The modern-day church of Christ teaches baptismal regeneration. This heterodox doctrine clearly eliminates it as a possible "only true Church."
A description of the New Testament church of Christ from scripture
- Thread starter Beckworth
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You have confused practice with doctrine. Given that Scripture provides no command from God to use only vocal music, yours is an argument from silence.
The Bible teaches baptism is necessary for salvation:
Mark 16:16- Jesus puts it BEFORE salvation and makes it equal in value to “faith.”
Acts 2:38- Peter says it is for the remission of sins.
Acts 22:16- Paul says it washes away sins.
1 Peter 3:21- says it SAVES US.
What more do you need or want?
Exactly so! The Holy Spirit also makes an argument from silence in Hebrews 7:14. That is the point—God has said “nothing” about it. That means He has not AUTHORIZED it. It is “without law” as in Matt. 7:23.
This seems to be an interesting discussion, with lots of people cherry picking. Were instruments allowed in 1st century Christian worship services, well it depends on how strictly they accepted the OT, where instruments are specifically encouraged in worship services. Were women allowed to speak in worship services, well according to Paul, in Christ there is neither male nor female. Now he also admonished against women speaking in services, so one needs to dig a lot deeper to get around this conflict. It is not a simple answer, but rather one that might make some people very uncomfortable. Was the canon closed after Revelation, if it is dated to circa 90, well that is also difficult as according to Revelation it was at least partially written by the early 60's, well before some other works were likely composed. Further, the canon of the NT was not set for a few hundred years, the earliest canons excluded some works we now include. And as for gifts of the spirit, one of these was healing, and miraculous healings are still recognized as occurring to this day. In fact, Olga Worrall was a widely recognized Christian healer for a good bit of the 20th century, but not one who used her fame for personal gain.
The Bible does not teach that baptismal waters cause spiritual regeneration.
I suspect you don’t really understand what an “argument from silence” is. Hebrews 7:14 certainly doesn’t employ one. It is a true statement built on passages in the Torah that specify only Levites may be priests, thereby excluding others.
There is no statement in the Bible stating that musical praise may only be vocal. In contrast there are many instructions to praise Him WITH instruments.
If you were to follow your misunderstanding to its logical conclusion, you would realize that God has not authorized us to use the internet, so you had better get off it and stop being a hypocrite.
Tell me why 1 Corinthians 13, Galatians 5:19-24 and Matthew 25 is not part of your exhaustive portfolio of "need to know" to be right with God? Is is all well and good to get all hot and sweaty about the Church IF you don't care what kind of people inhabit that church.
The subject of “authority” is a very valid Bible topic. We say we have God’s “authority” to practice certain things because GOD HAS SPOKEN. In areas where God has NOT spoken, we have “silence.” The question is, can we treat God’s silence as “permission?” To put it simply, yes, but only in areas where God has NOT SPOKEN, we can. For, instance, We have the command to “assemble” in Hebrews 10:25. Logic demands a place where we all may assemble. God has not spoken as to “where” we are to assemble, nor in what kind of structure; therefore, we may assemble in whatever place or structure we choose—out doors under a brush arbor, or in a school as Paul did in Ephesus, or in a rented building or in a building we own, or in our homes. This is called “generic authority”. God has not spoken on that subject. However, the answer is “no” we may not use silence as permission when God HAS SPOKEN on a subject. Then that ELIMINATES every other thing of the same subject or same kind. This is called “specific authority” and the “law of elimination.” For example, when God told Noah to build the ark out of gopher wood, that ELIMINATED EVERY OTHER KIND OF WOOD! God did not need to say… don’t build the ark out of pine, oak, poplar, cypress, cedar, birch, etc. and etc. God did not have to negate every other kind of wood in existence in order for us to get the point. He TOLD us what He wanted—that eliminates everything else. . To illustrate this in everyday life, if your spouse tells you to go to the store and buy bread and milk, does she have to tell you everything in the store NOT to buy in order for you to know what she wants? No. She has told you what she wants, if you buy other items, you do so without her authority. That might not matter when it comes to everyday life, but it matters with God.
