Are There Devout Christians In {non Church of Christ} Denominations?

Mabelvale Church of Christ ^ | 2008 | Mabelvale Church of Christ

[Cronos]

Are There Devout Christians In Denominations?  John 10:16

     Sadly, many in our brotherhood would answer “yes” to this question.  Denominations have for years taught that it does not matter what church you attend, as long as a person is sincere and honest.  Many in the Lord’s church have swallowed this idea.  They cry long and hard that there are sincere, devout Christians in any given denomination.  It is no wonder, then, that many congregations of the Lord’s church have joined hands with denominational churches to promote or to participate in any number of things.  Of course, they consider their actions to have Biblical backing.  They proclaim the words of Jesus in defense of their endeavors: "other sheep I have, which are not of this fold” (Jn.10:16).  To them, “this fold” represents the Church of Christ (denominational concept of the Lord’s church), and the other sheep outside of “this fold” represent God’s children scattered among the denominations.  Does this interpretation have credence?  Is it the case that there are devout Christians in denominations?  The answer is no to both questions.
     The passage under consideration does not support the idea that there are devout Christians in denominations.  To the dismay of those who would espouse this soul-damning doctrine, this passage destroys their convoluted thinking.  There is no hint of such a doctrine taught in this passage, nor is it even possible that this passage could teach such.  The New Testament knows nothing of denominationalism.  In the first century, there was one church and only one church (Eph.4:4).  Although the seeds of denominationalism were being planted during the first century, these seeds did not bloom until after the close of New Testament times.  To claim that John 10:16 deals in any respect with denominationalism is to force a 21st century interpretation on a 1st century passage.
     The latter half of the verse under consideration inflicts even more damage upon the idea that there are devout Christians in denominations.  Christ proclaimed that the “other sheep” would be brought into “one fold” under the care of “one shepherd.”  This one fold is the one church!  And this one church is under the care of the Great Shepherd Jesus Christ!  Those in denominations follow the voice of Luther, or Calvin, or Wesley, or Pope John Paul II, but they are not following the voice of the Great Shepherd!  The other sheep to whom Jesus was referring were the Gentiles.  Though there were some Gentiles who sought God, and anticipated the coming of the Messiah, the Jews and Gentiles remained separated.  Through Christ’s death, he would bring both Jew and Gentile together in one body, one fold (Eph.2:14)!  The Lord’s church today is a fulfillment of John 10:16—both Jew and Gentile in one body under the care of the Great Shepherd.
     Are there devout Christians in denominations?  No.  Are there children of God in denominations?  Yes, but only because they chose to leave the safety of the one fold, the Lord’s church, to follow the doctrines and commandments of men.  Those who have done so must repent and return to the church of our Lord before it is eternally too late!        PM

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***The works of these authors would be found in the academic section in almost any major Bible store (except the one you appear to frequent).****

I’ve been to many bookstores over the years, both Bible and secular with a bible section. I have NEVER seen any CofC books at ANY OF THEM!

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***By the way, do you belong to any organized group of believers?***

I was raised in Restorationist church that came out of NORTH IRELAND in the 1890s and infested the world with their beliefs. It is in no way associated with the American Campbellite reatorationist groups at all. This church considers the Campbellites and all others as LOST as they are not legalistic enough.

I went with friends to this very Mabelvale CoC while living in Little Rock.

I bailed out as soon as I discovered the GRACE MESSAGE of Salvation as they broke the chains of legalism that bound me. I have never looked back. I now go to a Southern Baptist church but am not a baptist.

[JOAT]

You seem to have a real problem with the CoC.

The 2 passages are not contradictory, as you seem to imply. It is obvious that Salvation only comes through grace extended by God, no one earns anything.

God does require change on our part however. That's the part that many want to ignore.

They desire a Savior but not a LORD, but He is both, and He demands that we obey and bend our will to His.

Far too many people want to 'accept Jesus as their personal Savior' with no expectation that He requires you to surrender to His will and CHANGE.

