The church underground?????

[kebecer1]

As a DoC, in my experience the c of C has flirted around w/ the "Great Apostasy" and the "Man of Sin" (usually, read the Pope) in various degrees on fervor.  Kind of comes and goes. It's only the LDS Church, it seems to me, that has tied itself entirely, absolutely to the idea of the Apostasy soon aft/ the Apostles' death.

Frankly, I find the Apostasy idea just plain sad, in its consequences for creating NEW  :(  churches, factions, sectarianism, and denominationalisms in the life of the Bride of Christ.  In fact, lately I have come to see the life of the American churches--w/ so many denominations and factions having been born in this nation over 200 plus long years--to be a mixed blessing.

Yes, this nation has given the world the Campbell-Stone Movement--along w/ the Commonwealth, and Booty way up in Ireland, now way down in Venezuela.  Still, it's amost consistently at the cost of damning others to hell.  

Just plain sad.  

If the church "went underground" anywhere in history, I'd like to believe that it was something far more basic, and subversive, to wit:  Christ, when the "princes of the Church" revelled in their wealth (Roman Catholicism on the eve of Reformation) or the "doctors of the church semper reformanda" enjoyed their factionalism and tearing of the Gown of Christ' Bridegroom (here, read "Protestants"), Jesus Christ went to the "least of these"--the poor, the ignored, those seared by bad religion.  

Recall Matthew 25.  

The Great Apostasy doctrine has a massive burden to overcome, and here it is"  "I will never leave  you, nor forsake you."  The Mormons have painted themselves into a false corner:  Believing that God can make a mistake and cause his holy Church to fall into error (in all place, at all times), it arrives at a fallen God, and a dirtied Church.

If the churches of Christ can liberate themselves from old habits and old ways, and see that arguing for a grace-centered God means that God is Love and always in Love w/ his church, she can rightly take her place among one of the great reform movements going on w/i the Church Universal today.  

Let go of the Apostasy defence; and take up the Cross--and preach, it baby, preach it!  

Just a DoC's particular point of view.   :p

[kebecer1]

Booty:  Excellent reflection!  

By my 'read' and understanding of the Gospel, I think that God is far "sneakier" than we allow him.  God will, ultimately, subvert the sectarian church of Christ claim; and, turn it all to his loving purposes.

Or, as the DoC poet. Edwin Markham, put it:  "He drew a circle and shut me out, heretic rebel a thing to flout.  But love and I had the wit to win, we drew a circle that took him in!"

Mr. Sisman is associated with the Church of Christ. He does not claim to be trying to tie the present-day church of Christ to the apostles via Celtic or British roots. He did do extensive research on his own, digging into volumes of books and manuscripts which had not, as he put it, "seen the light of day for many years."

He simply sets forth a history using documents he found of a group of people through the centuries who tried, within the framework of their time and the horrendous persecution from the Roman Catholic Church and the Chuch of England, to follow the teaching of the New Testament as set forth by the apostles.

These were people who, for the most part, met in their homes, practiced baptism for the remission of sins, were autonomous in government, etc.

It was interesting to me they way he put everything into context -- from the boundaries of the Celtic lands at the time of the apostles, etc. Much of that I have learned at different times (and forgotten), and it is helpful to have it all in one place.

It's a nice piece of history, well put together, and I enjoyed reading it. I, like Mr. Sisman before me, was using the term church of Christ to loosely identify a group of people who were practicing New Testament Christianity in their homes and who were dying horrible deaths rather than renounce their decision to follow the Bible rather than the State Church.

I don't know whether the Baptists would want to use the instances cited in Mr. Sisman's study as their own...most Baptists do not baptise for the remission of sins and receipt of the Holy Spirit, nor are most Baptist congregations autonomous.