1 Peter 4:11- “If any man speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God.” With God’s authority.
1 Cor. 4:6- Paul wants us to “learn” not to think beyond WHAT IS WRITTEN. There’s the importance of authority. The only way all Christians can be United is if we go back to the Bible and only do the things we have “authority” from God to do.
God’s silence is important, too. In Hebrews 7:14, the Holy Spirit makes an argument based on God’s silence. God HAD SPOKEN about which tribe the priest were to come from. His law and commandment was that the Jewish priests come from the tribe of Levi. Did the Jews assume then that it was alright with God for them to appoint priests from the other tribes like Judah? No! God had spoken! That eliminated every other tribe! He makes that very argument when He says, “ of the tribe of Judah, God says NOTHING!!!!! God’s silence speaks volumes. This is our proof, from the Holy Spirit Himself, that silence does NOT always mean permission. We may NOT. do whatever pleases us if GOD HAS SPOKEN on the subject.
Now, let’s return to the subject of music in the church. Has God spoken on the subject of music in His church? There are only 2 kinds of music in the world—vocal and instrumental. Has GOD SPOKEN about the kind of music He wants in His church? Yes, He has, in several different places:
Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16, 1 Cor. 14:15, Hebrews 13:15 just to name a few. By the law of elimination, GOD HAS SPOKEN on the subject of church music. He chose VOCAL music for His church. That eliminates every other kind of music. Bythe reasoning of the Holy Spirit in Heb.7:14, God has said “NOTHING” (silence) about instrumental music in His church. But He HAS told us what He wants.
So it is up to each individual to choose what your attitude toward the scriptures will be? Will it be Martin Luther’s position, that anything is permissible as long as God does not specifically forbid it? That position would allow Noah to build the ark out of oak or any other wood he wanted to use. And that position would have allowed Nadab and Abihu ( Leviticus 10) to offer “strange fire” on God’s altar. That did not turn out well for them which tells me how God feels about going “beyond” what He has authorized. ….OR….will your attitude be the attitude of the Holy Spirit and the Old Testament Jews, who understood that when GOD SPEAKS and says that priests shouid come from the tribe of Levi, then His “silence” ELIMINATES all other tribes of the Jews. This was the fatal flaw of the “believer’s in Matt. 7. In verse 23 Jesus tells us they were “PRACTICING LAWLESSNESS.” Without God’s law means without God’s authority. We can either choose to please God by honoring His instructions, or we can please OURSELVES; by doing what WE like, what WE want.
As I said before, everybody wants Jesus as their SAVIOUR”; but very few want Him as their “LORD.”
1 Peter 4:11- “If any man speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God.” With God’s authority.
1 Cor. 4:6- Paul wants us to “learn” not to think beyond WHAT IS WRITTEN. There’s the importance of authority. The only way all Christians can be United is if we go back to the Bible and only do the things we have “authority” from God to do.
God’s silence is important, too. In Hebrews 7:14, the Holy Spirit makes an argument based on God’s silence. God HAD SPOKEN about which tribe the priest were to come from. His law and commandment was that the Jewish priests come from the tribe of Levi. Did the Jews assume then that it was alright with God for them to appoint priests from the other tribes like Judah? No! God had spoken! That eliminated every other tribe! He makes that very argument when He says, “ of the tribe of Judah, God says NOTHING!!!!! God’s silence speaks volumes. This is our proof, from the Holy Spirit Himself, that silence does NOT always mean permission. We may NOT. do whatever pleases us if GOD HAS SPOKEN on the subject.
Now, let’s return to the subject of music in the church. Has God spoken on the subject of music in His church? There are only 2 kinds of music in the world—vocal and instrumental. Has GOD SPOKEN about the kind of music He wants in His church? Yes, He has, in several different places:
Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16, 1 Cor. 14:15, Hebrews 13:15 just to name a few. By the law of elimination, GOD HAS SPOKEN on the subject of church music. He chose VOCAL music for His church. That eliminates every other kind of music. Bythe reasoning of the Holy Spirit in Heb.7:14, God has said “NOTHING” (silence) about instrumental music in His church. But He HAS told us what He wants.