How would you reconcile these 2 passages? Or are you of the camp that would throw out inconvenient passages that require ACTION on the part of the believer?

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***The 2 passages are not contradictory, as you seem to imply. ***

Here is how it was explained to me by a CoC preacher forty two years ago.

Paul says Faith = justification.

James says Works = justification.
Therefore

Faith + works = justification!

Yet Paul says justification is WITHOUT WORKS.

Romans 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he had whereof to to glory, but not before God.

But WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURE? Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness.

NOW to him that worketh is the reward NOT reckoned of grace but of DEBT.

But to him that worketh not, but BELIEVE on him that justifieth the ungodly, HIS FAITH IS COUNTED FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Rom 4:7 [Saying], Blessed [are] they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

Rom 4:8 Blessed [is] the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

And then this..

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

I’ll say it again in caps!

CREATED IN CHRIST JESUS UNTO GOOD WORKS, WHICH GOD HATH BEFORE ORDAINED THAT WE SHOULD WALK IN THEM.

[JOAT]

Well, you've done a fine job of pointing out that we are created to do go works after we are saved, but that is not part of being saved. It is the RESPONSE to being saved. Correct.

You did not answer my straight forward question however: How do reconcile 'working out your salvation with fear and trembling' with 'For by Grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works lest any man should boast.'

Let me be clear here. The CoC position is NOT that anyone ever EARNS salvation, which you are seemingly attributing to the CoC. If the 'preacher' you ascribe this heresy to was actually was teaching this, he must not have read his Bible much. (Which, BTW, is the hallmark of the CoC - the Bible is the ONLY authority.)

Another point: the CoC congregations are all independent of one another. Are you an authority because you were briefly associated with one congregation 42 years ago?

As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, there can be several congregations in a single town that have each come to different conclusions about a subject but are each "Fully convinced in their own minds" after a careful study of God's Word.

So, Ruy, I don't care what some crackpot said 42 years ago. I'm asking YOU the question. How can God's infallible Word (You DO believe in inspiration, don't you?) say we have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling AND say that we can't be boastful about being saved because we had nothing to do with it?

HMMN?

[Cronos]

huh? Sherman isn’t Catholic afaik. Not sure of his religious affiliation but we normally converse about history or international relationships and I highly respect his knowledge on those matters — and if you just check through what he’s posted on those matters, you would share that respect too, reaganaut

[Cronos]

thanks!

[Cronos]

at least 3 of these groups (LDS, JW, SDA) were founded in NY within about 60 years and 100 miles of each other.

Christian Scientists were formed thereabouts too, correct? I would speculate that this was due to the mass of peoples and the intermingling of many cultures as well as the new "discoveries" and theories of Darwin, Marx, egyptologists etc coupled with all the progress in the industrial world. It seemed like a ripe time for new interpretations

[raygun]

It would seem in my mind that if the head-covering is observed, the Headship of Christ is being observed by the women in the assembly.

THAT in my mind is devout. I’m uncertain that to be saved one necessarily needs to be ‘devout’ in their faith.

[raygun]

The Churches of Christ believe that worship should be sans musical instruments.

I do NOT believe that they’re adverse to musical accompanyment during the Sermon.

That being stated: I believe as much as I’d get along with Churches of Christ, we’d part company on the music and the issue pertaining to salvation that baptism confers.

[Cronos]

Quite frankly, reaganaut, SL's posts was without animosity and impartial. Each of the separate and distinct groups he named HAVE said that others have fallen away. He hasn't given his own opinion or any other opinion on the merits or demerits of any argument.

[Cronos]

well, that would be like the articles you always post which are always jokes and draw erroneous conclusions each time.

[Cronos]

the thing is that the creeds encapsulate the core beliefs. We all agree that as humans we are open to flawed interpretations -- and this was apparent in the early years when people were arguing over the divinity of Christ, etc. the Nicene creed effectively encapsulates what scripture has said about these core matters.

In the tenets are the common Christian beliefs in the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the incarnation and sacrifice.

Those that deny one or more of these tenets are really not Christian -- you would agree with that, correct?