[Nicholas]

Thanks for the responses everyone

Sonlight, I haven't had a chance yet to read the paper.  Hopefully I'll get to it this weekend and then I will be able to give my thougts

Skip,  I'm still waiting

To all:
It is clear from my opening post my current view.  I cannot understand how God would exclude a believer who trusts in his son from the body or the church.  I have really been struggling with this point and I'm beginning to think that this will be the one point causing me to permanently leave CofC. I have not yet been able to get pass it.
May Jehovah God, the giver of peace, comfort all those who love his name and his precious son.

Nicholas......saved by grace

P.S.  Lacy    Great Joke :p  Funny yet true :(

[Booty]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Seems that this thread has also become a dumping ground for coC/CoC/COC (whatEVER) criticism. [] [/quote]

Sorry Skip, but the grouping "coC/CoC/COC" is invalid. There is a distinct difference amongst the church of Christ and the sect Church of Christ which attempts to claim exclusive dominion to the name and it would appear salvation as well.

While I am glad of heart to be included in the church of Christ meaning the body of believers who have confess Jesus Christ as the Son of God and accept Him as my personal saviour, personally I am not comfortable to be included within the confines of the sect, Church of Christ.  

Your comment of "whatEVER" seeks to minimize the distinction and thus include me within the sect. I am uncomfortable with this and ask you to cease.

Thank you for your understanding. I pray you will appreciate the difference.

[Skip]

Booty,

You line of reasoning is really losing me here.

I know, and you probably do too, that the Church of Christ has been under fire for years for putting so much stock in a Biblical name -- and now we're to the point of wrangling over the case of a letter, upper or lower case?

The coC is heaven-bound!
And the CoC? Well, we're just not sure...
That's the answer I understand that I'm getting (correct me if I missed something).

Some thought questions:
If a person asks you, "What church are you a member of?" --
Do you answer, "The church of Christ with a little c

[s1n4m1n]

Skip

I think you are right, there is just one true church founded by Christ (Matt. 16:18 - "I will build My church"). As far as I can tell members of the RM historically recognized that Biblical doctrine.

The question I have to ask (and I guess Nicholas is asking) is: Did this church cease to exist on Earth for a period in history?

If it did then this goes against Jesus' parable of the mustard seed (Mark 4:30-32) and the prophecy in Daniel about the Rock smashing the kingdoms and becoming a great mountain (Daniel 2:31-45).


Lacy quoted a often heard teaching (Lacy I'm not saying you actually believe this or not because I don't know you),
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Nor was existence necessary because the Bible would grow the church again just as a seed would grow the same kind of a plant as that from which it came.[/quote]

Lacy, I've heard that argument too, but I think that teaching goes against the above mentioned scriptures. Throw in Ephesians 3:8-10 and 20,21 and I see that God shows His goodness to the Church to be seen by all generations (even to those in the heavenlies).


I don't see how the Restoration can be true (as currently taught in churches for Christ) and Christ's church existing in history before the Restoration to be true at the same time. Either it was restored or it wasn't. It's interesting that A. Campbell thought the church needed "reformation" an indication that he thought the church existed in his day. The "restoration" was refering to the returning to the proper form of worship. However, I could be mistaken as I've haven't read all of A. Campbell's works.


More rambling....

Ken

[Lacy]

Booty,

First, it is almost like each person is programed both to speak and to listen in certain ways. We are not all programed alike. I may say, "The church of Christ didn't exist during the interval between the Great Apostasy and the Reformation Movement which began in 1810." I speak of the Reformation church with a lower case "c." You might be programed to hear, "The Church of Christ didn't exist during during the interval between the Great Apostasy and the Reformation Movement which began in 1810." You hear Church of Christ with a capital "C." We have a hard time communicating on many subjects because of the way we are programed. The church of Christ has done a great job of programing its members--one of which I was it for many years!

You spoke of the man-made chain, with links of vanity, conceit and pride, which bind so many people. I heard Marshal Keeble say once that a certain young man had gone off to Bible College, "to get his brain expanded." A. G. Freed of Freed-Hardeman said, "We will innoculate our students against the isms." I'm afraid both the expansion and inoculation had links of vanity, conceit and pride. I, like John Bunyon, "Went about in chains, with a fire in my busom of which I bade others beward."

