# What is the Church of Christ? COC



## etexas (Nov 5, 2007)

Not to be confuseed with Latter day Saints. I know someone seeking a Church, who will be visiting a local COC on Sunday. I really cannot find much about them. Since each church is "independant", I could not find out much. What do they teach? What are their distinctives?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 5, 2007)

etexas said:


> Not to be confuseed with Latter day Saints. I know someone seeking a Church, who will be visiting a local COC on Sunday. I really cannot find much about them. Since each church is "independant", I could not find out much. What do they tech? What are their distinctives?




They are a Pelagian cult that teaches salvation by good works and baptism, or has they like to pronounce it "buptism".


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 5, 2007)

Here is a four part series by a Presbyterian preacher in my area that was recently involved in a debate with these heretics. Is the Church of Christ Christ's Church?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 5, 2007)

Please note that there are several kinds of "Church of Christ". Around here we have a bunch of them that don't want any association with the cultic "Church of Christ"...or is it "Church of God" or "Church of God in Christ"?

There is also a segment of COCs that used to be Dutch Reformed (in it's beginnings), but have greatly strayed.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 5, 2007)

If this is the same Church of Christ group, here a little about them:

Churches of Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Hermeneutics
Churches of Christ practice the principle of the Bible being the only source to find doctrine (also known as "sola scriptura"). Interpretive approaches to Scripture may vary somewhat from congregation to congregation as churches of Christ are not bound to a creed, catechism or denominational council. Regarding Biblical historicity and literalism, churches of Christ are quite conservative and generally see the Bible as historically accurate and literal, unless scriptural context obviously indicates otherwise. Regarding Church practices, worship, and doctrine, there is great liberty from congregation to congregation in interpreting what is Biblically permissible, as congregations are not controlled by a denominational hierarchy.

Some believe God binds people only to the explicit commands of New Testament Scripture, meaning that anything commanded must be obeyed in its proper and obvious context but that anything not expressly forbidden is allowable and open to interpretation and preference. Others have a more stringent view of Scripture, believing that only what is expressly commanded, given as an approved example, or indicated as permissible by inference is allowable as a practice in the Church. The latter view means that if something is not specifically mentioned and approved of in the New Testament, then the Church should not take the liberty of doing it. There is much variety that exists from congregation to congregation between these two ideologies. This approach, which is related to the non-denominational/autonomous nature of congregations, allows open interpretation for the uninhibited search and discovery of the original meanings of biblical texts. However, churches of Christ tend to be uncannily similar in their Biblical interpretations regarding salvation and morality. The liturgy or form of worship is also quite similar in most congregations, although the style sometimes varies in different locales.


[edit] Doctrine of Salvation (Soteriology)
Churches of Christ profess the doctrine common to most Protestant evangelical groups—that humans (of accountable age) are lost in sin (Romans 3:23) but can be redeemed because Jesus Christ, the Son of God, offered Himself as the atoning sacrifice (Romans 6:23).

The difference between churches of Christ and most other evangelical churches is how one receives this salvation. Churches of Christ hold to teaching that salvation begins when one obeys God's command of being baptized in Christ's name, pointing to passages such as Mark 16:16, John 3:3-5, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, and I Peter 3:21. This stands in contrast to others who place salvation at the moment of "acceptance of Christ," quoting a "sinner's prayer," or "asking Jesus into one's heart." Baptism in churches of Christ is performed only by bodily immersion as the New Testament Greek term baptizo always means "to immerse." Only those mentally capable of belief and repentance are baptized (i.e., infant baptism is not practiced).

Due to their views on the relationship of baptism to salvation, the churches of Christ are often regarded as holding to baptismal regeneration. This is actually a misconception, for, in reality, they do not believe the Holy Spirit regenerates or operates on the soul of man in a direct way. In Restoration theology, the agency of the Holy Spirit in salvation is viewed strictly in His inspiration of the Scriptures which inform men what God has done and what they must to do in order for salvation to occur.[citation needed]

Therefore, baptism in the churches of Christ is seen as the step of obedience (preceded by hearing, believing, confessing and repenting) which results in forgiveness of past sins and places the individual in a position to further obey God's commands, which if he faithfully performs till his death he will be granted entrance into heaven and thus saved.


[edit] Other Theological Tendencies
Some would label churches of Christ as typically Arminian, although members do not generally embrace this label nor hold to certain tenets of Arminian belief. The concepts of Original Sin, total depravity, predestination, etc. are rejected as doctrinal innovations that are not based on Scripture. Election and predestination are regarded as functions of the exercise of free will (i.e., God has chosen and wishes for all to be saved but only those who choose to believe and submit to Him will be). Those who choose God's way through Christ are elect and therefore saved while those who reject Christ are lost in sin. The doctrine of "once saved always saved" is also rejected. Generally understood in churches of Christ is that a Christian can consciously decide to cease following Christ and thus lose salvation, or "fall from grace" (2 Peter 2:20-22).