Lee and I will argue about a lot and tell each other that they are wrong on some matter or the other but we know that we have some basic common beliefs.

it's common ground, the way I see it -- look, if you and I believe these common points, we have SOMETHING that is in common, which would be unlike a conversation either of us would have with a Hindu say.

[Cronos]

well, it is good that they try to follow what they see as the right way.

[raygun]

Roger that.

Maybe there’s issue with if Church(s) of Christ try to enter to enter the political arena.

That’d probably be a prollem. Unlike today: there’s NO prollem whatsoever by ANY candidate.

Has anybody ever noticed religion to EVER have been a prllm? What a bunch of waste of time...

I KNOW that its the CONSTITUION that everybody’s most concerned ‘bout...

[Cronos]

Newt Gingrich sucks lollipop threads? Hey, they haven't started yet :)

Since Cain backed out my choice for candidate is Newt -- yes, he's got baggage, but when he was in politics he was strongly conservative and his viewpoints on moral issues (against abortion, gay marriages,etc.) reflect mine. His fiscal attitude is good -- ok, not as radically low-govt as I'd like, but a definite return to the 70s or earlier smaller govt (ideally we should return to pre-FDR, but that kind of line will not get elected -- one step or a few steps to return is good).

Those guys who say Newt sucks aren't giving us any alternatives besides "sit at home" -- and if we do that, Obambi wins and the US is a third world country in 2020.

Even if (Gawd help us) Romney is our candidate, I would vote for him so that the US won't be a 3rd world nation in 2020 (Romney will postpone that to 2025 or so ;-P), but I sincerely believe that with Newt as President the chances for that situation NOT happening in our lifetime are very good.

[Cvengr]

Too bad CoC may also be considered a denomination. They condemn themselves.

[Lee N. Field]

Here's the direct link to the Issues, Etc. audio: 1 The Beliefs and Practices of the Campbellite Church of Christ. It's about a half hour long.

One thing the interviewee said that I did not know, is that a lot of them will disavow any connection with Alexander Campbell. We have seen this here.

[Lee N. Field]

the thing is that the creeds encapsulate the core beliefs. We all agree that as humans we are open to flawed interpretations -- and this was apparent in the early years when people were arguing over the divinity of Christ, etc. the Nicene creed effectively encapsulates what scripture has said about these core matters.

In the tenets are the common Christian beliefs in the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the incarnation and sacrifice.

Those that deny one or more of these tenets are really not Christian -- you would agree with that, correct?

Quite so.

I haven’t studied those creeds, Lee. They may be well thought-out formulations for all I know. But I see no reason why I shouldn’t just stick to the scriptures themselves. I don’t see how anything else can improve on God’s perfect revelation.

The Bible is an awful big thing to go all through, of a Sunday, eh?

The creeds mentioned are summaries of Christian belief originating from quite early in Christian history. They are widely held by lots of groups.

They are quite short. The three together would take 5 minutes to read, at the outside.

I find them a useful filter. The Nicene Creed especially seems to be a lightning rod. It's never a good sign if someone starts ranting about Constantine and the Nicene Council with no provocation. Usually you'll find a trinitarian problem.

[Lucas McCain]

“does the typical member of the churches of Christ believe it is Biblical to be baptized by an unbaptized elder or minister?”

First, there is no such thing, among typical churches of Christ, as an unbaptized elder or minister.

The larger issue of the qualification of the baptizer isn’t a big issue, although the question has come up. My answer is that the Bible clearly indicates that a candidate for baptism meet certain “qualifications,” primarily of the heart, e.g. belief, repentance, confession. But the Bible says nothing about the qualifications of the one baptizing. If the validity of one’s baptism was contingent on the qualifications of the baptizer, how could anyone know for sure.

Among churches of Christ, it is usually men who have elder/deacon/minister status that do the baptizing, but not necessarily. I baptized quite a few people long before I acquired said status. Churches of Christ eschew a clergy/laity system. A elder/deacon/minister has no more responsibility/right to baptize than anyone else.