What Matters More?

[segell]

Assuming that the Body of Christ includes all Christians,

Wendy,

1.  Who says we get to make that assumption?

2.  Who gets to define who is a Christian?[/color]

1.  Who says we get to make that assumption?

Christ Jesus.

2.  Who gets to define who is a Christian?

There really is no need for anyone to "define" who a Christian is.  Why?

Because:

John 10:14"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

That's called assurance.  That's when one knows without a doubt who his Shepherd is.  That's when one knows without a doubt that His Shepherd knows him.

It's that heart thing again.  That's where the truth of one's existence lies.

Why the need of a definition?[/color]

[Lee Freeman]

...
Even if we concede they were a dismal failure at least they tried.

Pax.

Conceptually (not restricting this to Campbell by any means), is pursuing a delusion better than waiting for God?

An extreme example is that of the efforts of liberal American and Canadian Episcopalians to normalize homosexual behavior in the name of religion, acceptance, and love.
Surely the pursuit of such a delusion -- trying -- cannot be right!

Who's to say that Campbell wasn't following God?
...

Uh...
Most of the rest of the Christian world.
One does not have to look very hard to find Christians who wrote scathing criticisms of Campbell and his restoration.

And their opinions are inspired and infallible?

As I recall many people in the first century wrote scathing criticisms of Jesus and his movement.

Were it not for Campbell as a common enemy many of those same people would have been writing scathing criticisms of each other.


But earlier you said:

One will note that the Campbells and Stone broke from legalists, too -- and achieved their Restoration in less than 50 years. In fact, if your "14 years" is to be taken as correct, Campbell and company in 14 years pulled together (from "the denominations" and new converts) literally tens of thousands of Christians -- what is today the coC, doC, and ICC (and related RM groups).

How were they able to pull "literally tens of thousands of Christians" from denominations and converts in a mere 14 years if they weren't doing God's will? Just a cosmic accident? Dumb luck? Blind, random chance?

Pax.[/color]

[Skip]

...
Even if we concede they were a dismal failure at least they tried.

Pax.

Conceptually (not restricting this to Campbell by any means), is pursuing a delusion better than waiting for God?

An extreme example is that of the efforts of liberal American and Canadian Episcopalians to normalize homosexual behavior in the name of religion, acceptance, and love.
Surely the pursuit of such a delusion -- trying -- cannot be right!

Who's to say that Campbell wasn't following God?
...

Uh...
Most of the rest of the Christian world.
One does not have to look very hard to find Christians who wrote scathing criticisms of Campbell and his restoration.

And their opinions are inspired and infallible?

Were it not for Campbell as a common enemy many of those same people would have been writing scathing criticisms of each other.

Pax.

You asked, "Who's to say that Campbell wasn't following God?"

If you want an upgrade to an infallible answer to that question, I'm fresh out.

Then again, if we flip this around to, "Who's to say that Campbell was following God?"

I have a strong hunch that you'll have a mighty tough time coming up with infallible affirmations...[/color]

[boringoldguy]

Explain why if these people were already Christians and already part of the Church there was any need to pull them together.

That's my big question about this whole thing.

If these people were already Christians and they were already part of the Church and were already all brothers and sisters where they were in their existing denominations - then what, exactly, was the purpose for any of what Campbell did?

[winky]

Assuming that the Body of Christ includes all Christians,

Wendy,

1.  Who says we get to make that assumption?

2.  Who gets to define who is a Christian?[/color]

OK, then let's back up. If the Body of Christ does not include all Christians, then I'll need you to tell me how you define it before we can keep going.

[winky]

These discussions about the success/failure/attempts at unity are fruitless when we're operating under very different definitions of unity -- some see unity as a visible, formal, organization (as seen in the RCC) and others believe unity can be had without "doctrinal lockstep" and formal, organizational ties.

I will note that your second definition of religious unity (and tends to be held by "more liberal" persons), while popular today, is "history-less".
That is, one will have to ignore about 1,900 years [edit] lets say, "~1,500 years" instead [end edit] of Christian understanding of unity to hold that position.
And "history-less" is (ironically) a criticism sometimes leveled at the "more legalistic" of the coC who usually reject the notion of an amorphous unity!
:jugle:

I don't know about that. Some would say that the various congregations described in the New Testament looked pretty different from each other, didn't have perfect "doctrinal lockstep" and didn't have a formal organization controlling them. So, history-less might be debatable.

