Rom.16
[16]
Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you.
Now if you wanted to get technical about this, then you could probably, according to your so-called biblical standards, attend a church if it were to be called the "Church of God" since that name is used several times in the Bible as a reference to the body of believers in general.
You touch on a very good point here. The church is a body of believers not a building.
Now if you wanted to be totally and completely Scriptural then you could legitimately use the name that the Lord used when describing some churches. Jesus referred to the seven Churches in Asia Minor as "The Church at Philadelpia..." etc.
Rev.1
[11]
saying, "Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Per'gamum and to Thyati'ra and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to La-odice'a."
Philadelphia is one of the seven churches in Asia Minor not a collection of the seven churches. A small point but noteworthy none the less.
So, I suppose if you wanted to be pharisaical about the names, then you could probably safely attend something in your city which would be named "the Church of God at University Heights" or perhaps "The Church at University Heights" but clearly you should not be going to such an unbliblically sounding Church such as the "Church of Christ."
Gal.1
[22]
And I was still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea
My suggestion, if you want to be consistent with your pharisaical strict interpretation of the scripture is that you change churches and find one in your neighborhood called "the Church of God at University Heights" or "the Church at University Heights." (but then again it might be simpler--especially if you feel that you are being fed at the church you attend-- to simply change your attitude.
Those are all good sounding scriptural names. Here is one of my farovite.
1Thes.2
[14]
For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews
Now in regard to the church building. Again, other than the Temple and some mentions of the synagogue, there are no references in the new testament as to how a "chruch" ought to look. But again if you are going to be a strict pharisse on the subject I suppose you could insist on gathering outside on a hillside, Like Jesus did when he preached, or perhaps in people's homes, or in a synagogue or in some building constructed according to the directions given for the Temple. But as it stands right now, if you want to be perfectly biblical, then I would suggest that unless you are meeting outside or in a synagogue, then your building is not up to your own pharisaical "biblical" standards.
I learned something new and interesting, the word synagogue doesn't appear on the OT. However, the OT in excrusiating detail tells how the Temple is to be constructed. Starting around Ezekiel 40.4 you can read about the law of the Temple. As we know the Law was given to Isreal and we are bound to it so a Temple would not seem to be a good choice.
Rom.16
[14]
For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
[15]
What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
In stricking contrast to the detail given for the construction of the Temple you will find no mention of the construction of a similar structure i.e. building or temple in the NT. Is this an oversight? I think not. Rather, that a meeting place for the saints is just that, a meeting place. The building or lack thereof is of no importance.
Where I find a building a telling sign of a churches soundness comes into play when I see that man has taken upon himself to speak where God was silent. Meaning that a meeting place for the saints is being promoted as some sacred or holy place by the addidion of alters or idols. That somehow the building in and of itself is the dwelling place of God or Christ.
Matt.18
[20]
For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
Just because some entity calls itself "the Church of Christ," does not mean that they have the personal stamp of approval of Jesus for their doctrine. A Church by ANY name can either preach the Gospel correctly or preach a perversion of the Gospel. It really depends on what they preach rather than what they call themselves.
Very true. As I said the same thing in my previous reply, you can call yourself the church of God, the church of Christ or the church of Jesus Christ and be unsound. The name does not give the church its soundness but it is still telling and insightful for what you are likely to encounter if you choose to attend a service.
Look at all the churches of the world who neither identify God or Jesus in their name. They distiguish themselves from one another by some man made creed or doctrine.
BTW are you a member of the International Church of Christ? Or do you consider them a cult?
Not familiar with the international church of Christ. Are they a cult?
Baptism is a man-made doctrine? Catholicity- unity or oneness quite literally- is a man made concept? Congregating together- invented by man? Surely you would not think so, even if you disagree with the doctrine of said denominations.
And as far as buildings go, our worship is to be ordered and reverential, and attuned toward God. While I will agree that some buildings simply do not convey this, and some better than others, I have seen reverential, devotional-feeling- if you won't mind the phrase- churches ranging from simple nineteenth century Baptist churches at the edge of the wilds to great soaring cathredals with deep cloisters and beautiful tapestries and embelishments. Granted, neither extreme is mandated in Scripture- but I don't see where they are prohibited, either.
Touche'. :-) I didn't try that search.
I disagree with your statement that "all" the churches of the world who neither identify God or Jesus in their name distiguish themselves from one another by some "man made creed or doctrine." I dare say that one man's man made creed or doctrine is another man's biblical doctrine. Take the playing of musical instruments in church for example. You Church of Christ people are somewhat dogmatic about there being an absence of any type of musical instrument in church, yet you will find no "biblical basis" for that dogma. You instead argue from a point of the absence of any reference for it as a command from God that there be none.
I remember attending one of your churches once and was struck at the fact that the song leader started the song with a little tone whistle so that everyone could sing in tune. Now I dare say that there are no tone whistles mentioned in the new testament, so if your church were consistent, then no tome whistles would be allowed either. To me the whole thing is silly. To you it is sacred. Well, I dare say that what distinguishes the "Chruch of Christ" (TM) from others on this point is clearly a man-made doctrine.
I personally rely on Psalm 150 as my biblical reference for including all manner of musical instruments in song and worship. So who's got better biblical support? Which doctrine is more divisive, one which permits Christian Liberty or one which stifles the Spirit?
Finally, YES the International Church of Christ is a cult.