Author Topic: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?  (Read 8382 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AnthonyB

  • Disciple of Jesus
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
G'day, I'm from Australia, this is probably my forum, I came to faith in Jesus and was baptised into Him at an australian Church of Christ (a conference aligned CofC). Oddly enough despite the fact that from this distance I feel like I have very little in common with the DoC's I 've been told I have the most in common with them of all the RM groups in the US.

Are there any DoC's willing to describe them or anyone with a good knowledge of the DoC's to answer my questions?

Like when did robes and scarves become so wide spread? (Doesn't that undermine the priesthood of all believers?)

When did pastors become "reverends"? (In Australian terms that is one of the differences between CoC and Bapos, they have "reverends")

Have you really given up on even the dream of restoring the NT church?

Do any of your churches still believe that baptism cannot be performed on infants?


Christian Forums and Message Board


Offline zoonance

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8529
  • Manna: 233
  • Gender: Male
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #1 on: Fri Jan 08, 2010 - 07:08:02 »
I hope you get some responses.  My son has an interview with a local DOC for their youth minister position.  He graduated from OCC and grew up in the coc tradition.  He has witnessed the worst and best of us, so he isn't as loyal to the "true" church (kidding of course) as many others would demand of him.

Offline AnthonyB

  • Disciple of Jesus
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #2 on: Fri Jan 08, 2010 - 14:14:04 »
zoonance,

Maybe you can get your son to post a response?

I'm currently at a Bapo church but am thinking of going back to the CofC cause I really admired the elders in the church I grew up and the ethos of the church I grew up in.

It really seems to upset the acapella CofC that the conference churches still use Church of Christ cause that is the name of their "true"  church. Oddly enough they add non biblical words like independent or nondenominational.

The splitts in the US and the way the chuhes are divided really perplexes me. I've got a feeling I might feel more at home at a ICC/CoC  then a DoC.

blituri

  • Guest
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #3 on: Tue Jan 12, 2010 - 21:07:56 »
I believe that it is "generally" true that the Disciples of Christ have more Anglican / Catholic roots.  James O'Kelly was an early leader in the "Christian" church movement. He was not able to tolerate the Methodist Bishop's domination of his work and  he split off.  Much of Tennessee was influenced by  Him.

The Christian Connexion in the North East also fed the Disciples / Christian churches.  The denominational organization -- as a Disciple's paper suggests -- was brought in from earlier Baptists groups.

The Church of Christ which had long existed especially in England and as continued by the Campbells had more Reformation roots from the Presbyterians.  John Calvin had moved a long way and called for a Restoration of the Church of Christ.  Contrary to the Disciples/Christian churches claim, restoration had no intention of copying any first century congregation most of which seem to be examples of how NOT to be a "school of the Bible" or synagogue in Paul's writing.  Calvin's Restoration began by just REMOVING all of the acts and language which had been added without commands or examples.  Much of this as confessed by the Catholic Encyclopedia including the "liturgical" acts and devices including music was imposed "because they were common to all pagan cults."

The modern churches do not grasp that the Catholic church never did "congregational singing with organ accompaniment."  I am trying to post all of Calvin's RESTORATION ROOTS:

http://www.piney.com/Calvin-Reform-1.html

The early Disciples also became pretty "millenniel."  William Miller caused quite a stir in the 1830's by prophesying a date certain for Christ to return. The Disciples understood that Jesus would not be ABLE to return until all of the Jews were converted. This led to a real push for organization to SAVE all of the Jews to enable the return of Christ. It turned out the Jews didn't want to be saved. This was the Great Disappointment.  During this time Alexander Campbell did an expose of all of the millenniel theories.  I am reading Ellen G. White's really rambling attempt to justify why the BAD PRESS caused them to miss an important event before Jesus could return.  The "unity" movement within the Church of Christ works with the NACC and promotes the use of instrumental music and the "apolyptic" term which means that we should actively UNITE to make it easier for Jesus Christ to return. 

This and the organizational dominance led to the Christian Churches splitting off from 1927 to 1971. It is a historic fact that while what became the Church of Christ brushed up against the Disciples/Christian churches, not even normal dialog was possible after the organs began to split the Disciples.

The Church of Christ had been collectively known as Churches of Christ. After the Christian churches split from the Disciples, many had called themselves Church of Christ.  However it happened, the NACC took the name Christian Church / churches of Christ with lots of confusion.

The Disciples claim ownership of "the law of silence" and "traditionalism" and claim "history" of church councils as in addition to the Bible as their source of faith and practice.

There were many other groups which touched what became the Second Great Awakening but it is not true that the Church of Christ ever BELONGED to the denominational organization of the Disciples or the looser group called NACC.




Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12471
  • Manna: 226
  • Gender: Male
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #4 on: Mon Feb 01, 2010 - 17:55:13 »
As usual Piney history is wrong.

I now attend a Christian church (DOC) and Barton W. Stone is to us as The Campbells are to the CoC branch.  Actually it was Tomas and Alexander Campbell that preferred the name disciples and Stone liked Christian church or Church of Christ.  There are still many of the older Christian churches that have the name in cement on the building
"Christian church/Church of Christ"  There was disagreement over IM back before the civil war.  They remained in fellowship but the civil war helped drive a wedge.  Many of the non IM churches started using the name Church of Christ exclusively.  The split was recognized officially in the 1906 census.  The next major split came in 1957 when the conservative Christian church parted ways with the Christian Church (DoC).  It is a moot point to claim one was the original and the other split off.

I  think we don't have many DoC folks here because they are not that fond of religious debate.  They would rather find a way to get along.  Also I think many who leave the CoC end up some where besides a RM church.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #4 on: Mon Feb 01, 2010 - 17:55:13 »



Offline AnthonyB

  • Disciple of Jesus
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #5 on: Tue Feb 02, 2010 - 01:59:03 »
Thanks for your reply.

Didn't get much church history growing up but the only figure I'd heard of was Alexander Campbell. Too be perfectly honest Stone's thoughts on the nature of God probably would make wary of claiming him too closely.

The Australian churches have as yet had no major divisions, maybe the conferences helped tie the churches together. From what I read the churches here are a mixture of UK CofC, Scotch Baptist and the DoC's.


Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12471
  • Manna: 226
  • Gender: Male
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #6 on: Thu Feb 11, 2010 - 21:14:25 »
Could you explain what you mean when you refer to Stone's  thought on he nature of God?

Offline DCR

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11300
  • Manna: 432
  • Gender: Male
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #7 on: Sat Feb 13, 2010 - 08:38:24 »
I think he expressed misgivings concerning the doctrine of the Trinity.

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12471
  • Manna: 226
  • Gender: Male
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #8 on: Sun Feb 14, 2010 - 07:53:33 »
yes I am aware of his views on the trinity.  However, since like he said it is not found in the bible and is dependent on human reason why would one make it a matter of faith?  I know Stone would not make it a test of fellowship either way.

Offline Ryan2010

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 19
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Christ Conquers
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #9 on: Mon Feb 15, 2010 - 08:58:30 »
A wiki-laden DOC historical gumbo to consume at one's leisure:  

The early history of The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is shared by two other groups, The Churches of Christ and the independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. They all emerged from the same roots. The Stone-Campbell movement began as two separate threads, each without knowledge of the other, during the Second Great Awakening in the early 19th century. The first, led by Barton W. Stone began at Cane Ridge, Bourbon County, Kentucky. The group called themselves simply Christians. The second, began in western Pennsylvania and Virginia (now West Virginia), led by Thomas Campbell and his son, Alexander Campbell. Because the founders wanted to abandon all denominational labels, they used the biblical names for the followers of Jesus that they found in the Bible.

*

The Restoration Movement (also known as the American Restoration Movement or the Stone-Campbell Movement) is a Christian movement that began on the American frontier during the Second Great Awakening of the early 19th century. The movement sought to restore the church and "the unification of all Christians in a single body patterned after the church of the New Testament."[1]:54

The Restoration Movement developed from several independent efforts to return to apostolic Christianity, but two groups, which independently developed similar approaches to the Christian faith, were particularly important to the development of the movement.[2]:27-32 The first, led by Barton W. Stone, began at Cane Ridge, Kentucky and called themselves simply "Christians". The second began in western Pennsylvania and Virginia (now West Virginia) and was led by Thomas Campbell and his son, Alexander Campbell; they used the name "Disciples of Christ". Both groups sought to restore the whole Christian church on the pattern set forth in the New Testament, and both believed that creeds kept Christianity divided. In 1832 they joined in fellowship with a handshake.

The Restoration Movement has since divided into multiple separate groups. There are three main branches in the U.S.: the Churches of Christ, the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Some see divisions in the movement as the result of the tension between the goals of restoration and ecumenism, with the Churches of Christ and Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ resolving the tension by stressing restoration, while the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) resolved the tension by stressing ecumenism.[4]:383 A number of groups outside the U.S. also have historical associations with this movement, such as the Evangelical Christian Church in Canada and the Churches of Christ in Australia.

**

The ideal of restoring a "primitive" form of Christianity grew in popularity in the U.S. after the American Revolution. This desire to restore a purer form of Christianity played a role in the development of many groups during the Second Great Awakening, including the Mormons, Baptists and Shakers.  Several factors made the restoration sentiment particularly appealing during this time period.