What can we do about the chains? Very little. Just consider how hard Jesus tried, and after all His effort, they nailed him to a cross."

Lacy

[Booty]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Aug. 08 2002,09:04)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Brother Booty,
  I very much appreciate your wisdom, humility and....sense of humor :D
  If I have ask the question that was asked so long ago on the day of Pentecost, "What must I do to be saved"; if I read what Peter answered and follow the accounts given in the history book of Acts; if I'm identified with Christ in death, burial and resurrection as Paul says in Romans...I am the church. My husband is the church. You and your wife are the church. If we were to come together on your continent or mine and spend time together in fellowship and study of Scripture and breaking of bread, we would be a church, a congregation.
   Every person from the day of Pentecost to this day that has responded and been obedient to the call of Christ was and is a church "of Christ."
   Would that be a fair summation?[/quote]
Sister Sonlight,

We, the body of believers, who have confessed Jesus Christ as the Son of God and accepted His Holy Salvation complying with His desires as enumerated by Peter on the day of Pentecost are His church, the church of Christ.

Some of us congregate together in large groups to share in fellowship and communion the Lord's Supper and worship our Lord in unison on a regular basis. Yet other brothers and sisters of the church of Christ congregate in large groups infrequently. We may congregate in multitudes or we may congregate in small groups or within our own families. Where we congregate varies from under streetlamps to beaches to huge auditoriums and temples.

Our congregations may be formally structured with decades of tradition tracing back to the reform movement or even further back, or our congregations may be of recent origin informally structured of brothers and sisters who have had the pleasant experience of finding other brothers and sisters close by them if only on a transient basis.

We may be black, brown, yellow or pink. We may speak any of a babble of different languages. We may pray on our knees or we may pray standing with our arms raised to Heaven. The Lords supper may be broken crackers and fruit juice or unleavened bread and wine. Instruments may be played in the worship service or they may not.

I am the church. My wife is the church. You and your husband are the church. If we were to come together on your continent or mine and spend time together in fellowship and study of Scripture and breaking of bread, we would be a church, a congregation.

God Bless you Sister.

[MRBILL]

Skip,

If you want to say that the catholic church can trace its roots back to Peter you may be right, however the catholic church of today is far different in doctrine and practice than the early church of the first second or third centuries.

While I disagree with catholic doctrine, I would not go as far as to say that there are not some ( or many)  people saved in the catholic church.  I would say, that their doctrine would make it difficult for a person to come to a saving knowlege of Jesus Christ.    

It seems that the ones who say we are the true church are usually considered a cult.

What makes intelligent men and women hold stubbornly to pet doctrines.  Is it because we are afraid to say, You know I think I was wrong in that area let me rethink that.   It is not just the coc , for example, intellignent  scholarly presbyterians who hold fast to the practice of infant baptism.  Is it not because we fall prey to peer pressure and tradition.  

When you came out of the catholic church, did you select the coc because you investigated all the different doctrines of the different churches or was it because someone you were aquainted with was coc.

I commend you for your willingness to examine and come out of your childhood church.  It must have been very difficult.

Each gereration and each individual must come to their own conclusion as to what doctrines and traditions are nearest to the truths proclaimed by scripture.  

At present I am re-examining my understanding of the meaning of baptism.  

mrbill

[Bon Voyage]

Did Jesus lie when he said "...upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

So if the church was restored and Jesus was a liar like some are making him to be, is not Christianity moot?  Should I invest time in that Buddha guy?

[marc]

Sorry I haven't had time to post much the last couple of weeks (although I've found time to read and post an occasional comment) and my comments here will really go back to an earlier part of the discussion. . . .

