Who Are the Churches of Christ?

[LittlePinky82]

I can appreciate the history lesson on the RM and how the CoC and DoC came about but I think Garrett is correct in his book that there is an air of elitism found within the "brotherhood" today that in my opinion sours the entire movement to restore the church to God's original standards.   

After 30+ years in the CoC I can see where so much of the original principles of RM theology has been reduced to something that looks good on paper and sounds right, but in reality still misses the mark. I'm just not convinced  that our hope of salvation comes from belonging to a church that has RM principles as much as I think it's all about having faith and conviction in Jesus as Lord.

Lively:  There is to be no elitism in the church...  we are all in the church on equal foundation being Christ...  the problems come when those who are not in the church of Christ, have not obeyed the gospel to become a Christian demand that they also be accepted as brethren in good faith... which simply can not happen...


Mat 7:21  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.


Many shall profess in that day they were Christ's... but he will simply state, I never knew you...  Why?  Because they have not obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine delivered unto them to have salvation...  Romans 6:17... which is baptism for the forgiveness of sins.  Acts 2:38.   All of the different and varying faiths we see in this world with varying and different doctrines they adhere to... is witness they are not all holding to the one faith taught by Jesus Christ...  It matters what one believes... one can not be saved by adhering to doctrines of devils...  1Tim 4:1-3  and one certainly can not be saved without ever putting on Christ in baptism... where one is added unto the church... one can not be in Christ's church which is his body without being baptized into Christ to have their sins washed away...


The church of Christ is exclusive... only those obeying the gospel of Jesus Christ are being saved and added to the body of Christ...  God does the adding when the gospel is obeyed...  and God does not add anyone to the church of Christ unless they do the things the gospel teaches them to do to have salvation...  John 3:3-8 does mean exclusivity...  except one be born again, born of the water and the Spirit... he can not enter into the kingdom of God...  being born again therefore is an absolute necessity to enter into the kingdom of Christ which is the church...


What the bible teaches one must do to have salvation...


How to be saved from your sins...

God's Part:

God, in His infinite Love and Mercy, extended GRACE to man at the cross at Calvary. Jesus Christ, the sinless Lamb of God, was crucified shedding his blood for the sins of man, was buried, and rose again the third day victorious over sin and death!
1 Cor 15:1-4 (KJV)

Man's Part:

To HEAR the gospel... So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Rom 10:17 (KJV), Rom 1:16 (KJV)

To have FAITH ... which only comes by hearing the Word of God and without which it is impossible to please God
Rom 10:17 (KJV), Rom 1:16 (KJV), Eph 2:8-10 (KJV), Heb 11:6 (KJV)

To REPENT ... of (turn from) your sins
Luke 13:3-5 (KJV), Acts 2:38 (KJV), Acts 3:19 (KJV), 2 Cor 7:10 (KJV)

To CONFESS ... with your mouth that Jesus Christ is the Son of God
Rom 10:9-10 (KJV), Mat 10:32 (KJV), Luke 12:8 (KJV), Acts 8:37 (KJV)

To be BAPTIZED ... (immersed, in water, not sprinkled) into Jesus Christ to have your sins forgiven (washed away)by the blood of Christ by faith in him.
Mat 28:19-20 (KJV), Mark 16:16 (KJV), John 3:3-5 (KJV), Acts 2:38 (KJV), Acts 8:35-39 (KJV), Acts 10:47-48 (KJV), Acts 22:16 (KJV), Rom 6:3-17 (KJV), 1 Cor 12:13 (KJV), 1 Cor 15:29 (KJV), Gal 3:27 (KJV), Eph 4:5 (KJV), Eph 5:26 (KJV), Col 2:11-13 (KJV), 1 Pet 3:20-21 (KJV)

To CONTINUE in faith ... to live a faithful life in Christ and not allow yourself to be moved away from the hope of the Gospel
Acts 14:22 (KJV), Col 1:23 (KJV), Rev 3:5 (KJV)

That's what  my COC has taught since it's foundation and something you learn in junior high I believe.  Maybe even late elementary.  Can't remember. I just remember hearing it all the time.