So it is up to each individual to choose what your attitude toward the scriptures will be? Will it be Martin Luther’s position, that anything is permissible as long as God does not specifically forbid it? That position would allow Noah to build the ark out of oak or any other wood he wanted to use. And that position would have allowed Nadab and Abihu ( Leviticus 10) to offer “strange fire” on God’s altar. That did not turn out well for them which tells me how God feels about going “beyond” what He has authorized. ….OR….will your attitude be the attitude of the Holy Spirit and the Old Testament Jews, who understood that when GOD SPEAKS and says that priests shouid come from the tribe of Levi, then His “silence” ELIMINATES all other tribes of the Jews. This was the fatal flaw of the “believer’s in Matt. 7. In verse 23 Jesus tells us they were “PRACTICING LAWLESSNESS.” Without God’s law means without God’s authority. We can either choose to please God by honoring His instructions, or we can please OURSELVES; by doing what WE like, what WE want.
As I said before, everybody wants Jesus as their SAVIOUR”; but very few want Him as their “LORD.”
My post and topic of discussion is about the church of Christ, the organization, as it is described in the New Testament. It is a description of the church that Christ built. What He built is perfect—without sin.
This post is not about the purity or the sinfulness of its members. Maybe you should write a post about that.
One can and perhaps should judge the value of a Church by the fruit it bears. That seems a deeply scriptural perspective. I grew up in the Church of Christ. I went of a college (now university) of the Church of Christ. I left largely because I came to believe they were more committed to their dogmas and "unique understanding of the bible" than to Christianity itself. IMHO the priority was always about learning the bible than living according to the bible. The poor had no priority. The hungry had no priority, The addicted had no priority. The sick mentally and physically had no priority. Love your neighbor as yourself was a platitude. Loving God was about church attendance and bible study. Look objectively today
The claim is that the Church of Christ is just like the first century Church. It is almost the opposite. In the first century the church people sold what they had to support the needs of other Christians. Christianity spread organically across the Mediterranean. The Churches in Egypt used different scriptures and had a different church organization from those in the the rest of the Roman Empire. They all suffered persecution at times and thus remain united in faith and support even though they had different insights into the meaning of whatever they called scriptures. Many of the books used in 1st century churches were later rejected as"unauthoritative" once Christianity had become the religion of the Roman State and the State required standardization of "acceptable" scriptures and religious practices. For example most 1st century churches rejected Revelation as it portrayed God and Jesus as violent vengeful and tourchering. What we today call the apocrypha was widely considered inspired in the pre-roman churches. An "inspired" New Testament writer even quoted from the Apocrypha. One of the earliest documents of Christian doctrine and practice was the Didache in which pouring for baptism was accepted if baptism in "living water" was not available. Spiritual gifts were recognized.
The denomination that rejects the identification as a denomination, does not use a central governing body to collect or compile national attendance numbers across all congregations. Instead, attendance and demographic figures are gathered periodically through independent directories and studies.
Congregational Size: Around 91% of Church of Christ attendees worship in congregations with fewer than 250 members.
Total adherents (including both baptized members and unbaptized children or regular attendees) are estimated at roughly 1.4 to 1.5 million in the U.S. Demographics: Approximately 53% of the U.S. membership is located in the South, with a notably heavy concentration in Texas and Tennessee.
Trends: Studies analyzing the fellowship's growth and decline note that the number of adherents has dropped over recent decades, driven by congregation closures and an aging demographic.
You shall know them by their fruits.....
I would put "disagree" yet you can't on this site
The NT is Charismatic..
And over 2000 years later still believers telling believers how they should really act, speak, give, partake .. whatever in Church. They some how see something in Gods word others GOD does not show.. no offense.
The Church was new back then. People acted, dressed, and spoke very differently than we do today. We need to know not only what was written duh in Gods word, but also who it was written to and the time it was written in. This is not meant to offend, but this is just someone in the Church standing up and telling the preacher or leader how it (Church) is really meant to be understood. What matters most here is this, is this coming from a Mormon, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, AOG, or Word of Faith etc background? Your background does affect how you view this.