I find Skip's timeline to be pretty accurate.  From what I've read, the church changed drastically very early on, mainly becoming more institutionalized.  Whatever part of me that still remains a "restorationist" wants desparately to recover the non-institutional church that existed (very briefly) early on.  Much of what I value about the Church of Christ is that it seems to be, in it's simplist form, a good vehicle for doing this.

Then what of the "underground church" idea?  Well, yes, underground churches have existed in various forms through the years.  For example, when Mary Tudor was killing Prostestants, the Protestant church was in a sense an underground church.  The same could also be said for the Catholic Church during the time Elizabeth was killing Catholics!  And in a truer sense, the original, literal underground church existed in the days when Christians took to the Catacombs to avoid Roman persecution.  Many other underground churches have existed throught the centuries and many still exist today.  

Where I would disagree with the "underground church" idea would be 1) that a church resembling the modern-day Church of Christ has existed underground unchanged for two millenia and 2) that through all the "lost years" the only people saved were those in this "underground church".  I believe the first statement has no real historical support and the second lacks solid Biblical support, as it relies on the existence of a perfect church as a condition for salvation.

[Nicholas]

Hi everyone,
I was voicing my view  :D  to a CofC pastor that we are in error claiming that this is the only group, sect, denomination, etc that will be heaven.  I asked him about the 1900 years before CofC came onto the stage to which he replied that the true church had been forced underground[/u].  Has anyone else heard this?  Is it credible?  Your thougts please.

Nicholas........saved by grace

[Skip]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Has anyone else heard this?[/quote]
Yep.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Is it credible?[/quote]
Based on Revelation 12; the parts about "woman fleeing into the wilderness" and "time, times, and half a time"...
Sorry, no time to elaborate...
Maybe later...

[seekr]

booty, I also love your response to this. It is too bad that some believe they are the only ones that have a right to bear His name, because it is posted on their structure.

seekr

[s1n4m1n]

Hi Sonlight,

I read some of the website to which you linked. I will have to do more research but I think the Paulicans and Waldenses would not be recognisable as "Church of Christ". The Paulicans due to their doctrine and the Waldenses due to their church "structure".

I think that this may be the same list that the some Baptists use to trace there heritage back to the apostles. But since the Campbells hijacked some Baptist theology I guess that's alright :) .

Ken

[Lacy]

The Church of Christ underground? "That ain't the way I heered it," as Fibber McGee used to say on the Fibber McGee and Molly radio program. We of the coC used to condemn the Baptists who said, "The Baptist church is like a chain, you can shake it here and it will rattle all the way back to the apostles," or the Catholics who claim apostolic succession. We taught that the idea of restoratiaon was to restore the church which had been lost--or else, if it had existed, we have no record of its existence. Nor was existence necessary because the Bible would grow the church again just as a seed would grow the same kind of a plant as that from which it came.

Some wise guy said, "I know the church of Christ went back as far as Abraham." "How do you know that," he was asked. "Well," he said, I read in the account of Abraham how he said to Lot, 'You go your way and I'll go mine.' That had to be the church of Christ.

Someone said, "It takes all kinds to make the church." It doesn't TAKE all kinds, but we just happen to have them.

And finally, I heard about a good man who had gone to heaven. He was being shown around. His guide said, as they walked down a long hall way, "In that room are the Baptists, in there are the Methodists, and in there are the Presbyterians, etc." As they passed a certain room and the guide was quiet, the newcomer asked, "Who is in there?" The guide replied, "Shhhh, in there are the church of Christ folk and they think they are the only ones here."

Pardon the "funnies," but we just have to do it sometimes to keep from crying. I rejoice that I don't belong to the cof C denomination any longer; I love being a part of the greater church.

Lacy

[marc]

Revisionist History is the practice of reshaping and re-organizing historical events in a way that supports a particular point of view.  It is the practice of starting with a conclusion and working backward to form the supporting evidence.  That is what we have here.

