into legalism, especially on the use of instrumental music in services of congregational worship. It should be noted that on the classic theme of Restoration, however, the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ fellowship hold much more in common with the Churches of Christ than with the Disciples of Christ.
Thus the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ branch of the family is more "conservative" than "liberal"; it remains committed to the words of the Bible, bent on retaining local-church independence. It stands closer to rationalism than to any other hermeneutical or epistemological method; it rejects all "manmade creeds"; it is highly self-conscious about its particular nature and mission. At the same time, it repudiates legalism and has a generally open, cooperative, and respectful attitude toward other bodies of Christians. It is as firm in its conviction that we are "Christians only" (a slogan from the first generation of the movement) as it is in its rejection of "we are the only Christians." The fellowship honors the qualities of being firm, solid, uncompromising, and earnest. This is a people who live by an acknowledged authority, who are very clear on the commission of the New Testament to Christians and on their mission to embody with purity and scrupulosity the belief and practice of the primitive church.
The Churches of Christ had become a specifiable branch of the Campbellite family in the public understanding by 1906. However, as a regional (Southern) movement having fewer and fewer fraternal ties with Northern Disciples, it was taking shape as the Civil War began and was informally recognizable as a separate body of like-minded independent churches no later than the 1880s. The Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, in somewhat similar fashion, were taking shape before the actual break in 1927. Many thousands who had maintained their connection with the Disciples "grew increasingly restive in the fellowship." The Cincinnati-based Christian Standard led a swelling outcry against the "liberalizing" and "modernizing" trends among Disciples, especially on the subject of biblical criticism. In a 1927 "preaching assembly" called by veteran evangelist P. H. Welshimer, these more traditional and authority-minded congregations chose to go their own way. As a result, the North American Christian Convention was born. ("Convention," rather than "Church," is used to indicate that no corporate decisions are binding; instead congregations voluntarily convene to engage matters of common concern.)
Demographically, it is the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) with whom the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ fellowship is closely linked. The heartland of its strength is approximately the same: from western Pennsylvania across the Midwestern states to Missouri and Iowa in the West. Sizable membership also prevails, however, in Kentucky (in both cases), the state of primary origination. Several other Southern states reflect notable growth, especially since World War II; Oklahoma, Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina all have more than 150 churches and 25,000 members. Kentucky's figures are 427 and 75,000; Missouri's are 320 and 52,000. The total estimated membership nationwide was one million in 1982. Unlike sister fellowships within the Campbellite family, the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ are also strong in northern California, Oregon, and Washington.
More committed to Bible colleges than to theological seminaries, their congregations support 44 such colleges. There is one liberal arts college, Milligan, located at Johnson City TN and four graduate schools of religion, one at Johnson City and another in Cincinnati OH.
Bibliography. Directory of the Ministry, 1982: A Yearbook of Christian Churches and Churches of Christ; Robert O. Fife, David E. Harrell, and Ronald E. Osborn, Disciples and the Church Universal; James DeForest Murch, Christians Only; William J. Richardson, ea., Christian Doctrine; William Robinson, Biblical Doctrine of the Church; Dean E. Walker, Adventuring for Christian Unity; C. Robert Wetzel, ed., Essays m New Testament Christianity.
SAMUEL S. HILL UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
A proper candidate for baptism that has been baptized for the remission of their sins is added to the church by God. It doesn't matter who performs the baptism.
Yes, that is correct. churches of Christ are autonomous and there is no central governing authority. The local elders are responsible for each individual congregation. The Bible says that God adds those who obey what the Lord requests that they do to the church. Very astute. Although many members are unfaithful and are not living as they should and scripturally do not have salvation secured, those that do are in the right "body", the only body of Christ and are headed for salvation. Anyone not in the "body" of Christ and is serving in a man-made denomination can not make such a claim to salvation per what the scripture teaches.
lol That's the opinion of those who hear me sing! No, really, I'm okay, just not anything worth amplifying.
But I'm sure God likes it when I sing to Him.
Why should I? You know where Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16, John 3:5, Acts 2:38, Acts 8:36, Acts 10:47, Acts 16:33, Acts 19:5, and Acts 22:16 are as well as I do, and that is by no means an exhaustive list. In every instance, you will merely explain that can't be what it means because if it did mean that Calvin or your church or your preacher would be wrong.
You're presenting water baptism as completely necessary to salvation...and then back off to tying it to "normal" instances of salvation.
Point to an example of salvation without baptism after Christ's resurrection. Inevitably you will point to the apostles, the theif on the cross, or Cornelius. Of those, only Cornelius is applicable and even that example relies on spurious assumptions that not even the apostle Peter was willing to make.
Well, how wonderfully gracious of you. We've never discussed the topic, you don't know me, and you've demonstrated a glaring lack of ability in representing Reformed doctrine...but you've been kind enough to poison the well before the discussion even starts.
Which one of Christ's commands were you obeying when you did that?
Point to an example of salvation without baptism after Christ's resurrection. Inevitably you will point to the apostles, the theif on the cross, or Cornelius. Of those, only Cornelius is applicable and even that example relies on spurious assumptions that not even the apostle Peter was willing to make.
I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency in your statements. And now you've given us a wonderful argument from silence to go with it.
Try this one: Show me an example of salvation without audible hearing of the Gospel after Christ's resurrection. Can't find any? Drat...I guess deaf people are screwed then huh?
Exaclty! Also, ....He who believes AND is baptized shall be saved....
We don't have anything about women not wearing make up either; but the men, well.......
Is it? What about the water that the Ethiopian Eunuch was baptized in? "Here is water what doth hindereth me to be baptized?"
I bet you know how to make a lot of dishes that require "Cream of Mushroom Soup".
None?
Why do you say that?
No churches fell in the Garden of Eden and needed redemption. Only people did that.
Now you can ask how many souls were purchased by Christ's sacrifice (you'd need a pen, paper and calculator for that).
Now if you asked me how many churches there are supposed to be, I'd say one, if you mean capital "C" Church as in Body of Christ. If you mean small "c" church, as in congregations, well, the New Testament recognizes numerous churches.
Baptist churches are autonomous, as the Southern Baptist Convention and other Baptist associations are voluntary, and their decisions on not binding on the individual congregation. Even some associational churches, such as the Presbyterian Church in America, cannot compel a congregation from dissent and departure. There are in addition independent churches of various persuasions, with differing theologies: charismatic, dispensational, Reformed, etc. How does independence from an ecclesiastical body distinguish a Church of Christ from other independent churches?
Although many members are unfaithful and are not living as they should and scripturally do not have salvation secured, those that do are in the right "body", the only body of Christ and are headed for salvation. Anyone not in the "body" of Christ and is serving in a man-made denomination can not make such a claim to salvation per what the scripture teaches.
This doctrine resembles the belief of extra eccelsia nulla salus held by some Catholics, usually those opposed to the mainstream of their church for the perceived liberalism of its modern leaders. It is ironic that a group whose roots are in the Reformation churches holds a position similar to that of the Council of Trent.
I am referring to the church, the body of Christ. You are correct that there is only one body of Christ. You are also correct that there were numerous congregations of that body in the New Testament. The important thing to recognize is that they were all part of one body, and all were to be teaching the same thing. It is true that many of them dealt with problems of false teaching, and that is why Paul wrote to them to show them the error of their ways.
Please explain what is un-Scriptural about teaching that those that are not in the body of Christ are not able to be saved.
That turns the sacrament into "cannonball!"
***That turns the sacrament into "cannonball!"***
Better than a belly flop!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.