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
It was a very serious question. Just by looking at the many denominations in the world today tells you that many don't believe there is only one church of Christ. I completely agree with your statement, and appreciate the passage you quoted from Ephesians 4.
It's in Tampa, and there are at least two Churches of Christ here which teach the same thing. Anyway, it was a long time ago, so no big deal.
And, no, the singing wasn't very good. I say this as a guitar player with a horrible voice. ;^)
The general area where you attended church years ago is hardly useful for criminal activity.
what use would that info be to you?
If it was close to me, I might try and follow up and go talk with them.
At any rate, what he is describing is the exception rather than the norm. There are churches of Christ that are denominational and Calvinistic. To bring them up as an example of the church as a whole would be disengenuous.
The nice thing about the congregational model is that error does not spread as quickly, and if someone wants to hold to some odd tradition that does not conflict with scripture, they can do so.
They may not be Calvinists, but they most certainly are calvinistic. And that is the heart of their disagreement with the church of Christ.
Sorry, that's simply false. The doctrine of sola fide (justification by faith alone) was the prime focal point of the Protestant Reformation beginning with Luther (NOT Calvin).
Based on what you've posted thusfar I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about, but as a Calvinist who is also a former Disciples of Christ member, I'll give you the opportunity to change my mind on that.
Can you please elaborate?
I too would certainly be interested in how hopespring determine Protestant churches to be "calvinistic". There are a great many that would dispute this. Perhaps we're talking past each other.
They can't abide new testament baptism because it involves something you DO that determines whether or not you are saved. In reality, you do nothing in baptism except submit to someone else's action. It is probably the most passive element of salvation. It takes a great deal more effort to come to belief and repentence, but because those actions occur in the mind, it doesn't violate Calvin.
The root of the disagreement is the matter of whether you control your own salvation. By erasing baptism from the picture, crypto-calvinists can play the game whereby everything that takes place in their own head can be attributed solely to the action of God.
In reality, the action of God is salvation itself, the washing away of sins, the new birth, being added to the body of believers (the church).
Calvinism insists this action of God must be wholly independent of the wishes and actions of the individual.
Scripture clearly teaches that while the Spirit may convict, it is still entirely within our power to harden our hearts against the Spirit, or once we are saved, to grieve the Holy Spirit and fall from grace.
Calvinists believe that men are "slaves to sin" (Rom 6). No one does what is righteous-not one (Rom 3) for they do not have faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6). God gives us this gift of faith (Eph 2:8,9) and changes man so that he becomes a "slave to righteousness" (Rom 6). Men, as slaves to righteousness are free to obey God or rebel. If we rebel God will chastise us into obedience for our own good simply because He loves us. (Heb 12:6)
In your statement, "believing that obedience is just something they should do after they are saved out of gratitude", I would agree is true for most Christians. This is also true for the Church of Christ which believes that you must be baptized and you are capable of losing your salvation. You certainly must admit that baptism is obedience.
I would disagree Calvinists believe this. Calvinists would say that God the Father would lovingly bring us to a point of good works for His righteousness and glory. That would include baptism and anything else we might do. We don't do it out of obedience per se as much as God convicts our hearts to do what is right. The only reason we do anything that is righteous is because of faith that God has instilled in us. Apart from Christ we can do nothing. It's all to bring glory to Him.
Historically, Protestants believe that our obedience is not the basis for our justification. The material cause of our justification is the righteousness of Christ alone, imputed to us through the instrumental cause of our faith. Our obedience does not in any way contribute to our justification.
They can't abide new testament baptism because it involves something you DO that determines whether or not you are saved. In reality, you do nothing in baptism except submit to someone else's action. It is probably the most passive element of salvation. It takes a great deal more effort to come to belief and repentence, but because those actions occur in the mind, it doesn't violate Calvin.
You are correct that we cannot abide this interpretation of New Testament baptism, primarily because while baptism is an extremely important sacrament instituted by Christ, there is no clear Scriptural support for the notion that one cannot be saved apart from water baptism. Of course, this argument invariably becomes one of extremes, with proponents of your position claiming that we trivialize baptism (nothing could be further from the truth) and proponents of ours pointing to all sorts of hypothetical examples.