Having decided that the Church of Christ is the "one true church" and that membership is required for salvation (have I ever heard this taught?  Only all my life) we are forced to believe that either everybody was lost for more than a millenium and a half or that there was an "Underground Church of Christ".  The next step was to search for evidence of that underground church and prove its existence.  This has led to the denial of the role of Campbell and others in our history and the notion that The big-c Church of Christ has always existed and that all other churches split from it (I have seen the charts "proving" this--recently).  

But this is not the way good history is formed.  Good history looks at past events and forms a conclusion; it does not start with a conclusion and then present selected past events to support this.

At its source this revisionist church history is the result of bad theology.  We think we are saved by being in the perfect church.  Not only is this idea presented nowhere in the Bible, the very notion that any church made up of humans is perfect on its own is absurd.  We only achieve righteousness through the blood of Christ.

"Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification for all men.  For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."  --Romans 5:18-19 (NIV)

[Skip]

MRBILL,

Good thoughts.

I wish that I could concur with you about the early church not resembling the Catholic Church of today, but I must admit that in my investigation into early church history the Catholic Church is still quite similar (alarmingly similar, in fact) to the church almost all the way back to Bible times. At least back to the 200s or 300s.

When I came out of the Catholic Church I was reading the Bible – Acts and Ezekiel – and not getting a whole lot out of it. I happened across (through prayer and divine providence) a group of young men (from the CoC) that studied with me, and voila!

One reason for resistance to change that I can attest to is that change is uncomfortable in a very real sense – family and friends may turn against you, and it's not easy to turn away from long-held ways. Admission that one is wrong is not easy, either.

I've re-examined baptism myself, primarily though heavy board discussions a couple of years back. It solidified my understanding of baptism while forcing me to really defend my position or come to grips with error. I'm much more comfortable with it as a result, though I have not found it necessary to modify my views on baptism much, which remain pretty much mainstream CoC. The hardest part was to really lay it on the line and vigorously state and defend my position, and risk seeing it blown out of the water!

Bounce some ideas / questions off of me it you like. I sometimes think that I've heard it all in regards to baptism, and then I hear something new again.

I have found, to my surprise, that Ephesians 4:5 is one of the more difficult of the baptism questions for a faith-only believer - who still also believes in Holy Spirit baptism also - to answer. For they usually also practice water baptism, too – so they practice TWO baptisms, not one. You can see the problem...

[OldDad]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Did Jesus lie when he said "...upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

So if the church was restored and Jesus was a liar like some are making him to be, is not Christianity moot?  [/quote]

He did not lie, for the church has existed, above ground or under - take your pick, since the day of Pentecost.  It was the church of Clement, Augustine, Tertullian, Luther, Knox, Zwingli, countless Catholic believers.  It has existed everywhere and in all times that men and women have accepted Christ as Lord and Saviour and been as obedient to Him as they knew how.

When the Campbells, Stone, Scott, and others spoke of restoration, as I said earlier, they were speaking of the restoration of unity by means of laying aside policies, practices, and procedures other that those found explicitly in the NT.

To say that something is being or has been restored doesn't imply that it was once destroyed.  My folks "restored" a turn of the century house when I was a young boy.  The house had never ceased to exist, it had been inhabited continuously since 1901!  We stripped off old paint and wallpaper, replaced outdated appliances, wiring, fixtures, and siding - all with a view to giving it as close to its original appearance as possible.

I don't think I ever understood "gates of hell shall not prevail against it" as meaing the Church had to defend itself against an advancing kingdom of Satan.  Rather, I've always thought it meant the gates of hell would not be able to withstand the "forcefully advancing" Church!

OD

[MRBILL]

Right on Booty, and well stated Marc.  It never ceases to amaze me that supposedly intelligent men can buy into the notion that there is only one church and that one particular church(c of c) has the true and correct doctrine.

Yes, baptist use the same history lesson to trace the baptist heritage back to the apostles.  Further, they claim that each local congregation is autonomous and they are to a certain extent.   Baptist do not believe they are the only Christians.