[Livelysword]

I can appreciate the history lesson on the RM and how the CoC and DoC came about but I think Garrett is correct in his book that there is an air of elitism found within the "brotherhood" today that in my opinion sours the entire movement to restore the church to God's original standards.   

After 30+ years in the CoC I can see where so much of the original principles of RM theology has been reduced to something that looks good on paper and sounds right, but in reality still misses the mark. I'm just not convinced  that our hope of salvation comes from belonging to a church that has RM principles as much as I think it's all about having faith and conviction in Jesus as Lord.

Well remember the first Christian's met in each other's homes and didn't belong to a church.  Church isn't the building but it's the fellowship.

Lively:  And here I had thought the first Christians were meeting at the temple in Jerusalem...


Act 5:12  And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.

[Johnb]

Lively
Yous ask where else in scripture they "broke bread" other than the first day.

42They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

This is the same Greek phrase "breaking bread" used in Acts 20:7.  We know from I Cor 11 that it was common in NT times to have the LS as part of a larger meal.  It was introduced during the passover meal and it seems that early Christians did the same.   There is just as much evidence that breaking bread in Acts 2 is the LS as in Acts 20.   

[Livelysword]

Lively
Yous ask where else in scripture they "broke bread" other than the first day.

42They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

This is the same Greek phrase "breaking bread" used in Acts 20:7.  We know from I Cor 11 that it was common in NT times to have the LS as part of a larger meal.  It was introduced during the passover meal and it seems that early Christians did the same.   There is just as much evidence that breaking bread in Acts 2 is the LS as in Acts 20.   

Lively:  Verse 42 is speaking of the LS... verse 46 is speaking of a common meal... that done from house to house... not when they were coming together at the temple...   Acts 20:7 is again the LS... they came together to break bread... not break up and run home to break bread from house to house...  after Paul had preached and the lad fell down from the third loft... they came back up and broke bread... since its after midnight... again its a common meal... otherwise they had not come together upon the first day of the week to break bread... but actually waited until the second day of the week...  now, discern between the both which is the LS and which is a common meal...  1Cor 11 shows they came together to break bread as well, and were told to eat their common meal at home since they were confusing the LS for eating a common meal...  if any man hunger, let him eat at home...  honestly, if you study this hard... look at the little things... I believe you can accept that which the scriptures does teach... remember, the phrase breaking bread also was used for common meals...  but we need to discern the LS from a common meal... how do we do it?  Look for the clues which make distinction...  if they are meeting as a gathering of the church upon the first day of the week... it is most likely speaking of the LS... if any time other then the first day of the week... it is not speaking of the LS...  the idea of eating their "Meat" from "House to House"  brings two clues to me... which state its not the LS but a common meal...   Hope this has been a help and that you will receive it...


Lively

[HRoberson]

I can appreciate the history lesson on the RM and how the CoC and DoC came about but I think Garrett is correct in his book that there is an air of elitism found within the "brotherhood" today that in my opinion sours the entire movement to restore the church to God's original standards.   

After 30+ years in the CoC I can see where so much of the original principles of RM theology has been reduced to something that looks good on paper and sounds right, but in reality still misses the mark. I'm just not convinced  that our hope of salvation comes from belonging to a church that has RM principles as much as I think it's all about having faith and conviction in Jesus as Lord.

Well remember the first Christian's met in each other's homes and didn't belong to a church.  Church isn't the building but it's the fellowship.

Lively:  And here I had thought the first Christians were meeting at the temple in Jerusalem...


Act 5:12  And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.

I'm thinking Solomon's porch wouldn't hold 3000 to 7000 people at one time. At least not comfortably with all those other (non-believing) Jews wondering around.

[Livelysword]

I can appreciate the history lesson on the RM and how the CoC and DoC came about but I think Garrett is correct in his book that there is an air of elitism found within the "brotherhood" today that in my opinion sours the entire movement to restore the church to God's original standards.   

After 30+ years in the CoC I can see where so much of the original principles of RM theology has been reduced to something that looks good on paper and sounds right, but in reality still misses the mark. I'm just not convinced  that our hope of salvation comes from belonging to a church that has RM principles as much as I think it's all about having faith and conviction in Jesus as Lord.

