Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 50633 | ||
Greetings Mouse2! My friend, I don't need luck - the Blood of Christ is sufficient! ;-) I was curious though as to how a local Church becomes identified with the Churches of Christ. What is the process? Who makes the decision? There must be some process, else the name Church of Christ would be meaningless, as anyone could hang up a sign saying they were a Church of Christ. But, if there is a process, then by definition, the Church of Christ becomes a denomination. Let me know how it works, I am very curious. I know in my denomination (United Brethren in Christ), a local church can petition to become an affilate church and after a period of time, can become identified with the United Brethren in Christ. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 50647 | ||
You wrote: I was curious though as to how a local Church becomes identified with the Churches of Christ. What is the process? Who makes the decision? A local church is started by just what it is composed of...local christians come together, often times they begin meeting in someone's home. Of course, bear in mind 2 things: those christians must plan their worship service, meeting times, work to be done, etc. And 2) it is up to each of us to ensure what is being taught is Scripturual: book, chapter, and verse. When the congregation grows, they get a building, etc. When we visit other congregations (while traveling or even just in the area), wearing the name C of C, it is up to us to ensure what we are hearing fits the NT teachings. If it does not, we go elsewhere. As I mentioned before, just because the sign says C of C, doesn't mean they are following NT teachings. When your soul is on the line, it behooves us to investigate everything carefully (as the Beareans did). I'm not sure what you mean by a local church being indentified "with" churches of Christ. Each congregagtion is autonomous. We are not connected to another local congregagtion in any means, except a shared faith in the truth. We are not answerable to another local congregation, our elders have no authority in any other congregation. Our members place membership (identifying yourself to work for the Lord with a specific group of christians) in one place at a time. If they move, they place membership in the congregation near them and work with the saints there. Perhaps that answered your question. Do know, I am sincerely apologetic for my earlier comments today. My tongue can sometimes be my shortcoming in life. mouse2 |
||||||
3 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 50653 | ||
Greetings Mouse2! I was curious. I knew that you do not have the same kind of structure as say the United Brethren in Christ. But, I wasn't sure how a local church was identified as Church of Christ. This may sound funny, but in essence there is no "Church of Christ". There are simply churches which call themselves Church of Christ. ;-) Since the structure is as you have described it, how do you reconcile your structure with the New Testaments passage which demonstrate that other's did have authority over local churches in the New Testament. For example, in Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem so that the Apostles and elders could settle a question of doctrine. In verse 20, they wrote to the church in question to 'tell them' that they must do certain things. Further, v. 24 speaks of an 'authorization' which the men in question did not have. But, the implication is that such an authorization could exist. 1 Tim. 1:3 speaks of Timothy staying in Ephesus t command certain men to stop teaching a false doctrine. Titus 1:5 speaks of Titus being told to stay in Crete and to appoint Elders in the local church. These are just a few examples off of the top of my head, but they seem to argue against a strictly autonomous local church. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 50659 | ||
I'll get back to you on this point. As far as churches of Christ it is difficult to determine what you mean and I find it hard to delineate in text what I mean without being able to use italics and bold print to emphasize or deemphasize a point. Mouse2 |
||||||
5 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 50665 | ||
Greetings Mouse2! It is a pain not to be able to use all of the characters and formating! :-) Concerning the Church of Christ, I was simply trying to say that it is hard to have a 'group' called the 'Church of Christ' if there is no process to identity a church as being 'Church of Christ'. If any resturant could call itself McDonald's, would the name 'McDonald's' really have any meaning? But, be that as it may, I look forward to your response my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 50805 | ||
You wrote: Since the structure is as you have described it, how do you reconcile your structure with the New Testaments passage which demonstrate that other's did have authority over local churches in the New Testament. For example, in Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem so that the Apostles and elders could settle a question of doctrine. In verse 20, they wrote to the church in question to 'tell them' that they must do certain things. Further, v. 24 speaks of an 'authorization' which the men in question did not have. But, the implication is that such an authorization could exist. 1 Tim. 1:3 speaks of Timothy staying in Ephesus t command certain men to stop teaching a false doctrine. Titus 1:5 speaks of Titus being told to stay in Crete and to appoint Elders in the local church. “The New Testament teaches that each local congregation is self-governing. The elders only shepherd the flock of which they are members (1 Peter 5:1-3; Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1). No earthly organizational structure is mentioned beyond the local congregation. While First Century churches were autonomous, they did have interaction with other congregations. The brethren in Ephesus wrote to the church in Corinth and exhorted them to receive Apollos (Acts 18:27). One writer noted, ‘It goes without saying that, had Apollos been unworthy, the evident concern of the brethren at Ephesus for the brethren at Achaia would have been shown in warning them about him’. The church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to help the congregation in Antioch (Acts 11:22). Nothing is said about Antioch first asking for such help. Antioch could have decided, in harmony with their autonomy, that they did not need Barnabas. However, the congregation in Jerusalem did not violate Antioch’s autonomy by sending Barnabas. In 1 Timothy 1:3 and Titus 1:5 preachers were sent to local congregations to correct some problems and none of this violated the autonomy of either congregation.” Source: www.beavertonchurchofchrist.net Bible Authority: Lesson 18: The Local Church and the Universal Church You wrote: Concerning the Church of Christ, I was simply trying to say that it is hard to have a 'group' called the 'Church of Christ' if there is no process to identity a church as being 'Church of Christ'. Let me see if I can do a better job of explaining what I see in Scripture. Do you agree at least to the point of a universal church? A church (“invisible”) to which every faithful believer belongs, added to by the Lord. The Lord Jesus is the only one who can add members (Acts 2:47) or remove them (Rev 2 and 3) from the church universal. Would you agree that is true? “Every Christian was simply a member of one united body of believers. Various congregations existed (Corinth, Rome, Ephesus, etc.), but they were all part of the same body. Each congregation practiced and believed the same doctrines or teachings, that is, what was being revealed through the apostles (1 Corinthians 4:17; 14:37). Christians were admonished to remain united, divisions based on following certain leaders within the church” (Acts 20:28-30), “or dividing up the body of Christ into various sects or flavors of Christianity were condemned (1 Cor. 1:10). In fact, even sects based on following elevating one apostle over all others were rebuked (1:12-13).” Source: www.beavertonchurchofchrist.net Bible Authority: Lesson 18: The Local Church and the Universal Church The local congregation, the church of Christ, whether it be in Beijing, China, Nome, Alaska, Johannesburg, South Africa, or anywhere upon the face of the earth, it is a group of faithful believers carrying out the work set for it (the church) to do, in accordance with Scripture. Nothing more, nothing less. Does that help any? Mouse2 |
||||||
7 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 50810 | ||
No matter how you slice it, in Acts 15 you have elders from Jerusalem and apostles to the Gentiles making a judgment that is considered to be binding for the Gentile churches. James was involved in a decision, having the final say in a matter that you claim would be "out of his jurisdiction." --Joe! |
||||||