Booty has the right idea, there is only one Church of Christ and that is the universal Church of Christ comprised of all born again, washed in the blood, sins forgiven, trusting in Christ believers.

Grace and peace

mrbill

[Nicholas]

To everyone who has posted

Your love for God and God's people shows.  As for me, I will do more reading(historical) and more praying.  Continue posting and continue talking.  Each one of you has sown a seed into my thoughts and I thank Jehovah God for the fruit those seeds will produce.  Keep the faith brothers and sisters

Nicholas.......saved by grace

[kanham]

I guess I am in a posting mood.

Luke 17:20,21 is Jesus speaking and he says man will not be able to identify the kingdom of God because "the kingdom of God is within you.

[seekr]

kanham, beautifully said--"So man puts his mark on doors and buildings but God puts his mark on hearts. I will take God's kingdom, and since I have been told from the Saviors lips that I can't identify it, I personally am working hard to quit trying."

I believe you have heard. The nature of man to place God in a building, instead of letting Him rule in our hearts...

seekr

[s1n4m1n]

Hi marc,

I was wondering what you meant by "institutional".


Ken

[janine]

Depends what he means by 'forced underground'.

If he means that God has & will always have His remnant somewhere, somehow, but that it wouldn't always be easy for us to look back historically & pinpoint His church all along the way... mebee soooo.

[Booty]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Hi everyone,
I was voicing my view  :D  to a CofC pastor that we are in error claiming that this is the only group, sect, denomination, etc that will be heaven.  I asked him about the 1900 years before CofC came onto the stage to which he replied that the true church had been forced underground[/u].  Has anyone else heard this?  Is it credible?  Your thougts please.

Nicholas........saved by grace[/quote]
Nicholas,

I am part of the body of the church of Christ. This body has existed since He came in the flesh, to die for my sins and yours.

Our existence has been continuous and without interruption and will continue to be so until the day He comes again to reclaim His faithful.

At times over the years, various members of the body have denied Christ to protect their physical persons. The earliest known example was Peter, three times before the cock crowed. Peter repented of this and went on to serve the Lord until he met his end refusing to deny Christ once more.
Over the years, others have been weak to be sure, as was Peter. Perhaps some have "Forced Underground", hiding what they should be proclaiming from the rooftops. How very, very sad, I pray my faith would never be weakened to the point where I would deny the Lord to save my worthless self, but then I am sure Peter felt the same. I am not aware of a mass escape underground in the history preceeding the reformation movement, perhaps it was so sucessful that there is no record of it transpiring?  My understanding is the Campbells arrived from the Presbyterian faith, not an undergorund movement that and was not Stone a Methodist?

When you talk of the 1900 years before the Campbells arrived from Ireland to form up with Stone in the reformation movement, you do well to capitalize the[

http://www.traces-of-the-kingdom.org/

I ran across this site a few days ago and printed out the
30-some pages contained in this "Churches of Christ History."
It has been compiled and put together by Keith Sisman. His welcome page states, "Traces of the Kingdom, a web site devoted to autonomous congregations who baptised believers for the forgiveness of sins whereby they were added to the church of our Lord - the Church of Christ - Rom. 16:16. This is a brief history of those churches in Great Britain and Europe before the American Restoration Movement."  About the 5th page in, he says, "The people who are written about wore no name other than 'Christian.' For convenience in this study we will use the same term and refer to the congregations who met together ot worship the Lord as 'churches of Christ'.  This description was given in Paul's letter to the Romans in chapter sixteen verse sixteen. The term 'church of Christ' is a common designation made in the English language referring to those churches who are 'in Christ.'

It is a fascinating read. The horrors those people who attempted to follow Christ only are, in same cases, detailed by the author.  Of several of the congregations (house churches) he speaks about, six things were in common: 1) They were autonomous. 2) They practiced baptism by immersion for remission of sins. 3) They met prior to the continental Anabaptists who date their appearance to January 21, 1525. 4) They were pre-Reformation 1517. 5) They were pre-English separation (1596). 6) They saw themselves as the true Church of Christ, not a denomination.

