So what you're saying is that we should all join the Orthodox Church, as they can trace their history back to the Apostles as opposed to the Restoration Movement in America?aggiedad20 said:
Here's a great study for those who are interested in learning more about divisions. Christ is not divided.
https://www.gospelway.com/bible/religious_confusion.php
) However, what control do I have over that? I can't change what the rest of the world believes or force them to join mine. I also can't worship with them in good faith, knowing that I have huge differences in fundamental Christian beliefs, like baptism, communion, sin, predestination, etc. Can you ever post or even read a non Church of Christ website? And honestly debate? Instead of just stating things?aggiedad20 said:
Here's a great study for those who are interested in learning more about divisions. Christ is not divided.
https://www.gospelway.com/bible/religious_confusion.php
Quote:
I also can't worship with them in good faith, knowing that I have huge differences in fundamental Christian beliefs, like baptism, communion, sin, predestination, etc.
Pro Sandy said:
Many churches I would not worship in on a regular basis, but I would for worship with them.
I have worshiped in United Methodist, Associated Reformed Presbyterian, Presbyterian Church of America, Southern Baptist, Northern California Baptist, Lutheran, church of Christ, Non-Denominational, Calvary Chapel, Episcopal, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and probably many others. I'm pretty sure God was glorified in our worship. Except the Methodists.
I do consider all these groups Christian and though I might not regularly worship with them, I have before and would again if certain occasions arise.
Though we may be separated by denomination, we are still united in Christ and should not let the church of Christ try to divide us even more with their "them verses everyone else" mentality.
I like that! Amen brother!Pro Sandy said:
Many churches I would not worship in on a regular basis, but I would for worship with them.
I have worshiped in United Methodist, Associated Reformed Presbyterian, Presbyterian Church of America, Southern Baptist, Northern California Baptist, Lutheran, church of Christ, Non-Denominational, Calvary Chapel, Episcopal, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and probably many others. I'm pretty sure God was glorified in our worship. Except the Methodists.
I do consider all these groups Christian and though I might not regularly worship with them, I have before and would again if certain occasions arise.
Though we may be separated by denomination, we are still united in Christ and should not let the church of Christ try to divide us even more with their "them verses everyone else" mentality.
swimmerbabe11 said:
I wouldn't regularly attend worship services/Bible Studies with a church whose beliefs I dont endorse. I'm certainly not going to take communion or have my hypothetical child baptized there.
obviously I can hug baptists. ill drink with them too if they'll drink with me.
AgLiving06 said:swimmerbabe11 said:
I wouldn't regularly attend worship services/Bible Studies with a church whose beliefs I dont endorse. I'm certainly not going to take communion or have my hypothetical child baptized there.
obviously I can hug baptists. ill drink with them too if they'll drink with me.
The more interesting thing to me is that this shouldn't be controversial.
This is the norm in any christian group (thinking Orthodox, Catholicism, Lutheranism) that hold communion is not symbolic, but the real presence. It's why these groups practice "closed communion."
swimmerbabe11 said:
I started the prayer request thread, so I will at very least accept your prayers.. gotta think I'm willing to pray with you irl too.
The question about hugging was really what got me as silliness.
Guilty as charged.ramblin_ag02 said:swimmerbabe11 said:
I started the prayer request thread, so I will at very least accept your prayers.. gotta think I'm willing to pray with you irl too.
The question about hugging was really what got me as silliness.
I've mostly attended evangelical churches, and the hugging is copious and apparently integral to the worship service
dermdoc said:
Maybe how your denomination interprets Romans 10:13?
PacifistAg said:So what you're saying is that we should all join the Orthodox Church, as they can trace their history back to the Apostles as opposed to the Restoration Movement in America?aggiedad20 said:
Here's a great study for those who are interested in learning more about divisions. Christ is not divided.
https://www.gospelway.com/bible/religious_confusion.php
This article exhibits all the worst qualities of CoC "theologians". It shows blissful ignorance of 1000 years of Scripture and tradition relating to "calling on the Name of God" that predates the New Testament. It takes 2-3 verses of the New Testament without much or any context. Then it ignores 1800 years of Christian thought on the topic before giving half a page on the subject that I'm sure the author considers definitive.aggiedad20 said:dermdoc said:
Maybe how your denomination interprets Romans 10:13?