The fact is that baptism is a matter of obedience and all Christians should heed the command of Scripture to be baptized. However, it is going to far to claim that apart from water baptism there is no salvation.
The root of the disagreement is the matter of whether you control your own salvation. By erasing baptism from the picture, crypto-calvinists can play the game whereby everything that takes place in their own head can be attributed solely to the action of God.
Well, I will agree that the heart of the issue is the degree of man's liberty. However, you are grossly mistaken with repect to the Reformed view of works and obedience, including baptism.
Scripture clearly teaches that while the Spirit may convict, it is still entirely within our power to harden our hearts against the Spirit, or once we are saved, to grieve the Holy Spirit and fall from grace.
I disagree, but thank you for at least clarifying your position a bit.
AND club recruitment is a business..
Except that it is impossible to have faith and be disobedient. Belief itself is an action of obedience.
You are correct that we cannot abide this interpretation of New Testament baptism, primarily because while baptism is an extremely important sacrament instituted by Christ, there is no clear Scriptural support for the notion that one cannot be saved apart from water baptism.
I am simply aghast at anyone making this assertion. Again, one does not get this conclusion from scripture without heavy editing and dubious translation. It is abundantly clear that otherwise well-meaning people are driven by another agenda that cannot tolerate real, scriptural baptism. Scripture is just too clear as to the role of baptism.
I can show a protestant the writing in black and white and they will reject it everytime. And everytime they substitute another action, the sinner's prayer, that is both more active, more of a "work" and not found anywhere in scripture, completely ignoring baptism which is found in every normal instance of salvation. Why? Because their leaders have 1) taught them to rely on their leaders rather than scripture, and 2) their leaders have come to rely on a standard external to scripture that takes precedence over scripture.
Oooh...don't let the Arminians hear you say that! :D
Seriously, if you are relying on your obedience to be the material cause of your justification, you are preaching another gospel, my friend.
I am simply aghast at anyone making this assertion. Again, one does not get this conclusion from scripture without heavy editing and dubious translation. It is abundantly clear that otherwise well-meaning people are driven by another agenda that cannot tolerate real, scriptural baptism. Scripture is just too clear as to the role of baptism.
Boy, can I call them or what?
You've made plenty of grand assertions, but you have yet to provide all the "clear Scripture" that teaches there is absolutely no salvation apart from water baptism. And as we shall quickly see, your own words belie your realization that this isn't so.
I can show a protestant the writing in black and white and they will reject it everytime. And everytime they substitute another action, the sinner's prayer, that is both more active, more of a "work" and not found anywhere in scripture, completely ignoring baptism which is found in every normal instance of salvation.
First of all, if you think I take a lot of stock in the "sinner's prayer" you're demonstrating (again) just how little you know about Calvinism.
Second, see your word that I bolded there? You're presenting water baptism as completely necessary to salvation...and then back off to tying it to "normal" instances of salvation. I heartily agree that it accompanies normal instances of salvation. I simply disagree on its role and function in salvation.
Why? Because their leaders have 1) taught them to rely on their leaders rather than scripture, and 2) their leaders have come to rely on a standard external to scripture that takes precedence over scripture.
Oh, please. You haven't made enough accurate statements about Reformed Theology thusfar to even be remotely credible in making such an absurd claim.
And when does this spriitual washing take place according to Peter? At the time one is baptized.
Is that just your opinion or has God told you that it was His opinion too?
***They may not be Calvinists, but they most certainly are calvinistic. And that is the heart of their disagreement with the church of Christ.***
So most protestant churches are Calvinistic. (Cat Christians)
The others are Arminian or Campbellite. (Monkey Christians)
Cat Christian (kittens) are carried about by that which is stronger than them, namely the mother cat.
Monkey Christian (babes) must hang on for dear life or slip and lost.
That is the way many of the non-Christian natices see us. they recognize the difference.
natices= natives.
Baptism is only valid if it is done in the River Jordan. That's the only body of water named in Scripture.
That's what I think.
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.