Regarding eschatology, churches of Christ are generally amillennial and take a preterist view of Apocalyptic texts. A few congregations favor premillennial interpretations.


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 5, 2007)

I am assuming that Blueridge Baptist is correct about the specific "flavor" of Church of Christ you are thinking about in your question.

They key point for me has to do with the fact that they are part of the Restorationist movement (aka Stone-Campbell). As such, they are related to the liberal Disciples of Chirst mainline denomination and the very conservative evangelical "Christian Churches" movement. On a theological continum you might place DoC to the left and Churches of Christ to the right, with the independent Christian churches somewhere in between in the Restorationist Movement. Churches of Christ tend to be non-instrumental (their version of the RPW), their most "famous" son is the prolific evangelical author Max Lucado, and they eschew creeds and confessions as man-made impediments to Christian unity along the lines of John 17.

Historically Restorationists arose as a movement of Christian unity with strong Presbyterian and Baptist inputs in the 19th century. Today a disproportionate percentage of mega churches are affiliated with either the Church of Christ or the independent Christian Churches. Because of their reflexive conservatism coupled with a disinterest in doctrinal controversies, they are uniquely positioned to leverage their strength in current U.S. society. Their message of "mere Christianity" shorn of ecclesiastical regulations and doctrinal fine points accords well with a post-modern audience. And, their instinctive Arminianism comports well with aggressive church growth strategies. However, insofar as the Churches of Christ tend to be more legalistic and sectarian in their approach, some of the greatest church growth has actually taken place in their independent Christian Church cousin.

Frankly, I see the Restorationists as intrinsically unbalanced from an organizational perspective. Their professions of disinterest in doctrine will likely make them ripe for takeover by progressive ideologies (cf. their liberal kin the Disciples of Christ). While they are currently generally very conservative, the methods being utilized to grow their congregations carry implications for belief as well.

[Warning: these are my own reflections based upon experience and conversations with these folks]

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## etexas (Nov 5, 2007)

DMcFadden said:


> I am assuming that Blueridge Baptist is correct about the specific "flavor" of Church of Christ you are thinking about in your question.
> 
> They key point for me has to do with the fact that they are part of the Restorationist movement (aka Stone-Campbell). As such, they are related to the liberal Disciples of Chirst mainline denomination and the very conservative evangelical "Christian Churches" movement. On a theological continum you might place DoC to the left and Churches of Christ to the right, with the independent Christian churches somewhere in between in the Restorationist Movement. Churches of Christ tend to be non-instrumental (their version of the RPW), their most "famous" son is the prolific evangelical author Max Lucado, and they eschew creeds and confessions as man-made impediments to Christian unity along the lines of John 17.
> 
> ...


Very helpful! Thanks!


----------



## Davidius (Nov 5, 2007)

A couple in my congregation were formerly with the CoC and have nothing but bad things to say about it, along the lines of what has already been said here.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## etexas (Nov 5, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> A couple in my congregation were formerly with the CoC and have nothing but bad things to say about it, along the lines of what has already been said here.


Thanks, from my former Anglican "bubble" I really disd not know what to say. I have met a few, but...I really could not say anything given that....I don't know their stance on..well....anything..


----------



## Contra Marcion (Nov 5, 2007)

I grew up in the COC - was baptized in the COC at age 11. Only by God's grace, and the preaching of John Piper, did I ever come to know the true gospel. 

Here are the basics I grew up with - 

1) Man is completely able to choose good or evil - there is no original sin. Adam set us all a bad example, and made gardening more difficult, but not much else. 

2) Jesus death makes salvation a possibility for all, if they only work the program correctly. 

3) The program, called the "plan of salvation" or "obeying the gospel" is as follows 

1) Hear the word
2) Believe the word
3) Repent of your sins
4) Confess that Jesus is Lord
5) Be baptized - this is where you actually "contact the blood" - Must be by immersion
6) Remain faithful unto death

4) At any time, one can be "saved", then "lost", then "saved" again, if he remembers to repent.

5) Children are born completely innocent until they actually, knowingly sin - after reaching an "age of accountability"

6) The Old Testament is, in it's entirety, not binding on the Christian, other than to inform us of the past. 

7) All worship practices not sanctioned in the New Testament are forbidden - except, of course, those which they practice, like using Hymnals and microphones. (And Bibles in English)

8) There is only one true Church, and they are it. They will therefore not refer to "The Church of Christ in Milwaukee", but rather simply, "The Church in Milwaukee". All the other churches in Milwaukee (to use an example) are simply "religious organizations" or "the denominations". 

9) They themselves are not a denomination, but the New Testament Church. All other churches are denominations. 