Here's another lesson for you Doc.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/934-acts-2-21-calling-on-the-lords-name
HTH
ramblin_ag02 said:This article exhibits all the worst qualities of CoC "theologians". It shows blissful ignorance of 1000 years of Scripture and tradition relating to "calling on the Name of God" that predates the New Testament. It takes 2-3 verses of the New Testament without much or any context. Then it ignores 1800 years of Christian thought on the topic before giving half a page on the subject that I'm sure the author considers definitive.aggiedad20 said:dermdoc said:
Maybe how your denomination interprets Romans 10:13?
Here's another lesson for you Doc.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/934-acts-2-21-calling-on-the-lords-name
HTH
The idea of "calling on the Name of God" is a fascinating and edifying topic that is done absolutely no justice in this link.
ramblin_ag02 said:This article exhibits all the worst qualities of CoC "theologians". It shows blissful ignorance of 1000 years of Scripture and tradition relating to "calling on the Name of God" that predates the New Testament. It takes 2-3 verses of the New Testament without much or any context. Then it ignores 1800 years of Christian thought on the topic before giving half a page on the subject that I'm sure the author considers definitive.aggiedad20 said:dermdoc said:
Maybe how your denomination interprets Romans 10:13?
Here's another lesson for you Doc.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/934-acts-2-21-calling-on-the-lords-name
HTH
The idea of "calling on the Name of God" is a fascinating and edifying topic that is done absolutely no justice in this link.
AgLiving06 said:
This is the norm in any christian group (thinking Orthodox, Catholicism, Lutheranism) that hold communion is not symbolic, but the real presence. It's why these groups practice "closed communion."
aggiedad20 said:ramblin_ag02 said:This article exhibits all the worst qualities of CoC "theologians". It shows blissful ignorance of 1000 years of Scripture and tradition relating to "calling on the Name of God" that predates the New Testament. It takes 2-3 verses of the New Testament without much or any context. Then it ignores 1800 years of Christian thought on the topic before giving half a page on the subject that I'm sure the author considers definitive.aggiedad20 said:dermdoc said:
Maybe how your denomination interprets Romans 10:13?
Here's another lesson for you Doc.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/934-acts-2-21-calling-on-the-lords-name
HTH
The idea of "calling on the Name of God" is a fascinating and edifying topic that is done absolutely no justice in this link.
The good doctor cherry picked a verse, blue stars your opinionated post so I responded with a short article that addresses the topic of calling on the Lord's name using other scriptures where we find it and that gets me chastised? Lol. Ok
Christian thought and traditions can be both good and bad. I try to keep it biblical. If you have a scriptural rebuttal, I'm all ears but if you just like shouting from the cheap seats I'm sure everyone here will be on your team.
You can't all be right.dermdoc said:
And have you ever considered how arrogant it sounds when you proclaim we are "in error"? We interpret Scripture differently than the CofC does in some instances. Does not mean anyone is in error, just honest different opinions.
aggiedad20 said:ramblin_ag02 said:This article exhibits all the worst qualities of CoC "theologians". It shows blissful ignorance of 1000 years of Scripture and tradition relating to "calling on the Name of God" that predates the New Testament. It takes 2-3 verses of the New Testament without much or any context. Then it ignores 1800 years of Christian thought on the topic before giving half a page on the subject that I'm sure the author considers definitive.aggiedad20 said:dermdoc said:
Maybe how your denomination interprets Romans 10:13?
Here's another lesson for you Doc.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/934-acts-2-21-calling-on-the-lords-name
HTH
The idea of "calling on the Name of God" is a fascinating and edifying topic that is done absolutely no justice in this link.
The good doctor cherry picked a verse, blue stars your opinionated post so I responded with a short article that addresses the topic of calling on the Lord's name using other scriptures where we find it and that gets me chastised? Lol. Ok
Christian thought and traditions can be both good and bad. I try to keep it biblical. If you have a scriptural rebuttal, I'm all ears but if you just like shouting from the cheap seats I'm sure everyone here will be on your team.