Well remember the first Christian's met in each other's homes and didn't belong to a church.  Church isn't the building but it's the fellowship.

Lively:  And here I had thought the first Christians were meeting at the temple in Jerusalem...


Act 5:12  And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.

I'm thinking Solomon's porch wouldn't hold 3000 to 7000 people at one time. At least not comfortably with all those other (non-believing) Jews wondering around.

Lively?  Speculation...


Act 5:12  And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.

[Mere Nick]

Probably not speculation.  Our entire congregation could be all with one accord somewhere and still have folks in the same location who are not part of the congregation. 

[HRoberson]

I can appreciate the history lesson on the RM and how the CoC and DoC came about but I think Garrett is correct in his book that there is an air of elitism found within the "brotherhood" today that in my opinion sours the entire movement to restore the church to God's original standards.   

After 30+ years in the CoC I can see where so much of the original principles of RM theology has been reduced to something that looks good on paper and sounds right, but in reality still misses the mark. I'm just not convinced  that our hope of salvation comes from belonging to a church that has RM principles as much as I think it's all about having faith and conviction in Jesus as Lord.

Well remember the first Christian's met in each other's homes and didn't belong to a church.  Church isn't the building but it's the fellowship.

Lively:  And here I had thought the first Christians were meeting at the temple in Jerusalem...


Act 5:12  And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.

I'm thinking Solomon's porch wouldn't hold 3000 to 7000 people at one time. At least not comfortably with all those other (non-believing) Jews wondering around.

Lively?  Speculation...


Act 5:12  And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.

My dear Lively.....have you seen the Temple in Jerusalem? Do you really think all those folks camped in the Temple every day?

Or perhaps, the statement isn't quite to be taken literally, but rather generally.

[Livelysword]

Probably not speculation.  Our entire congregation could be all with one accord somewhere and still have folks in the same location who are not part of the congregation. 

Lively:  I agree, the Christians and Jews both could be in that location...  as well as Gentiles as well... in the court of the Gentiles that is... but still there at the temple..  it was a very big place...

[Livelysword]

I can appreciate the history lesson on the RM and how the CoC and DoC came about but I think Garrett is correct in his book that there is an air of elitism found within the "brotherhood" today that in my opinion sours the entire movement to restore the church to God's original standards.   

After 30+ years in the CoC I can see where so much of the original principles of RM theology has been reduced to something that looks good on paper and sounds right, but in reality still misses the mark. I'm just not convinced  that our hope of salvation comes from belonging to a church that has RM principles as much as I think it's all about having faith and conviction in Jesus as Lord.

Well remember the first Christian's met in each other's homes and didn't belong to a church.  Church isn't the building but it's the fellowship.

Lively:  And here I had thought the first Christians were meeting at the temple in Jerusalem...


Act 5:12  And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.

I'm thinking Solomon's porch wouldn't hold 3000 to 7000 people at one time. At least not comfortably with all those other (non-believing) Jews wondering around.

Lively?  Speculation...


Act 5:12  And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.

My dear Lively.....have you seen the Temple in Jerusalem? Do you really think all those folks camped in the Temple every day?

Or perhaps, the statement isn't quite to be taken literally, but rather generally.

Lively:  It is what the bible says it is...


Act 5:42  And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.

[Johnb]

Anyone who has done a study in textural criticism would know "that which is perfect" is not the bible.  It is inspired and relates the good news but i9t is not perfect (without error).

[Livelysword]

Anyone who has done a study in textural criticism would know "that which is perfect" is not the bible.  It is inspired and relates the good news but i9t is not perfect (without error).

Lively:  Actually, that is the only thing if one did a study and thought it through carefully, that they would come to understand...  recall, Paul is speaking to the Cornithians and says he is about to show them a better way then the Spiritual gifts...  it is obviously not speaking of when Christ comes back...  the word "that" which is perfect... is Neuter...  Is Christ neuter in gender?  What could Paul possibly be referring to when he states, that which is perfect...



Jas 1:22  But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
Jas 1:23  For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
Jas 1:24  For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
Jas 1:25  But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.


Psa 19:7  The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.


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;



Eph 4:11  And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Eph 4:12  For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Eph 4:13  Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:


2Pe 1:15  Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.