    * To immigrants in the early 19th century, the land in America seemed pristine, edenic and undefiled - "the perfect place to recover pure, uncorrupted and original Christianity" - and the tradition-bound European churches seemed out of place in this new setting.[7]:90
    * The new American democracy seemed equally fresh and pure, a restoration of the kind of just government that God intended.[7]:90,91
    * Many believed that the new nation usher in a new millennial age.[7]:91,92
    * Independence from the traditional churches of Europe was appealing to many Americans who were enjoying a new political independence.[7]:92,93
    * A primitive faith based on the Bible alone promised a way sidestep the competing claims of all the many denominations available and find assurance of being right without the security of an established national church.

**

Barton Warren Stone (December 24, 1772-November 9, 1844) was an important preacher during the Second Great Awakening of the early 19th century. He became first a Presbyterian minister, then was expelled for his beliefs in faith as the sole prerequisite for salvation, after the Cane Ridge, Kentucky revival. He became allied with Alexander Campbell, forming the Restoration Movement. His followers were first called "New Lights" and "Stoneites".

**

The Springfield Presbytery was an independent presbytery that became one of the earliest expressions of the Stone-Campbell Movement. It was composed of Presbyterian ministers who withdrew from the jurisdiction of the Presbyterian Synod of Kentucky on September 10, 1803.[1]:696 It dissolved itself on June 28, 1804, with the publication of a document titled the Last Will and Testament of The Springfield Presbytery, marking the birth of the Christian Church of the West.

**

Thomas Campbell was a student of the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke.[3]:82 While he did not explicitly use the term "essentials," in the Declaration and Address, Campbell proposed the same solution to religious division as had been advanced earlier by Herbert and Locke: "[R]educe religion to a set of essentials upon which all reasonable persons might agree."[3]:80 The essentials he identified were those practices for which the Bible provided "a 'Thus saith the Lord,' either in express terms of by approved precedent."[3]:81 Unlike Locke, who saw the earlier efforts by Puritans as inherently divisive, Campbell argued for "a complete restoration of apostolic Christianity."[3]:82 Thomas believed that creeds served to divide Christians. He also believed that the Bible was clear enough that anyone could understand it and, thus, creeds were unnecessary.[4]:114

Thomas Campbell combined the Enlightenment approach to unity with the Reformed and Puritan traditions of restoration.[3]:82,106 The Enlightenment affected the Campbell movement in two ways. First, it provided the idea that Christian unity could be achieved by finding a set of essentials that all reasonable people could agree on. The second was the concept of a rational faith that was formulated and defended on the basis of a set of facts derived from the Bible.[3]:85,86

**

In 1809, Thomas Campbell, a Presbyterian minister who had emigrated from Scotland to western Pennsylvania, established the Christian Association of Washington as a result of his groundbreaking theological treatise, entitled "The Declaration and Address of the Christian Association of Washington." On May 4, 1811, the Association constituted itself as a congregationally governed church. It constructed a meeting house which became known as the Brush Run Church. It, along with the Cane Ridge Meeting House in Paris, KY, is considered to be one of the first churches in the Christian group which later became known as the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).[1]

For nearly fifteen years the Brush Run Church served as the principle worship and communion location for the Thomas Campbell(father) and Alexander(son) inspired and led portion of an American frontier reform movement called at various times and in varying locations: The New Reformation; The disciples of Christ; the Reformers; the Primitive New Testament Church; the Restoration Movement; the Brotherhood; the Church (or Churches) of Christ; the Campbellites; the Christians -- as well as other labels attempting an identification depicting the central message or emphasis of the Movement.

At the first meeting in the Brush Run Church, June 16, 1811, three people requested immersion. Inasmuch as they had not previously been sprinkled Thomas Campbell baptized them. The birth of Alexander Campbell's first child, March 13, 1812, made the question of infant baptism of vital importance to him. He restudied the whole question and became convinced that infant baptism is without New Testament sanction. He decided that the child should not be sprinkled. This raised a further question in his mind. If infant baptism is without New Testament sanction, then one who was sprinkled in infancy has not been baptized. On June 12, 1812, Thomas and Alexander Campbell, their wives, and three others were immersed by a Baptist preacher in Buffalo Creek on a simple confession of faith in Christ.

**

Walter Scott (1796-April 23, 1861) was one of the four key early leaders in the Restoration Movement, along with Barton W. Stone, Thomas Campbell and Thomas' son Alexander Campbell.[1]:673 He was a successful evangelist and helped to stabilize the Campbell movement as it was separating from the Baptists.