Who says that?  :confused:[/color]

I've heard something similar to it argued on this board in various discussions, usually focused around whether we can have unity and diversity of opinion and such.

[Skip]

...
But earlier you said:

One will note that the Campbells and Stone broke from legalists, too -- and achieved their Restoration in less than 50 years. In fact, if your "14 years" is to be taken as correct, Campbell and company in 14 years pulled together (from "the denominations" and new converts) literally tens of thousands of Christians -- what is today the coC, doC, and ICC (and related RM groups).

How were they able to pull "literally tens of thousands of Christians" from denominations and converts in a mere 14 years if they weren't doing God's will? Just a cosmic accident? Dumb luck? Blind, random chance?

Pax.

Are you sure you want to go there?
That argument vindicates Campbell.
And convicts Ketcherside, Garrett, and Shelly as charlatans...

[Lee Freeman]

Explain why if these people were already Christians and already part of the Church there was any need to pull them together.

That's my big question about this whole thing.

If these people were already Christians and they were already part of the Church and were already all brothers and sisters where they were in their existing denominations - then what, exactly, was the purpose for any of what Campbell did?

To get 'em to act like brothers and sisters, to get 'm to stop biting and devouring one another, so that the world could see one united church rather than two dozen divided ones.  But Campbell never said that everybody in those "denominational" churches was a Christian-he thought many of them were nothing more than sectarians who cared more about their denomination and its dogma than they did Christ or other Christians-hence why he was so hard on the "hierling clergy."  Campbell wanted the sincere Christians to leave everything that was sectarian behind and be Christians only, not the only Christians.

Pax.[/color]

[winky]

I don't know about that. Some would say that the various congregations described in the New Testament looked pretty different from each other, didn't have perfect "doctrinal lockstep" and didn't have a formal organization controlling them. So, history-less might be debatable.

Are you sure about this?

Several of the Apostles seemed to pull on the leash with regard to incorrect doctrine

And Paul seemed to believe that he was in charge and got to tell various congregations what to do.   And to lecture their elders.

Sounds like a formal organization and control to me.[/color]

No, I'm not sure. That's why I said "Some would say..."  :p

I suppose it's all a matter of perspective, but what you describe doesn't sound nearly as formal or controlled as what we see in most major denominational organizations today.

[Skip]

These discussions about the success/failure/attempts at unity are fruitless when we're operating under very different definitions of unity -- some see unity as a visible, formal, organization (as seen in the RCC) and others believe unity can be had without "doctrinal lockstep" and formal, organizational ties.

I will note that your second definition of religious unity (and tends to be held by "more liberal" persons), while popular today, is "history-less".
That is, one will have to ignore about 1,900 years [edit] lets say, "~1,500 years" instead [end edit] of Christian understanding of unity to hold that position.
And "history-less" is (ironically) a criticism sometimes leveled at the "more legalistic" of the coC who usually reject the notion of an amorphous unity!
:jugle:

I don't know about that. Some would say that the various congregations described in the New Testament looked pretty different from each other, didn't have perfect "doctrinal lockstep" and didn't have a formal organization controlling them. So, history-less might be debatable.

Who says that?  :confused:

I've heard something similar to it argued on this board in various discussions, usually focused around whether we can have unity and diversity of opinion and such.[/color]

I guess that the arguments of such were not solid enough to grab my attention.

It is not difficult to show that the early church had a clearly-defined leadership and followed at least some organization and tradition in their assemblies.
Additionally, congregations were accountable to various writers / leaders, such as Paul, James, John, and Peter.

As far as I know, no one claimed to be "The Church", and can trace their existance from NT times to the present, except the RCC and the Orthodox -- and neither of them have ever adhered to your second definition of unity to my knowledge.
Thus, history-less.

Of course, it is possible to "re-interpret" the NT with that definition of unity. Some have done something similar to that with the NT and the church, claiming to "restore" the NT church.
History-less.