10) The name on the building must say "Christ" in it somewhere, or it is a church of someone else. I was actually told that my old PCA church, Trinity Church, was named unbiblically! 

11) Pastors are not a proper office. They have lay ministers, called "evangelists" or "preachers", who are usually not seminary-trained, and are not necessarily elders. 

That about sums it up. My background, by the way, is the origin of my PB handle - the COC read their Bibles like Marcionites - rejecting Genesis - Malachi, and only preaching the snippets that they can twist to support their crazy doctrine. Therefore, Tertullian's masterpiece is one of my favorite books of all time.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 5, 2007)

A full blown Pelagian, bible rejecting cult. That's the nicest thing I can say about them.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## danmpem (Nov 5, 2007)

Contra Marcion said:


> Therefore, Tertullian's masterpiece is one of my favorite books of all time.



I'm just learning about Tertullian, which work of his are you referring to?


----------



## etexas (Nov 5, 2007)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> A full blown Pelagian, bible rejecting cult. That's the nicest thing I can say about them.


Thank you! I wsh I had known....as a former Anglican, we had so many of our own concerns, Orthodox, Liberals, Anglo-Catholics, High Church Evangelicals...I truly did not know anything about them, it was like I heard Church and Christ..and was like cool man. Glad to hear it. I am glad I started this thread...most helpful....thank you all.


----------



## Contra Marcion (Nov 8, 2007)

danmpem said:


> Contra Marcion said:
> 
> 
> > Therefore, Tertullian's masterpiece is one of my favorite books of all time.
> ...



Specifically, I had _Contra Marcion_, which is my favorite of Terullian's works, in mind. When he refutes the dual-god heresy of Marcion, he almost sounds as if he's refuting Campbellism at times! Marcion taught that there were really two gods - a mean, nasty god in the Old Testament, and a kinder, gentler god of the New. He was known for his creative "editing" of the New Testament to make his hyposthesis work. (He literally cut parts of scripture out!) 

In Campbellism (Church of Christ theology), you have essentially two ways of salvation - the OT saints are saved by works, and the NT saints are saved by - baptism, of course! 

Both Marcionism and Campbellism functionally deny the unity of the Scriptures, and by extension, the unity of God. 

BTW, if you like satire and a "no punches pulled" style of writing, you'll love Tertullian. Example: 

The fiercest nations inhabit it (the Euxine Sea area), if indeed it can be called habitation, when life is passed in waggons. They have no fixed abode; their life has no germ of civilization; they indulge their libidinous desires without restraint, and for the most part naked. Moreover, when they gratify secret lust, they hang up their quivers on their car-yokes, to warn off the curious and rash observer. Thus without a blush do they prostitute their weapons of war. The dead bodies of their parents they cut up with their sheep, and devour at their feasts. They who have not died so as to become food for others, are thought to have died an accursed death. Their women are not by their sex softened to modesty. They uncover the breast, from which they suspend their battle-axes, and prefer warfare to marriage. In their climate, too, there is the same rude nature. The day-time is never clear, the sun never cheerful; the sky is uniformly cloudy; the whole year is wintry; the only wind that blows is the angry North. Waters melt only by fires; their rivers flow not by reason of the ice; their mountains are covered with heaps of snow. All things are torpid, all stiff with cold. Nothing there has the glow of life, but that ferocity which has given to scenic plays their stories of the sacrifices of the Taurians, and the loves of the Colchians, and the torments of the Caucasus. *Nothing, however, in Pontus is so barbarous and sad as the fact that Marcion was born there...* - Contra Marcion, 1.3


----------



## etexas (Nov 8, 2007)

Contra Marcion said:


> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> > Contra Marcion said:
> ...


My friend I am a Church Fathers "buff" I have about 3 shelves dedicated to them....and you are correct....those guys did NOT pull any punches in epistles or discourse!


----------



## etexas (Nov 8, 2007)

I am glad I started this thread, the fellow I ran into used to work for a friend of mine, but they are on good terms so I said, have you seen **** lately? He said no, not in quite a while. (They used to attend the same SBC together) so I said not even in Church? That was when he told me about the COC deal. I REALLY did not thing much of it till I came home and became curious...curious indeed in that they are independent and...there are no "headquarters", so that is then I posed my question here. To be honest I tought the COC were a bit like Baptist but "stricter", NO OFFENCE to y MANY Bapbtist friends here on the PB!!!! Remember I am coming from an Anglican "bubble" so what would I know of the COC? Had I known.....I am not sure what I could have said anyway! I had met the guy a few times he went on 2 fishing trips with my friend and I and deer hunting once....based on what has been shown...I can only ask for you to pray for this man.


----------



## danmpem (Nov 8, 2007)

Contra Marcion said:


> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> > Contra Marcion said:
> ...


----------