**

John Locke ( 29 August 1632 – 28 October 1704), widely known as the Father of Liberalism, was an English philosopher and physician regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers. Considered the first of the British empiricists, he is equally important to social contract theory. His work had a great impact upon the development of epistemology and political philosophy. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. His contributions to classical republicanism and liberal theory are reflected in the American Declaration of Independence.

Locke's theory of mind is often cited as the origin of modern conceptions of identity and the self, figuring prominently in the work of later philosophers such as Hume, Rousseau and Kant. Locke was the first to define the self through a continuity of consciousness. He postulated that the mind was a blank slate or tabula rasa. Contrary to pre-existing Cartesian philosophy, he maintained that we are born without innate ideas, and that knowledge is instead determined only by experience derived from sense perception.

Locke exercised a profound influence on political philosophy, in particular on modern liberalism. Michael Zuckert has argued that Locke launched liberalism by tempering Hobbesian absolutism and clearly separating the realms of Church and State. He had a strong influence on Voltaire who called him "le sage Locke". His arguments concerning liberty and the social contract later influenced the written works of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and other Founding Fathers of the United States. In fact, several passages from the Second Treatise are reproduced verbatim in the Declaration of Independence, most notably the reference to a "long train of abuses." Such was Locke's influence that Thomas Jefferson wrote: "Bacon, Locke and Newton ... I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception, and as having laid the foundation of those superstructures which have been raised in the Physical and Moral sciences". Today, most contemporary libertarians claim Locke as an influence.

Locke, writing his Letters Concerning Toleration (1689-92) in the aftermath of the European wars of religion, formulated a classic reasoning for religious tolerance. Three arguments are central: (1) Earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth-claims of competing religious standpoints; (2) Even if they could, enforcing a single "true religion" would not have the desired effect, because belief cannot be compelled by violence; (3) Coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity.


*** And I would say that these THREE are at THE very roots of the DOC in regards to practical, ideological, cultural and intellectual "influence":  

1.) The Whig party slowly evolved during the 18th century. The Whig tendency supported the great aristocratic families, the Protestant Hanoverian succession and toleration for nonconformist Protestants (the "dissenters," such as Presbyterians), while the Tories supported the exiled Stuart royal family's claims for the throne (Jacobitism), the established Church of England and the gentry. Later on, the Whigs drew support from the emerging industrial interests and wealthy merchants, while the Tories drew support from the landed interests and the British Crown. The Whigs were originally also known as the "Country Party" (as opposed to the Tories, the "Court Party"). By the first half of the 19th century, however, the Whig political programme came to encompass not only the supremacy of parliament over the monarch and support for free trade, but Catholic emancipation, the abolition of slavery and, significantly, expansion of the franchise (suffrage).

2. ) Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury PC (22 July 1621 – 21 January 1683), known as Anthony Ashley Cooper from 1621 to 1631, as Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, 2nd Baronet from 1631 to 1661, and as The Lord Ashley from 1661 to 1672, was a prominent English politician during the Interregnum and during the reign of King Charles II. A founder of the Whig party, he is probably best known as the patron of John Locke.

3. ) René Descartes (French pronunciation: [ʁəne dekaʁt]), (31 March 1596 – 11 February 1650), also known as Renatus Cartesius (Latinized form),[2] was a French philosopher, mathematician, physicist, and writer who spent most of his adult life in the Dutch Republic. He has been dubbed the "Father of Modern Philosophy", and much of subsequent Western philosophy is a response to his writings, which continue to be studied closely to this day. In particular, his Meditations on First Philosophy continues to be a standard text at most university philosophy departments. Descartes' influence in mathematics is also apparent, the Cartesian coordinate system—allowing geometric shapes to be expressed in algebraic equations—being named for him. He is credited as the father of analytical geometry. Descartes was also one of the key figures in the Scientific Revolution.

Descartes frequently sets his views apart from those of his predecessors. In the opening section of the Passions of the Soul, a treatise on the Early Modern version of what are now commonly called emotions, he goes so far as to assert that he will write on this topic "as if no one had written on these matters before". Many elements of his philosophy have precedents in late Aristotelianism, the revived Stoicism of the 16th century, or in earlier philosophers like St. Augustine. In his natural philosophy, he differs from the Schools on two major points: First, he rejects the analysis of corporeal substance into matter and form; second, he rejects any appeal to ends—divine or natural—in explaining natural phenomena.[3] In his theology, he insists on the absolute freedom of God’s act of creation.

***

I believe the following to be the cornerstone of the DOC and the other OC flavors:

In epistemology and in its modern sense, rationalism is "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification" (Lacey 286). In more technical terms it is a method or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive" (Bourke 263). Different degrees of emphasis on this method or theory lead to a range of rationalist standpoints, from the moderate position "that reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge" to the radical position that reason is "the unique path to knowledge" (Audi 771). Given a pre-modern understanding of reason, "rationalism" is identical to philosophy, the Socratic life of inquiry, or the zetetic interpretation of authority (open to the underlying or essential cause of things as they appear to our sense of certainty). In recent decades, Leo Strauss sought to revive Classical Political Rationalism as a discipline that understands the task of reasoning, not as foundational, but as maieutic.