[Lee Freeman]

I don't know about that. Some would say that the various congregations described in the New Testament looked pretty different from each other, didn't have perfect "doctrinal lockstep" and didn't have a formal organization controlling them. So, history-less might be debatable.

Are you sure about this?

Several of the Apostles seemed to pull on the leash with regard to incorrect doctrine

And Paul seemed to believe that he was in charge and got to tell various congregations what to do.   And to lecture their elders.

Sounds like a formal organization and control to me.

No, I'm not sure. That's why I said "Some would say..."  :p

I suppose it's all a matter of perspective, but what you describe doesn't sound nearly as formal or controlled as what we see in most major denominational organizations today.

I agree with Wendy on this. NT churches are not nearly as organized as modern churches. We don't even know for certain that all of them had elders and deacons. I think they were on "short leashes" of the apostles because they were very young and immature in the faith and needed constant supervision when they should have been more mature. What you had then was a very informal "confederation" of groups meeting in homes for mutual edification. What you have now are institutions, often run like a Fortune 500 company, where the leaders make all the decisions in secret, behind closed doors.

And when you look at what Paul, Peter, John and Jude call "incorrect doctrine" it doesn't look much like the "incorrect doctrine" I heard about in Churches of Christ, such as whether or not the church uses it's marquee to congratulate a sports team; or whether or not you have a Christmas tree in the lobby; or whether a woman can stand up, facing the church to make an announcement, must remain seated facing forward to do it, or must get a man to do it.

Pax.[/color]

[winky]

I'm not sure if you guys are intentionally missing my point or if I'm just really poorly communicating my point, but assuming the latter, let me try again.

There seems to be a school of thought that would say that we can be unified with other Christians even if we don't agree on every point of doctrine and even if we don't meet in a building with the same name and do exactly the same thing in our worship services every week. There seems to be another school of thought that would say that in order to be unified we need to be united in our doctrine, practice and visible organizational structure. If those people from these different schools of thought discuss how to achieve unity, those who have attempted in the past, whether they were successful, etc. they will be divided by their connotation and expectation of what unity is and what it involves and will never really get anywhere until they work through these differing definitions.

I think that most people in the former school of thought would base their idea of unity on the fact that congregations described in the NT did not necessarily agree on every doctrinal issue or practice exactly the same things, yet considered each other to be fellow Christians.

I don't know if that restating helps or just gets me in more hot water, but there it is.

[winky]

It is not difficult to show that the early church had a clearly-defined leadership and followed at least some organization and tradition in their assemblies.
Additionally, congregations were accountable to various writers / leaders, such as Paul, James, John, and Peter.

If I implied that I thought the NT churches had no leadership or accountability, I apologize. I would certainly agree that they had leadership and accountability. Whether it is of the formal, organized kind we see in most denominations today is what I would say is debatable.[/color]

[Lee Freeman]

I think that most people in the former school of thought would base their idea of unity on the fact that congregations described in the NT did not necessarily agree on every doctrinal issue or practice exactly the same things, yet considered each other to be fellow Christians.

Wendy I get it. Your statement above is a (probably unconscious) paraphrase of a statement Thomas Campbell made in the appendix of the "Declaration and Address." Great minds must indeed think alike!

Pax.[/color]

[boringoldguy]

 Campbell wanted the sincere Christians to leave everything that was sectarian behind and be Christians only, not the only Christians.

But you see Lee, if the sincere Christians (whoever they are or were) responded to Campbell's plea and left everything that was sectarian behind to follow Campbell's reformation -

then those who didn't answer weren't sincere and Campbell's group were  -  (drum roll please)

THE ONLY CHRISTIANS.

Whether they wanted it that way or not.

[boringoldguy]

Wendy

I agree entirely that we can't discuss unity in the Church profitably until we have agree on what the Church is.

And the Churches of Christ seem to lack any coherent doctrine of the nature of the Church.

If the Church is really and truly nothing more than a collection of individuals who affiliate themselves (or don't affiliate themselves) with loosely-aligned, ever-shifting, ever-changing groups of other individuals as they deem convenient or suitable for themselves -

then there's no need to discuss unity at all.    