Some will speak in tongues others will be against that some within each will know they are right.. some will love to give to the preacher others won't like to give. Some will rather go to someone else house and so forth so on. In the end.. what do they do good..for Christ. Were always growing. We make mistakes (Church) get up repent keep going
The NT is Charismatic..
And over 2000 years later still believers telling believers how they should really act, speak, give, partake .. whatever in Church. They some how see something in Gods word others GOD does not show.. no offense.
The Church was new back then. People acted, dressed, and spoke very differently than we do today. We need to know not only what was written duh in Gods word, but also who it was written to and the time it was written in. This is not meant to offend, but this is just someone in the Church standing up and telling the preacher or leader how it (Church) is really meant to be understood. What matters most here is this, is this coming from a Mormon, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, AOG, or Word of Faith etc background? Your background does affect how you view this.
Some will speak in tongues others will be against that some within each will know they are right.. some will love to give to the preacher others won't like to give. Some will rather go to someone else house and so forth so on. In the end.. what do they do good..for Christ. Were always growing. We make mistakes (Church) get up repent keep going
Most of the Mosaic law was temporary?
I would disagree.
All the written law was temporary according to Paul's letters.
Galatians 3:10-13
For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue
to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because
“the righteous will live by faith.” The law is not based on faith.
That's what Paul said "continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law"
The law is not based on faith.
We live by faith and not by the written law or any part thereof.
Ponder the new covenant and not the old covenant.
Since the “church” is only found in the New Testament, it is distinctively different from the old temple worship of the Old Testament and the Jews. What was done in the temple is no authority at all for what Christ commanded for His church. If we bring instruments of music over into the New Testanent church,because they were commanded for the temple, then we could also bring over animal sacrifices and offerings of 1/10 of everything we have, and what about feast days and new moons? Can we add those to what Jesus has built also? Are we allowed to just “pick and choose” what we like from the old Jewish temple worship and ignore what we don’t want? Paul told those Jewish Christians who wanted to keep practicing circumcision because it was commanded under the old law, that they would then be a debtor to keep the WHOLE law. Galations 5:3. So, actually, how the Jews worshipped God in their temple has no bearing on what Christ has ordained for His church. I believe we would be wrong to assume that just because they did something under the Jewish law, then it is acceptable to God for us who are under the new law of Christ.
Blade, "the new testament is Charismatic" is an overreach IMHO. Many see God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit in Genesis 1 with the "we"statement and the "They will become immortal like us" statement. While that is not my personal understanding, it is the chosen explanation of may Christian faiths, thus the "Charisma is all about God+ in Genesis." In the Hebrew Bible "gives" many victories due to His Christma. Talk about Hebrew Bible christma how about God talking through the mouth of an ass? Chisma = God speaking to man. Sure in the New Testament Jesus Apostles failed to heal and or cure certain types of human pathologies, but Jesus did not criticize them for lacking Chrismasa, but that somethings are different and take more effort.
I share with you the hope that failures in modern Christian behavior will find a new source of authority and commitment for life change not just theology change.
I share with you the hope that failures in modern Christian behavior will find a new source of authority and commitment for life change not just theology change.
And that explains why according to Acts the early church followed many Jewish practices into the late 50's at least, because the early church had abandoned them. I might add also that the "new" rules for the inclusion of gentiles dates back at least 40 years before the birth of Jesus. Doing one's research can really mess up their theology when one learns that their great answers do not fit the facts.
You made at least two errors. The first is a false dichotomy: you define music within two distinct categories. There is a third which is a combination of vocal and instrumental. All three are encouraged if not commanded in the OT.
The second is false equivalence. You attempt to use the restriction of the priesthood to Levi as a model for the restriction on musical expression in the Church. They simply are not the same thing because the tonal structure is different. One is specifically exclusive, the other is specifically inclusive.