***

-- Not to be confused with OCD

Obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) is a mental disorder characterized by intrusive thoughts that produce anxiety, by repetitive behaviors aimed at reducing anxiety, or by combinations of such thoughts (obsessions) and behaviors (compulsions). The symptoms of this anxiety disorder range from repetitive hand-washing and extensive hoarding to preoccupation with sexual, religious, or aggressive impulses. These symptoms can be alienating and time-consuming, and often cause severe emotional and economic loss. The acts of those who have OCD may appear paranoid and come across to others as psychotic. However, except in some severe cases, OCD sufferers generally recognize their thoughts and subsequent actions as irrational, and they may become further distressed by this realization.

OCD is the fourth most common mental disorder and is diagnosed nearly as often as asthma and diabetes mellitus.[1] In the United States, one in 50 adults has OCD.[2] The phrase "obsessive–compulsive" has become part of the English lexicon, and is often used in an informal or caricatured manner to describe someone who is meticulous, perfectionistic, absorbed in a cause, or otherwise fixated on something or someone.[3] Although these signs may be present in OCD, a person who exhibits them does not necessarily have OCD, and may instead have obsessive–compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) or some other condition, such as an autism spectrum disorder. The symptoms of OCD can range from difficulty with odd numbers to nervous habits such as opening a door and closing it a certain number of times before one leaves it either open or shut.


Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12471
  • Manna: 226
  • Gender: Male
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #10 on: Tue Feb 16, 2010 - 07:27:33 »
Ryan
Actually the OCD came much later.  The original RM (actually they refered to themselves as reformers) was much more concerned with unity (Christians of all flavors fellowshipping with one another) than trying to perfect a church through pattern theology.  If you go back to the actual words of these folks and especially Stone you will see their dream was to get folks to accept one another as children of God not set up a super church or perfect church.

Offline Ryan2010

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 19
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Christ Conquers
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #11 on: Tue Feb 16, 2010 - 08:39:29 »
Ryan
Actually the OCD came much later.  The original RM (actually they refered to themselves as reformers) was much more concerned with unity (Christians of all flavors fellowshipping with one another) than trying to perfect a church through pattern theology.  If you go back to the actual words of these folks and especially Stone you will see their dream was to get folks to accept one another as children of God not set up a super church or perfect church.

Would you say that the main thrust of the reform movement was Ecumenism?  

It's a very hard thing to have true ecumenism and yet embrace pluralism at the same time, but if you read Locke you'll see that pluralism and relativism winds up taking the virtue of tolerance and putting it above the tenants of faith.  However, it just doesn't realistically work that way.  

I believe that where the OCD comes in is in trying to come up with those tenants.  Every time you try to put a unifying tenant of faith on the shelf, it always winds up falling into the relativism/pluralism isle.  So people try to get very scientific in their approaches, hoping to appeal, not to the heart of the believer, but to man's ability to "reason".

The problem arises and all the weird mutations occur because one man's clarity is another man's mud.  One man's dogma is another man's triviality.  And no individual man has authority above the other (save Christ), let alone does any individual have the right to interpret and establish dogma above any other except that man that is ordained by his body.  

If the basic tenants are what are suppose to act as the unifier, then the more movements and restorations and reforms and protests and other reactions to situational ethics that arise in any given time, ultimately, they wind up having to reduce those tenants more and more.  This has to happen to make room for the time/individual/place/thing being reacted to.  

The exception becomes the rule.  Or in this case, the (s)lack of rule.

I personally believe that this trend that has so much momentum behind it, is what plagues the vast majority of protestant groups (if not all of them).  The only true tenant that the majority of groups that call themselves Christian share is the simple statement that, "Jesus is Lord".   Beyond that, all the diversified and contradictory perspectives wind up making any other statement of faith seem relative and pluralistic.  And instead of God ordering our lives, our dim ability to grasp God's reality winds up trivializing the fullness - makes God's generosity a luxury and even refuses God's generosity in the name of some utilitarian "necessity".  

What graves me is that His generosities are necessary.  

I think that their dream to get folks to accept one another as "children of God" was already established when Jesus said, "love thy enemy" and "love thy neighbor as thy self".  

I mean, all humans are an icon of Christ, even our enemies.  We don't need to inject Locke's post-enlightenment models of pluralism and relativism into the mix.  How do you reform his body when the fullness of God already dwells in that body.  

