Baptism form of doctrine...

[DCR]

DCR, greetings in Christ from rainy Texas,

you said..

In that case, be very careful about recklessly making claims that are not verifiable.

My response-- why? to please you--I gave you what I knew--As far as I am concerned it is verified..That you cannot is not my problem.

Actually, I was not reckless I was pretty calm and deliberate--If you are not sure next time just ask..

It's not about "pleasing me."  It's about providing the evidence to back up your claims.  There's no need to get into a huff about it.  I would be curious to see a group out there that existed "separate and apart" from the Restoration Movement that is identical enough with your particular views in practice and doctrine for you to be any more comfortable with them than any of the better known mainline "denominations."  The schisms in the Russian Orthodox Church would likely, for the most part, use icons and some of the traditional liturgies of the Orthodox faith.  The same holds true for the Ethiopian Orthodox Church or perhaps some local schisms in that part of the world.  And, the Orthodox commonly baptize infants, unless you have evidence that a particular split-off group decided to start practicing believer's baptism instead.  Does the group partake of the Lord's Supper only on the first day of the week?  Do they have the same view of the Lord's Supper as you, or do they likely subscribe to "Real Presence" as the rest of the Orthodox do?  All these questions have to be answered before you can decide how much they're like "Churches of Christ" in practice and belief.  Perhaps, you've had all these questions answered to your satisfaction.  But, that's what I'm trying to determine.  I do wonder, though, how thoroughly you were able to accomplish that by spending a mere "two hours" on the group and then moving on (your words).  That's not much time for exhaustive research on all the possible issues you might otherwise consider to be tests of fellowship.  Just wondering.

you said
If the claims are dubious and not verifiable, then you haven't made the point you were trying to make by bringing them up in the first place.

My response--First and always foremost--NOT A big deal AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED..my statements are not dubious and are verifible--you just have not done a very good job --sometimes one has to look a while--sometimes one has to look in books sometimes...

Now, I am not even going to go through my files. Thanks for saving me several hours of looking.
You know not everything is on the internet...

I know not everything is on the internet.  I'm just looking for some additional information... something to go on for further research.

And, whether you believe or not is also most irrevelant at this point in time. Well, not totally because you saved me a lot of work and I thank you for it.

Again the basis for salvation is not based on what others have done in the past.

It is enough for me to be involved in the work in Ethopia and to have the fact come to light that we had not come up with a formula for evangelism that was out of this world. The folks on the ground figured it out because they knew they were not doing it--had to come from somewhere--in this case pre existence of the church.



Scoobydoo

Have you identified a church that existed apart from any influence of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement, that has all of the following traits:

1) Adult (Believer's/non-infant) baptism for the purpose of remission of sins
2) Observance of the Lord's Supper on every first day of the week and only on the first day of the week
3) A representative view of the Lord's Supper (in other words, not subscribing to views of Real Presence, commonly held in the Orthodox faith).
3) No use of creeds (most churches with any ancient lineage subscribe to the early creeds such as Nicean, Apostles, Athanasian, etc.)
4) A style of worship you would feel comfortable participating in... we're talking potentially about a lot of liturgy, priestly vestments, etc., even if these church may or may not use instrumental music in any way)

...just to list a few issues.  There are many more questions we could ask.  Do they have exactly the same canon of Scripture you use (Genesis through Malachi in the OT and Matthew through Revelation in the NT... with no additional books)?  Would you have a problem if it were a little different?

I'm sure you might find two or three issues to agree with some ancient isolated group somewhere.  But, do you agree with the complete package of any group that existed completely separately from any influence of the Restoration Movement?  Or, have you done all the exhaustive research on one of these groups to make that determination?

[Scoobydoo]

DCR, greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,

Not being raised in the churches of Christ...I may have more room for some things than others who were raised in the church do.  Don't know.

I would have problems finding two preachers in the cofC who agree on everything.

My research was on Rev 201-5 not church history. I was interested enough to go find three books no internet at the time and read parts of them.

The russians as I remember it..had a most different name. There was an association I think with a picture of a church of Christ from 1710 here in America.

Howerever with the churches in Ethopia--I vaguely remember one of our publications at the time doing some looking at that.  I knew it due to the missionaries we were supporting at the time. The conversion rate was staggering..until they talked to enough of the natives to figure it out.  By the way they did not wear any name until we came along.  Yet I am sure they had some way in identifiying themsevles among themselves.

What I now try to do is not to measure all churches of Christ by the American version\culture that are overseas.
The bible is pretty clear as to what God wants..And that God is more than able to keep His church during all the ages..

Scoobydoo

[Livelysword]

DCR, greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,

Not being raised in the churches of Christ...I may have more room for some things than others who were raised in the church do.  Don't know.

I would have problems finding two preachers in the cofC who agree on everything.

My research was on Rev 201-5 not church history. I was interested enough to go find three books no internet at the time and read parts of them.

The russians as I remember it..had a most different name. There was an association I think with a picture of a church of Christ from 1710 here in America.

Howerever with the churches in Ethopia--I vaguely remember one of our publications at the time doing some looking at that.  I knew it due to the missionaries we were supporting at the time. The conversion rate was staggering..until they talked to enough of the natives to figure it out.  By the way they did not wear any name until we came along.  Yet I am sure they had some way in identifiying themsevles among themselves.