If, on the other hand, as I believe,  the Church is supposed to be a visible and identifiable presence in the world, if it really is the BODY of Christ in our time and place -

then it's important that we speak with one voice, profess one faith, etc, etc.

[DCR]

If, on the other hand, as I believe,  the Church is supposed to be a visible and identifiable presence in the world, if it really is the BODY of Christ in our time and place -

then it's important that we speak with one voice, profess one faith, etc, etc.

Hmm... starts to sound a little bit like Campbell's essentials (or what Paul said in Ephesians 4 for that matter).[/color]

[Lee Freeman]

If, on the other hand, as I believe,  the Church is supposed to be a visible and identifiable presence in the world, if it really is the BODY of Christ in our time and place -

then it's important that we speak with one voice, profess one faith, etc, etc.

Hmm... starts to sound a little bit like Campbell's essentials.[/color]

GASP!

[Lee Freeman]

If, on the other hand, as I believe,  the Church is supposed to be a visible and identifiable presence in the world, if it really is the BODY of Christ in our time and place -

then it's important that we speak with one voice, profess one faith, etc, etc.

Hmm... starts to sound a little bit like Campbell's essentials (or what Paul said in Ephesians 4 for that matter).[/color]

Which was Campbell's list of essentials.  

Pax.

[boringoldguy]

I guess it was Campbell's list of essentials on alternate Thursdays.

At other times his list of essentials was restoring the ancient order.

But Lee,  you seem to want to require people to agree about what you deem essential;  permit them to disagree in areas you deem non-essential; and to prohibit those who think there are other essentials from insisting that they are, indeed, essential.

[DCR]

Maybe, we should not be discussing so much on what is essential.  Maybe, we should try to figure out what is non-essential ?

[Lee Freeman]

Maybe, we should not be discussing so much on what is essential.  Maybe, we should try to figure out what is non-essential ?

DCR, Thomas Campbell says in his "Declaration & Address" that Christians were divided over things "of which the kingdom of heaven does not consist." Campbell said nothing should be bound upon people as an article of faith that did not have a "thus saith the Lord," behind it, hence inferences, "necessary" or otherwise, were not binding upon people further than they preceived the connection. And as I've already indicated, in the appendix Thomas maintained that there were differences in doctrine and practice among New Testament churches-without any breach of unity.

Pax.[/color]

[s1n4m1n]

Join with me and together we can end this senseless rebellion and bring order again to the Church.  :darthvader:

[DCR]

Maybe, we should not be discussing so much on what is essential.  Maybe, we should try to figure out what is non-essential ?

DCR, Thomas Campbell says in his "Declaration & Address" that Christians were divided over things "of which the kingdom of heaven does not consist." Campbell said nothing should be bound upon people as an article of faith that did not have a "thus saith the Lord," behind it, hence inferences, "necessary" or otherwise, were not binding upon people further than they preceived the connection. And as I've already indicated, in the appendix Thomas maintained that there were differences in doctrine and practice among New Testament churches-without any breach of unity.

Pax.

I make the comment because if Campbell's belief was true, then we need to identify what is non-essential so that we'll know not to divide over it. :rollingeyes:

The problem is getting the people to agree on what is essential and what is non-essential.  It seems to me that the essentials of Eph. 4 are treated more like categories than specific things.  For example, we can talk about "one faith"... well, you and I might agree that this refers to the one faith in the one Lord Jesus Christ.  But, many will try to load up a whole series of issues under what is considered the "category" of "one faith".  Music, communion cups, eschatological views, etc... some will say that we all have to agree on all these things as well as all other "correct doctrines" in order to be of "one faith"... so, the water can get a little muddied even if you boil it down to the essentials... because of the ways people define those essentials.

(edit)
That mixed metaphor in the last sentence was unintentional.  Honest.  :D[/color]

[DCR]

Join with me and together we can end this senseless rebellion and bring order again to the Church.  :darthvader:

If you only knew the POWER of the Catholic side of the Church!  :darthvader:

[Lee Freeman]

Maybe, we should not be discussing so much on what is essential.  Maybe, we should try to figure out what is non-essential ?