Perhaps what a true restoration looks like, is more accurately called, God's response to repentance.   Perhaps it is not so much his body that needs restored so much as it is those of us who refuse to enter into his body or those of us who aren't even looking for his body, need restored.  


Ephesians 1:22-23

22And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.



God bless

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12471
  • Manna: 226
  • Gender: Male
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #12 on: Tue Feb 16, 2010 - 16:24:27 »
Ryan
To understand the movement one must understand the religious attitude of the day.  Each group was saying that one was only a Christian if they accepted the doctrine of their sect.  This was the attitude they rebelled against.  Thomas Campbell's big sin was to offer the LS to folks of the same denomination but not the same sub group of that denomination.  I a larger measure their dream was fulfilled.  Most groups recognize others as children of God today.  One of the strange twists of fate is that one of the major branches of the RM claims to be (by deed if not by word) the only true church.

blituri

  • Guest
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #13 on: Tue Feb 16, 2010 - 16:54:07 »
As one can easily see in Edward Fudge's twisting of Alexander Campbell on the Second Coming, you have to slow down to discern
         WHAT THE DENOMINATIONS TEACH
         and BUT I SAY UNTO YOU.

Here is one article by Stone and the Trinity.

http://www.piney.com/TrinityBStone.html

You should understand that no one in history prior to H. Leo Boles at Lipscomb ever thought of the trinity as three separated Beings who, in the words of John Mark Hicks are "three centers of consciousness."  All of the historic scholars were students of Jesus in John to understand that Father, Son and Spirit are not names of PEOPLE: all the pagan views of father, mother and son were displayed in the ONE Jesus Christ.  Jesus defines it just the way classical trinitarians defined it:

Father (within) thinks
Spirit or breath sends forth invisible, inaudible power
Son as Word articulates for we humanoids.

Alexander mockes the idea that a few handshakes JOINED the Reformers [Baptists] or what became the Church of Christ to the what became the Disciples / Christian church.  Stone seemed to have crowed too soon that the reformers had come over to us.

At this time the ONLY commonality was that Stone believed that the Bible was the sole authority. His simplistic view was that everyone could bundle WITHOUT every discussing DOCTRINE. Well, doctrine is what Jesus taught us to teach. 

Stone "outed" himself on baptism only after the Stoneite preachers were having no luck with Alabama with their charismatic message looking for SIGNS which was till the proof the old Calvinists needed. When they began preaching baptism the Bible students were satisfied and the assurance of Baptism ceased the searching for signs and wonders.

Most of the Stoneite (and Baptists) preachers were in agreement with the Campbell, Biblical (not Locke) view of the Bible and it is recorded "the christian movement was ruined in Kentucky."  The only merger was the Stoneite preachers rejecting things like signs, the "shouting Methodist" act of worship, the mourner's bench, the ordination and approval of preachers by an authority, baptism and several other things.   

The agreement to meet as the Campbells defined a SOCIETY was quickly violated

Church is A School of Christ (well document in the Bible and early history)
Worship is Reading and Musing the Word of God (defined in Paul's NEVER musical passages)

To the extent that there was agreement it was based on Stone slowiy being forced to confess that he had "always believed" what the Campbells were teaching: that that time they were called BAPTISTS.

http://www.piney.com/Restoration.Movement.Fudge.html

A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things.
No. I.

Extract from the Minutes of the Baptist Missionary Association of Kentucky, began and held at the Town-Fork Meeting House, in Fayette county, on Saturday, the 11th September, 1824.

"THE next meeting of this association will be in the first Baptist meeting house in Lexington, [126] on the 30th of July next, which will be on the fifth Saturday of that month, at eleven o'clock, A  M.

"It is proposed also to have a meeting of all the Baptist preachers who can attend, on Friday, the day preceding the meeting of the association, at eleven o'clock, A. M. at the same place, for the purpose of a general conference on the state of religion, and on the subject of reform. All the ministers of the gospel in the Baptist denomination favorable to these objects, are invited to attend, and, in the spirit of Christian love, by mutual counsel, influence, and exertion, according to the gospel, to aid in advancing the cause of piety in our state.

Offline AnthonyB

  • Disciple of Jesus
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #14 on: Thu Feb 18, 2010 - 02:26:23 »
Firstly I never expressed reservation of having fellowship with Barton Stone, I would in fact be immensely humbled to have had the opportunity to meet him, yet alone fellowship with him. I certainly would not let his unwillingness to use a non biblical phrase like trinity be an issue between us, on a fellowship level.