What I now try to do is not to measure all churches of Christ by the American version\culture that are overseas.
The bible is pretty clear as to what God wants..And that God is more than able to keep His church during all the ages..

Scoobydoo

Lively:  While God is perfectly capable of keeping his church in all ages, does not necessitate that he did... but it also does not mean he did not.  I found this link on the internet when I went looking...   http://churchofchrist-cg-az.com/History-Church.html

[zoonance]

God would have had to keep the real church real without the benefit of the bible since only a few copies were even available and it was only available in selective hands.  That reality is extremely ironic given the only way to "prove" the true church today is with those very writings.

[Livelysword]

God would have had to keep the real church real without the benefit of the bible since only a few copies were even available and it was only available in selective hands.  That reality is extremely ironic given the only way to "prove" the true church today is with those very writings.

Lively:  He kept it real without the written word during the first century when they wrote the written word.  Then the gifts were to cease.  That is simply biblical fact.

[Scoobydoo]

Greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,

One thing we tend to forget since we live in a tench society is that oral tradition was a very big and normal thing in those days.
it isn't until the printing press that oral traditions begin to change

Scoobydoo

[Johnb]

Every played I have a secret and send a message through 10-20 folks and see what come out at the end?  Now try that with hundreds of thousands over many centuries.  (weather is great took grand kids on the ferry over to ft Gains today. )

[Scoobydoo]

Johnb greetings in Chist from sunny Texas,

What you say is true enough for us today but not for folks then.. That was their retreival service their storage.

Scoobydo

[Johnb]

Human natuture and ability has not changed.  Oral tradition may get the general story but not the specifics you want in the "one true church".   You are a nice guy scooby just not right on all things.

[zoonance]

God would have had to keep the real church real without the benefit of the bible since only a few copies were even available and it was only available in selective hands.  That reality is extremely ironic given the only way to "prove" the true church today is with those very writings.

Lively:  He kept it real without the written word during the first century when they wrote the written word.  Then the gifts were to cease.  That is simply biblical fact.

What about the second through the 19th century?

[Livelysword]

God would have had to keep the real church real without the benefit of the bible since only a few copies were even available and it was only available in selective hands.  That reality is extremely ironic given the only way to "prove" the true church today is with those very writings.

Lively:  He kept it real without the written word during the first century when they wrote the written word.  Then the gifts were to cease.  That is simply biblical fact.

What about the second through the 19th century?

Lively:  From the first century on, since the days of the apostles and prophets, we have the written word...  that is what they had...  that is what those in the second century used, such as Polycarp...  the written word.


Eph 3:2  If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Eph 3:3  How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
Eph 3:4  Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Eph 3:5  Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;


We were also told by Jude...


Jud 1:3  Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.


Nothing has been delivered since Revelation... the books of the NT is what we are to earnestly contend for.  For in it is the faith which was once delivered unto the Saints.

[Scoobydoo]

Johnb, greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,

Well, I hope you are enjoying the beach--I am learning about trauma healing examples for kids and meetings all afternoon.

While it is true that human nature has not changed much...but human nature would insist on correctness in the oral tradition.

Let me see--I am not one who goes to plays but one play existed some 600 years orally before being written down. Writing was a luxurary in those days. That was a very long time ago.

And as with the written, God is able to keep the oral presentation in tact.  While the internet has done many neat and marvelous things for us--I believe it is going to do even better and a lot of things we cannot put a hand on now--will be better understood in the future--including more and better research on the  Lord's church during the ages.

My example of the Ethopian people is good one since it had been preserved for centuries until we came along and it still exists even today.

And the bank robber is a great example of the word reproducing itself when ever it is taught and followed.

Scoobydoo

[Johnb]

A good church history or how we got the bible class might help but I doubt it.

[Johnb]

Scooby
The idea that we must follow your conclusions from the written word only then accept oral tradition and unproven uchurch history on blind faith does not seem consistant and that is why it is not part of my theology. 

PS the weather is great could not have ordered a better week.

[DCR]

Johnb, greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,

Well, I hope you are enjoying the beach--I am learning about trauma healing examples for kids and meetings all afternoon.

While it is true that human nature has not changed much...but human nature would insist on correctness in the oral tradition.

Let me see--I am not one who goes to plays but one play existed some 600 years orally before being written down. Writing was a luxurary in those days. That was a very long time ago.

And as with the written, God is able to keep the oral presentation in tact.  While the internet has done many neat and marvelous things for us--I believe it is going to do even better and a lot of things we cannot put a hand on now--will be better understood in the future--including more and better research on the  Lord's church during the ages.

My example of the Ethopian people is good one since it had been preserved for centuries until we came along and it still exists even today.

That's exactly what the Catholic and Orthodox Churches would say... and, they would claim to be that church preserved by "tradition" to this day.

And the bank robber is a great example of the word reproducing itself when ever it is taught and followed.

I may have missed your explanation of this example.  What is the situation with the bank robber?  I might assume you refer to someone who came to certain conclusions on his own by study of the Bible.  Perhaps, he believed, repented, confessed, and requested baptism.  Those aren't particularly hard conclusions to draw from New Testament as a response to the Gospel.  But, I wonder how likely someone from scratch could recreate the church in its entirety with all the necessary hallmarks, drawing all the "right" conclusions about every issue, without some sort of "guidance."