DCR, Thomas Campbell says in his "Declaration & Address" that Christians were divided over things "of which the kingdom of heaven does not consist." Campbell said nothing should be bound upon people as an article of faith that did not have a "thus saith the Lord," behind it, hence inferences, "necessary" or otherwise, were not binding upon people further than they preceived the connection. And as I've already indicated, in the appendix Thomas maintained that there were differences in doctrine and practice among New Testament churches-without any breach of unity.

Pax.

I make the comment because if Campbell's belief was true, then we need to identify what is non-essential so that we'll know not to divide over it.

The problem is getting the people to agree on what is essential and what is non-essential.  It seems to me that the essentials of Eph. 4 are treated more like categories that specific things.  For example, we can talk about "one faith"... well, you and I might agree that this refers to the one faith in the one Lord Jesus Christ.  But, many will try to load up a whole series of issues under what is considered the "category" of "one faith".  Music, communion cups, eschatological views, etc... some will say that we all have to agree on all these things as well as all other "correct doctrines" in order to be of "one faith"... so, the water can get a little muddied even if you boil it down to the essentials... because of the ways people define those essentials.[/color]

Campbell himself defined "the faith" as the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Period. All of the other things you mentioned he viewed as disputable matters. For example, if a person believed a woman should not enter church with her head uncovered, that was fine, so long as she didn't try to legislate that view on other women.

Campbell believed that we had to agree on the items listed in Ephesians 4, not necessarily our interpretations of the items in Ephesians 4.

Pax.

[winky]

To play devil's advocate here, there are two problems with what you're saying, Lee.

That's Campbell's list of essentials, but what if others have different lists? Does he have scriptural basis for those being the only essentials?

Secondly, if you believe it is a sin to not wear a headcovering, your conscience will convict you tell others to wear a headcovering as well because you don't want your friends and loved ones to be in sin. It would be like telling you or me that we could be against homosexuality as long as we didn't legislate that on others. Would you be OK with that?

Wendy

[DCR]

Campbell believed that we had to agree on the items listed in Ephesians 4, not necessarily our interpretations of the items in Ephesians 4.

But, I think that is the whole problem.  I'm not sure how we separate the interpretation from the item itself.

The interpretation of the item defines the item.  The problem is that different groups/denominations define those items differently.

We can talk about the essential of "one baptism".  There are those of us who understand that to be immersion.  So, in the minds of many, sprinkling or pouring doesn't fit the definition of "baptism."  If there is no agreement on this, then there is no unity on the "essential" of "one baptism".  Then, you have the issue of Holy Spirit baptism or the Reformed concept of regeneration being the "true spiritual baptism" for which water baptism is only a ritual that represents what had already taken place vs. baptism for remission of sins (which the Reformers/Calvinists object to).  So, in that case, it's hard to have unity on that item.

So, if there is no agreement on the "interpretation" of the essentials, then there is no agreement on those essentials.

Just thinking out loud here...  :headscratch:[/color]

[Lee Freeman]

To play devil's advocate here, there are two problems with what you're saying, Lee.

That's Campbell's list of essentials, but what if others have different lists? Does he have scriptural basis for those being the only essentials?

Secondly, if you believe it is a sin to not wear a headcovering, your conscience will convict you tell others to wear a headcovering as well because you don't want your friends and loved ones to be in sin. It would be like telling you or me that we could be against homosexuality as long as we didn't legislate that on others. Would you be OK with that?

Wendy

Okay now you're beginning to sound like BOG and Skip, because they repeatedly bring this up.  :D

Campbell used Ephesians 4 as his "litmus test" because he observed that just about every orthodox denomination believed that passage and taught those "essentials"-it was something they all shared in common. Campbell saw it as truly "catholic" (universal).

As for people who just couldn't see the same essentials he did Campbell said this in July of 1837:

But who is a Christian? Everyone that believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God; repents his sins, and obeys him in all things according to his measure of knowledge of his will. I cannot make any one duty the standard of Christian state or charcter, not even immersion.