2Pe 3:15  And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16  As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17  Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
2Pe 3:18  But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.



Why would Peter and Paul need to write anything if man could simply just continue to be taught by the Holy Ghost?  It is because there was about to be a time coming in which they would no more be taught by the Holy Spirit... so the word of God was  written so you could have it to read and study and understand the mystery... and they could have it in remembrance of what the apostles had taught..  the reason they would need it in remembrance is because prophecy, tongues and direct knowledge was to cease soon... which is why Paul is showing unto them a better way...


1Co 12:28  And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
1Co 12:29  Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
1Co 12:30  Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
1Co 12:31  But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.


1Co 13:8  Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
1Co 13:9  For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
1Co 13:10  But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.


The gifts of the Holy Spirit were in part...  its about knowing and prophesying...  which was to cease... therefore you will need the written word of God to know the Mind of the Lord and the written word is the only thing anyone has had since such gifts ceased...  that which was perfect was to come before that which is in part was done away... the gifts have long been done away with... and Christ is not here yet... and its been about 1900 years since...  the last we know who prophesied was John when he was given Revelation..

[HRoberson]

I can appreciate the history lesson on the RM and how the CoC and DoC came about but I think Garrett is correct in his book that there is an air of elitism found within the "brotherhood" today that in my opinion sours the entire movement to restore the church to God's original standards.   

After 30+ years in the CoC I can see where so much of the original principles of RM theology has been reduced to something that looks good on paper and sounds right, but in reality still misses the mark. I'm just not convinced  that our hope of salvation comes from belonging to a church that has RM principles as much as I think it's all about having faith and conviction in Jesus as Lord.

Well remember the first Christian's met in each other's homes and didn't belong to a church.  Church isn't the building but it's the fellowship.

Lively:  And here I had thought the first Christians were meeting at the temple in Jerusalem...


Act 5:12  And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.

I'm thinking Solomon's porch wouldn't hold 3000 to 7000 people at one time. At least not comfortably with all those other (non-believing) Jews wondering around.

Lively?  Speculation...


Act 5:12  And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.

My dear Lively.....have you seen the Temple in Jerusalem? Do you really think all those folks camped in the Temple every day?

Or perhaps, the statement isn't quite to be taken literally, but rather generally.

Lively:  It is what the bible says it is...


Act 5:42  And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.

As long as we're just arguing, I suppose we could posit just about anything.

But if we look at the Temple Mount, it becomes quite clear that 7,000 people aren't going to be "in Solomon's Porch" at one time. Solomon's Porch was only a part of the Temple. While the Temple Mount itself covers about 35 acres, Josephus tells us that the actual Temple compound was about 8 acres, and included the Temple itself as well as the various courts and out buildings. Any diagram of the Temple compound indicates that there is little extra space once the building and courts are subtracted. Solomon's Porch is either a large colonnaded area along one wall, or a colonnaded area around the Eastern gate to the compound. Solomon's Porch does not cover 8 acres, much less 35.

It may be possible to consider "Solomon's Porch" as a reference to the entire Mount, but then we have a problem that the Bible doesn't say exactly what it means and we would then be allowed to consider "all" and "daily" to refer to something other than "every resident believer" and "every day."

...or maybe we're too connected to the text rather than the message.

[blituri]

Why would you "imagine" 7000 people? Most of those converts were pilgrims and pilgrims go home. When too many dallied around Jerusalem they had a feeding problem. I would think about the time frame from the 5,000 to Solomon's porch. I would gather people coming and going without an opening prayer.

[HRoberson]

Ahh... good observation. However, it is clear that in chapter 4 we have 5000 men, and then in 5.14, we are told that there are "multitudes." Shortly, we are told that the Jewish leaders are afraid because there are great numbers of people that are being swayed.

I'm thinking this is more than a hundred or so folks.

More likely though, for this passage, is that the mention of the Temple is simply a regular device for Luke. He introduces people and ideas early, and then develops the theme. We are told in the verse under consideration that the believers met in the Temple. Then, almost immediately, we're told about a few stories that occur in the Temple.

The "...they were all in the Temple" is used as a literary device to introduce the thread of discussion.