I also never used the word trinity but the nature of God. I’m not an expert on Stone but from the quotes I’ve read he certainly often sounds like a Unitarian (in belief if not in profession). However I would probably sound like a social Trinitarian to him and he would be suspicious of my being a tri-theist. I get Campbell’s thoughts on the nature of God, although I don’t see things his way but at least I can see that his views come from scripture. I just don’t get what I’ve read about Stone’s views and I struggle to make it fit the nature of God as I see it revealed in scripture.

For better or worse, I see Unitarianism as linked to liberalism and both of them as corrosive to the health of churches that adopt them. I would probably choose not to attend a church that had Stone as a pastor or elder.


Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12471
  • Manna: 226
  • Gender: Male
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #15 on: Thu Feb 18, 2010 - 07:05:17 »
Anthony
Sorry for the misunderstanding.  I don't know what writings you are referring to.  Stone like Campbell's and others in the RM was willing to accept all who owned Christ as savior.  I do not know of any thing that extended his belief beyond that.  Perhaps you could enlighten me?  Thanks John

Offline AnthonyB

  • Disciple of Jesus
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #16 on: Fri Feb 19, 2010 - 13:55:36 »
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/bstone/ADDR-2ND.HTM#Sec1

Stone says, 
“There are three general opinions respecting the Son of God. One is, That he is the eternal Son of God--eternally begotten of the Father. Another is, that the Son of God never existed until he was born of Mary 1820 years ago. The third is that the Son of God did not begin to exist 1820 years ago; nor was he eternally begotten; but that he was the first begotten of the Father, the first born of every creature; brought forth before all worlds; and in the fullness of time was united with a body prepared for him; and in whom dwelt all the fullness of Godhead bodily. This last opinion I profess to be mine.

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12471
  • Manna: 226
  • Gender: Male
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #17 on: Fri Feb 19, 2010 - 18:55:51 »
Anthony
The passage from Stone you quoted goes to his views on the trinity not universalism.  He did not believe in the eternal trinity of the God head but that Jesus was the begotten Son of God and did not exist before that.  I do not know how he would reconcile this with John 1.  However, it does not make him one who believes in universal salvation.

Offline AnthonyB

  • Disciple of Jesus
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #18 on: Fri Feb 19, 2010 - 23:58:43 »
Johnb,

I never mentioned universalism. True that the unitarians and the universalist joined in the US to form the UU church but universalism is not my objection to Stone, it is unitarianism.

I think time over he moderated or at least kepts his opinions more to himself but his opinions still trouble me.
« Last Edit: Sat Feb 20, 2010 - 03:01:23 by AnthonyB »

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12471
  • Manna: 226
  • Gender: Male
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #19 on: Sat Feb 20, 2010 - 06:12:19 »
Anthony
OK.  They are so closely related in the UU church I asumed you were refering to universal salvation.  Although I don;t agree with the Stone views on trinity like him I would accept all who own Christ as savior.  A strong argument can be made on both sides.

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12471
  • Manna: 226
  • Gender: Male
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #20 on: Wed Feb 24, 2010 - 05:08:42 »
As I said the relationship we have had with the DoC has been some what disappointing.  On monday my wife and I finally decided we had enough.  I resigned as elder and head of the spiritual growth task force and my wife resigned as a deacon.  We are now looking for a place we fit in.  We are attending a small group on Sunday night.

Offline zoonance

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8529
  • Manna: 233
  • Gender: Male
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #21 on: Wed Feb 24, 2010 - 06:25:15 »
As I said the relationship we have had with the DoC has been some what disappointing.  On monday my wife and I finally decided we had enough.  I resigned as elder and head of the spiritual growth task force and my wife resigned as a deacon.  We are now looking for a place we fit in.  We are attending a small group on Sunday night.


I am sorry for you.  It must be painful.  Admittedly, I may not be comfortable with the DoC either (probably for very different reasons), but I do understand the depth of pain involved in moving on.

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12471
  • Manna: 226
  • Gender: Male
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #22 on: Wed Feb 24, 2010 - 12:19:05 »
Thanks Zoo.

Offline Tim L

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Manna: 0
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #23 on: Fri Jan 20, 2012 - 19:28:02 »
I've been associated with both DOC and Independent Christian Churches in my life (hope I'm not missing the tone of your question) and to be honest, from what I have seen, the DOC is really more of a Wesleyian Church (not meant as a put down) than a church of the restoration movement.  From what I saw, the only theological difference was that the DOC did practice baptism by immersion, no sprinkling)...Otherwise it (at least the modern DOC) is wesleyian (female ministers, elders, deacons, part of the WCC, a demonenation...I've seen people new in town (where ever I lived at the time) come to a DOC that called itself the Christian Church, joined the church, then gradually found out this is a different animal..Saw the reverse too; a family from a DOC joins an independent Christian Church (because the sign out front said Christian Church) then over time becomes uncomfortable because it too is a different animal...