One of his statements is that "It is wrong to confuse Reformation with Restoration. The Restoration has always been around, the Reformed churches started after 1520. The Reformed church in Europe and England sought to destroy New Testament congregations with as much ehemence and hatred as that shown by Nero in the first century."

Another, "The earliest date for Christianity arriving in Britain has been set at the year 37 although other historians date it later at around the year 58/63. Eusebius the fourth centurey historian says 'The Apostles passed beyond the ocean to the isles called the Brittanic Isles." Tertullian says 'The regions of Britain which have never been penetrated by Roman Arms have received the religion of Christ."

"The historian Crosby says that Claudia Ruffina was a British convert to Christianity. She was wife to Pudens, a Roman Senatory. Crosby says this is the Claudia mentioned by Paul in 2 Timothy 4:21."

I would not want to use Mr. Sisman's study to prove that we are the "true church of Christ," but the things he has been able to document and the photographs of churches and places he has included are an encouragement to me that God has always preserved and protected His Word and His people.

I hope you will enjoy the site as much as I did.

[Booty]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (s1n4m1n @ Aug. 06 2002,7:33)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Hi Sonlight,

I read some of the website to which you linked. I will have to do more research but I think the Paulicans and Waldenses would not be recognisable as "Church of Christ". The Paulicans due to their doctrine and the Waldenses due to their church "structure".

I think that this may be the same list that the some Baptists use to trace there heritage back to the apostles. But since the Campbells hijacked some Baptist theology I guess that's alright :) .

Ken[/quote]
LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!

Ken,

Half of the current Church of Christ congregations are not recognised as Church of Christ by the other half!!!!!

And that is not including the International Church of Christ!!!

I do hope the legalists do not learn of the website, burning people alive for differing opionions might appeal to some of them!  

Nicholas,
   When you get a chance to read the paper, please read it for what it is...a history of the church of Christ in Great Britain and Europe before the American Restoration Movement. The author is not trying to link anyone anywhere. It is not a proof text for the "one true church." Why in the world can't we understand that the church of Christ is not government, it is not buildings of stone or brick or wood, it is flesh and blood?
    The fact that there have always been people who have been able to stand up to tyranny and distorted "christianity" no matter what the cost should encourage us and fill us with resolve.
    Any person who reads the New Testament and comes to an understanding that (s)he is a sinner and that the method of salvation set forth in Scripture is, simply, to be baptized, at that point s(he) is a member of the "church of Christ." And they remain a member so long as they rise out of their baptistry/tub/creek/river/sea/ocean and do the things that Christ commanded: love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself, and live with all the grace and freedom Christ died for.
    I, too, have wrestled and worried over the "only Christians" issue that we face in many of our churches. I have learned, gradually, to let it go and give it to the Lord. I must do my part by being obedient in what He commands.  We were taught in my home church to encourage friends in denominations, if an opportunity presented itself, to read the New Testament as if they had never seen or read it before, without any kind of bias or slant. I can name at least 300 people through the years who did that and who decided they needed to do things the Lord's way.
    God made things simple and clear. We can rest in the assurance He will do what needs to be done. No mortal can assign another to heaven or hell. That decision is the Lord's.
    Do not become discouraged. Live your life as God, through his Word and His Spirit, tells you. Love others. Share his Word with those you can, and leave the rest to the Father.  
         Sonlight.

[Lacy]

Nicholas,

Many years ago people were excommunicated, then they were disfellowshipped, then the church of Christ came along and now people are dismembered!.

I think the only way the coC can keep people coralled is to convince them that they have no other option, just as the Catholic Church has done through the years. I have known coC members to leave the church broken hearted and in tears because they were told they could no longer be members and that they were sure to go to hell because there is no other church to which they can go and still be saved.