God has effectively stated that priests may only come from the tribe of Levi, so Hebrews 7:14 is not an argument from silence. God has not effectively stated that musical praise may only be vocal.
There are certainly admonishments to use the voice musically in the Church; that is not at issue. You interpret those as restrictive, but you have no biblical warrant to do so.
Were the word (or concept) "only" in any of those passages, you would have a case. It isn't, and you don't.
There is a third problem with your argument, and it is significant: if the instruction "speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" were actually restrictive, it would also preclude speaking to one another without using psalms, etc. In other words, it would require us to "speak musically" at all times in the Church.
I'm sure you don't believe that, let alone practice it. I'm also sure that oversight makes your position hypocritical.
Rewriter, I disagree with your timeline. "Jewish practices" were certainly a point of origin but began to modify almost immediately. After the Day of Pentecost on which the Christian church began there was period of radical change in the Christian/Jewish community. They initially sold their possessions and held all things in common without preference. it was also at this time that the leadership of Jews began to persecute and execute Christians.
Christianity was birthed from within Judaism but but was not a Jewish tradition. The Jew were adamant adherents of the Sabbath while early Christians gave allegiance to the resurrection day, Sunday. While there was a long transition period moving toward anything that looks like 2nd century Christianity, the threads of the earliest practices, worship, organization and theology continued. They did and were adopted to their communities. The African Churches, the levant Churches, the Asian churches and the European Churches shared many common practices but each carried on their own understanding of Church organization, religious practice and culturally conditioned theology. As most of these early Churches were not based on the membership of former Jews they evolved organically from their inception. What Jewish influence there was came from the reading of the Hebrew Bible and an extensive collection of other books later deemed non-canonical by the 4th century Roman captured church.
Where some make a mistake about the impact of Judaism in the early church is they do not understand the Roman fascination with Jewish theology. it is well documented that large swaths of born and bred Roman citizens knew a significant amount about Judaism. That was due to the fact they found Greek Philosophy complex and bereft of clear morality, clarity of purpose. The Hebrew scriptures had only one God and had roots longer than the competitive Greek Philosophy that was the prevailing "religion" of the Roman Empire in the 1st century. That is probably why Paul when writing to mostly Roman citizens quoted the Hebrew Bible over 80 time in his book of Romans. The primary path of conversion in the 1st century was from Greek Philosophy and associated Theology to Christianity. While there were some Jews in the Roman churches, they were never a significant population of Paul's concern for Rome.
As you are well educated on the history of those times, I may point out the Didache as you know was a late first century writing. In it most of what we see that in later pre-Roman churches they are practicing a Christianity that sounds familiar today.
I too note the adoption mechanisms that 2nd century BC Jewish leaders for the inclusion of non-lineage people into the Jewish community. Some of that was driven by politics. Many non-Jewish citizens helped the Maccabeans and later Hasmonean Dynasty succeed. Partly Jewish rulers were put in charge of Judea/Samaria, think King Herod. Thus there was a lot of pressure to find a way to "adopt" people into the Jewish Temple. I believe there was no knowledge or deployment of Torah compliance in the Judean community until about 250 BC. Before that there is no evidence of any Torah compliance in the YHWH worshipping Judeans/Samarians. Thus, just when the synagogue system started about that time, the population of Judea could legitimately call themselves Jews. As I am sure you are aware the term "Jew" as a colloquial name of those living in the Persian province of Yahud. It was not until that 250 BC time range that they began to culturally change from YHWH worshippers into Jews worshiping and living in accord with the Torah.
Might I then ask you what was the purpose of having Paul agree to pay for the believers who were about to complete their oaths at the temple in Jerusalem, which Acts recounts. if the Christian community was so removed from Jewish customs? Paul even had shaved his head, according to Acts, which would be in compliance with some purely Jewish customs.
Note, I am not arguing that there was not movement away from Jewish customs, but Acts records continued observance even after Paul completed his third missionary journey, which fits with the time frame I posted of late 50's early 60's.
As for dating the Didache, that is problematic. It likely falls sometime after the early 70's, but that is about all that can clearly be stated, to be more precise is speculation.