If you are comfortable in the DOC but feel isolated, you may want to check out the local wesleyian or Methodist community...

Offline e.r.m.

  • Church of Christ
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6699
  • Manna: 73
  • Gender: Male
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #24 on: Sat Jan 03, 2015 - 17:31:49 »
AnthonyB,
Quote
G'day, I'm from Australia, this is probably my forum, I came to faith in Jesus and was baptised into Him at an australian Church of Christ (a conference aligned CofC). Oddly enough despite the fact that from this distance I feel like I have very little in common with the DoC's I 've been told I have the most in common with them of all the RM groups in the US.

Are there any DoC's willing to describe them or anyone with a good knowledge of the DoC's to answer my questions?

Like when did robes and scarves become so wide spread? (Doesn't that undermine the priesthood of all believers?)

When did pastors become "reverends"? (In Australian terms that is one of the differences between CoC and Bapos, they have "reverends")

Have you really given up on even the dream of restoring the NT church?

Do any of your churches still believe that baptism cannot be performed on infants?
From I have read from their official website, I infer that they lean toward Barton Stone's belief system and desire for unity amongst different churches above and beyond all else. What I read a little over three years ago is that they do baptize adults but acknowledge and accept infant baptisms from other churches. They are ecumenical.  Alexander Campbell was more concerned with faithfulness to the scriptures.

Offline Red Baker

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
  • Galatians 2:16~Justifed by the faith of Christ
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #25 on: Sat Jan 03, 2015 - 17:51:08 »


Stone says, 
“There are three general opinions respecting the Son of God. One is, That he is the eternal Son of God--eternally begotten of the Father. Another is, that the Son of God never existed until he was born of Mary 1820 years ago. The third is that the Son of God did not begin to exist 1820 years ago; nor was he eternally begotten; but that he was the first begotten of the Father, the first born of every creature; brought forth before all worlds; and in the fullness of time was united with a body prepared for him; and in whom dwelt all the fullness of Godhead bodily. This last opinion I profess to be mine.

I really cannot see the difference between the first and third position, if the doctrine is really push to be understood.  I hold to the second, which many coc do as well~at least one time they did. Jesus never existed as the Son of God, until he was conceived by the Holy Ghost two thousand years ago~ but he did exist as the Everlasting Father of all things, in his Divine nature from everlasting.   

notreligus

  • Guest
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #26 on: Mon Jan 05, 2015 - 14:59:50 »
AnthonyB,
Quote
G'day, I'm from Australia, this is probably my forum, I came to faith in Jesus and was baptised into Him at an australian Church of Christ (a conference aligned CofC). Oddly enough despite the fact that from this distance I feel like I have very little in common with the DoC's I 've been told I have the most in common with them of all the RM groups in the US.

Are there any DoC's willing to describe them or anyone with a good knowledge of the DoC's to answer my questions?

Like when did robes and scarves become so wide spread? (Doesn't that undermine the priesthood of all believers?)

When did pastors become "reverends"? (In Australian terms that is one of the differences between CoC and Bapos, they have "reverends")

Have you really given up on even the dream of restoring the NT church?

Do any of your churches still believe that baptism cannot be performed on infants?
From I have read from their official website, I infer that they lean toward Barton Stone's belief system and desire for unity amongst different churches above and beyond all else. What I read a little over three years ago is that they do baptize adults but acknowledge and accept infant baptisms from other churches. They are ecumenical.  Alexander Campbell was more concerned with faithfulness to the scriptures.

You need to read-up on Alexander Campbell.  Why did Alexander Campbell pursue Barton Stone and want to associate the Campbellites with the Stonites?  In 1832 they made a formal agreement to be one fellowship.   Churches of Christ take busloads of folk to Cane Ridge to see Barton Stone's original church building where the Lord's only true church was re-born in America in 1801. 

Campbell was ecumenical about Baptists.  He would accept every Baptist he could put his paws on that would repent and be baptized his way. 

The reason that the Churches of Christ don't like the Disciples is that they have a headquarters. The C of C don't think it's authorized in Scripture.   (What about the main church in first century Jerusalem where all of the orders were initiated?)  The Churches of Christ still like all of J.W. McGarvey's sermons.   They are studied in Church of Christ schools.  He began the Disciples' Transylvania University and planted the foundation for the Disciples Seminary in Lexington, Kentucky.   

These things are called majoring on the minors.   

Offline s1n4m1n

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3687
  • Manna: 55
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Day's Work
Re: No one appears to post here, so where are a all the DoC folks?
« Reply #27 on: Thu Feb 05, 2015 - 15:24:32 »
See, that's why DoC and CoC members are heretics. Plain and simple.