Nicholas, stop to think of what people did before 1906 when the right wing fringe of the Disciples of Christ broke away and, for the first time, in response to a U.S. census that year, assumed the name "Church of Christ." This splinter group of a larger movement is not the begin-all and end-all of the Lord's church. Nor did the Campbells and Stones of the early movement clain to be the only Christians; this was a later calme to fame. In fact Alexander Campbell met on a Sunday with his "brethren" from the other denominations at his place in Bethany, VA (now WV) to observe the Lord's Supper. This occasion was trhe motivation for every-Sunday, no-time-but-Sunday observance of Communiton. I believe the early church observed it as often as they liked, just as Jesus had said, "Whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (I Cor. 11:26).

One is never bound until his mind is bound; he is never free until his mind is free."

God bless you, good brother,

Lacy

[Skip]

Booty,

If there is a distinction on your part between the coC and the CoC, then it is either purely LEGALISTIC (hence, whatEVER!), or you're saying that the coC is heaven-bound and the CoC is hell-bound (the only distinction that REALLY matters, right?).

If you consider both to be heaven-bound, then you'd better get used to the CoC, since you're planning on spending an eternity with them!

PS - You'd better change your designation "Iglesia de Cristo" to "iglesia de Cristo".

[Skip]

MRBILL,

Just to broaden your perspective a little bit...

The Catholic Church has taught that it is the One True Church for close to 2,000 years. The idea was not some innovative CoC idea, nor is it new.

Take a look at the notes from the Council of Nicea, held by the church in the 300s. Take note of the repeated use of the word "anathema". You'll learn very quickly that the CoC is mild in its use of disfellowship compared to the early church. Yeah, they were "It"! And they could put you In or Out. And yes, they were quite intelligent. Just about every highly regarded Early Church Father that we can cite was openly a member of that One True Catholic "Universal" Church.

And, yes, the Catholics, too, can trace their origins back to the NT church -- better far more easily than anyone else, including any RM church or the Baptists, I'm afraid...

And before them were the Chosen People of God, the Israelites, and that would take a One True Religious Group all the way back to the patriarchs.

No, it's not new, and not alien to Bible thought, either. Even Jesus intially rejected a woman simply on the basis that He was set to the children of Israel, not to dogs (Mt. 15:26)...  
:0

[Booty]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--] It's one thing to say that these groups of the past were the saved of that day and quite another to look back before 1810 and claim these remnant groups, saying these were churches of Christ. [/quote]

Lacy,

I believe to claim these remnant groups as churches of Christ actually depends on your definition of the label, "church of Christ". The label, contrary to the opinion of some, strictly means those souls saved by the Lord, Jesus Christ. It does not mean approved members of the splinter sect of the Stone Campbell reformation movement currently claiming the label of Church of Christ.

By the strict definition I believe these remnants to indeed be church of Christ.




You know Lacy, I have a hard time reconciling the vanity, the conceit, the pride , the Chutzpah of some members of this sect when it comes to dealing with others who differ on minor doctrinal foolishnesses with the humility, grace and mercy of our Lord. I sit at your feet to ask, what causes this vanity, this chutzpah? Is it a weak and imperfect faith which must belittle others to acchieve justification? How do we break this man made chain which would bind the love and mercy of our Lord?

Brother Booty,
  I very much appreciate your wisdom, humility and....sense of humor :D
  If I have ask the question that was asked so long ago on the day of Pentecost, "What must I do to be saved"; if I read what Peter answered and follow the accounts given in the history book of Acts; if I'm identified with Christ in death, burial and resurrection as Paul says in Romans...I am the church. My husband is the church. You and your wife are the church. If we were to come together on your continent or mine and spend time together in fellowship and study of Scripture and breaking of bread, we would be a church, a congregation.
   Every person from the day of Pentecost to this day that has responded and been obedient to the call of Christ was and is a church "of Christ."
   Would that be a fair summation?