Back in February of 1826 Campbell had replied to German Baptist Jacob Hufstaedtler (whose churches would two years later affiliate with the Stone-Campbell Movement) who questioned Campbell's views on weekly communion and other items in Campbell's restorationist platform (ancient order):

DEAR BROTHER--FOR such I recognize you, notwithstanding the varieties of opinion which you express on some topics, on which we might never agree. But if we should not, as not unity of opinion, but unity of faith, is the only true bond of christian union, I will esteem and love you, as I do every man, of whatever name, who believes sincerely that Jesus is the Messiah, and hopes in his salvation. . . .

 Wishing you favor, mercy and peace, from our Lord and Saviour, and glad to hear from you at any time, I subscribe myself your brother in the hope of immortality.

A. C

This from the Campbell who some here insist was so gung-ho for his ancient order that he villified and attacked anyone who didn't agree with him!

Campbell was very gracious and outgoing to sincere believers who disagreed with his list of essentials or with his restorationist platform-such as Barton Stone, who disagreed with Campbell on nearly every point in his restorationist agenda.

Pax.[/color]

[Skip]

Join with me and together we can end this senseless rebellion and bring order again to the Church.  :darthvader:

::

[winky]

Okay now you're beginning to sound like BOG and Skip, because they repeatedly bring this up.  :D

I know. I just figured I'd get you to go ahead and address it and save them the trouble of bringing it up.[/color]

[Skip]

To play devil's advocate here, there are two problems with what you're saying, Lee.

That's Campbell's list of essentials, but what if others have different lists? Does he have scriptural basis for those being the only essentials?

Secondly, if you believe it is a sin to not wear a headcovering, your conscience will convict you tell others to wear a headcovering as well because you don't want your friends and loved ones to be in sin. It would be like telling you or me that we could be against homosexuality as long as we didn't legislate that on others. Would you be OK with that?

Wendy

That is exactly the problem!

Your first point has, at it's heart, authority.
Campbell has none.
Scripture is the authority, but in the face of a thousand different interpretations, which one? Who decides?
Remember, Protestants don't submit, they split...

The second question has at its heart the definition of "essential", and also pulls in the question of individual conscience -- a valid question (Rom. 14, etc).
-- Will we allow "freedom in Christ"? If yes, how long is the leash? Are there fixed doctrinal and/or moral boundaries?
-- Do we play to the lowest common denominator? If yes, what about conflicts (for example, how does one accommodate one cup and multiple cups in the L.S.)?
-- Do we submit to leadership decisions? What about the danger of apostasy or abuse of power within leadership? Is rebellion really authorized (it took 1,500 years before a major rebellion occurred within the church, and in the OT rebellion was harshly dealt with by God (Korah; Aaron & Miriam))?
:jugle:[/color]

[Skip]

To play devil's advocate here, there are two problems with what you're saying, Lee.

That's Campbell's list of essentials, but what if others have different lists? Does he have scriptural basis for those being the only essentials?

Secondly, if you believe it is a sin to not wear a headcovering, your conscience will convict you tell others to wear a headcovering as well because you don't want your friends and loved ones to be in sin. It would be like telling you or me that we could be against homosexuality as long as we didn't legislate that on others. Would you be OK with that?

Wendy

Okay now you're beginning to sound like BOG and Skip, because they repeatedly bring this up.  :D

Campbell used ...

Campbell is not a self-evident truth.
Campbell has no authority.
Campbell is not the official arbiter of the essentials of Scripture.

Therein lies the problem, for there are probably about 2 billion Christians who have heard of Peter, Paul, James, and John... but have never heard of Campbell.
If you want unity of the BODY, Campbell is not the answer.

[edit]
Nothing against Campbell per se, but unity is about more than the northside coC and the southside coC, is it?[/color]

[winky]

Protestants submit sometimes. They just find people they agree with, and submit to them! :D

[DCR]

Remember, Protestants don't submit, they split...

Catchy.

But, remember, the first Protestants were what?  Catholics.



And, the first Catholics were what?  Orthodox?  Or, were the first Orthodox folks Catholic?

Even Catholics aren't immune to splittin'... Catholic split of 1870