I didn't mean the link I posted to be a personal attack upon you, skypilot. Nor your particular brand of religion.

 

My sister happens to be a recent convert to Church of Christ from Catholicism, so I've become somewhat familiar with the history of her church. Hers is definitely a cult. She has cut off all ties with her Catholic family and the only reason she'll have anything to do with me is the fact that I am more aggressive about maintaining family despite religious differences. It makes her look bad to the people she's trying to convert to be ugly to me, so she tolerates my contacts with the civility expected.

 

The website I offered did state that there are great variances between congregations, so there was no need to have to defend your faith here.

 

And as you should have noted in message 15, my religion too is often considered a cult by mainstream Christianity. Only the fact that it is not "exclusive" to denomination keeps it from qualifying for the technical definition of a cult. We are counted "heretics" by most trinitarians and not accepted as "separated brethren" by Catholics. Where our loyalties should lie, however, is not to a particular denomination or set of beliefs, but to how they measure up to the harmony of scripture. I'm willing to have mine examined by anyone. If there's something I'm holding on to that is not in alignment with scripture, I'd be most appreciative if someone would point it out to me. I believe that I have enough of the truth to be saved, but I sure don't believe I have a corner on the market of it all! I am not above correction by you or by anybody else that can show me where I am in error..if I am in error.

 

I'm not about to tell you that you need to leave your denomination! In fact, if you are convinced that you are in the truth, I'm most happy to leave you be about it. I'm not attacking. In fact, there are practically no words of mine in the two posts I offered to explain my comment other than the definition of a cult...and even that is from the dictionary. Your defense is being offered to the author of the article, who is probably not a member of this group. He/she is an ex-Church of Christ member, however, so it might be helpful to at least know what the issues are concerning the credibility of a doctrine that has been at least as challenged by mainstream Christianity as my own.

 

I hope this reply brings peace.

 

 

 

 

 

 

International Church of Christ. Is the ICC Christian?  

International Churches of Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  

International Church of Christ  

I was personally "sucked" into the International

I should add that the ICOC has given us ( Churches of Christ a black eye a bad reputation maybe why some of the negative feed back) Monk I am glad your secretary's niece is safe at home. Feel free to share the blinks

skypilot

 

 

If we were going to get technical here, I think that my own denomination might fall closer to the definition of 'cult' in that it is against the orthodoxy in that it does not accept the trinity.

 

Not that I'm pressing for that determination, mind you! lol! Just that I can recognize some of the challenges to the Church of Christ that have come our way as well. For instance, we also place an importance upon obedience to the command to be baptized. I noted that the CoC eschewed the use of musical instruments for they found no precedent in NT scriptures for it. I'd be interested in knowing how they substantiate their trinitarian mode of baptism, since there is also no precedent in NT scripture for that as well.

 

Maybe I should have continued this on a separate Board as we now have drifted from commuinon to churches of Christ

 

 

 

Where did anybody baptize that way?   The orthodoxy baptizes that way, but not the Apostles in the NT scriptures. How does your church harmonize the scriptures?

 

Don't worry about hijacking your own thread. I think that's allowed. Of course, it's your thread. We can always make a new one if you like.

 

 

Kiki

 

I would like to take some time to properly prepare a response to your question about using the trinity in baptisim. I need to get supper ready and get ready for work and I think a new thread would be in order. In a few days the little Bible Study group I belong to will be studying the Holy Spirit. I may have missed it but could you post your belief on the Trinity?

skypilot

there are many churches of christ not affiliated with one another..It splitg when all the elders who govern the church of Christ do not like the bylaws...although biblical ..set to follow.  The old testament is minimize.

It is not classified a religion for there are usually omly those with their own church to answer to.

They do believe in baptismal regeneration for Salvation... and yet there is not a co-hesiveness of order between Churchs.  It was created..I believe in 1906.. Later the writings of the belif of two men put together ...I belive one was named stone and I forget the other...I have to google  the church of Christ...

I think the question of whether cultish may be a matter of opinion in regards to salvation through baptism only...and yet since it is run more like a government...and like each state has different doctrines so do the churches of christ....

My idea of a cult is when Jesus is removed from its center of Savation, The death of Christ denied as well as His ressurection.

 

 

"Cult" typically refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding population considers to be outside the mainstream.

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary lists five different definitions of the word "cult."^[13]

1. Formal religious veneration

2. A system of religious beliefs and ritual; also: its body of adherents;

3. A religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also: its body of adherents;

4. A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator;

5. Great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book).

The Random House Unabridged Dictionary's eight definitions of "cult" are:

1. A particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies;

2. An instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers;

3. The object of such devotion;

Okay skypilot. We'll start a new thread. But I don't believe in the trinity, so there's not going to be anything for me to post.

 

 

What I do believe in is monotheism, aka the "oneness" of the godhead, as do a few others in this forum.

 

In its simplest explanation, most will agree that Jesus was both God and man. No mere man had authority to forgive sin nor power to resurrect himself from the dead. That Jesus took credit for doing both either makes Him a liar or proves that He is God. And no God can pray to another God and still remain God. Praying 'ungods' somebody! So, we can say that when He got tired, or hungry, or thirsty, or prayed, He was doing all those things as man. But when He forgave sin and answered prayer, He was doing those things as God.

 

Now, the resolution we have found to the dilemma of the titles employed when speaking of what Jesus did as man and what He did as God that doesn't do damage to the truth that God took 4,000 years and great pains to impress upon mankind that He ALONE is God, is to take the verse that says that "the fulness of the godhead dwelt bodily in the man Christ Jesus" for just exactly what it says. The Father was in the Son, doing the works that proved He had the authority to speak as God.

 

I've explained my perspective before thusly: When God made man in His image, He made man after the pattern of Him who was to come, that is, after Jesus. This means that God always intended to manifest Himself in a body. See:

 

 

 

So, in Genesis, you have an invisible Eternal Spirit passing through time, speaking of things that are not as though they already were, who always intended to manifest Himself as a man, creating a being in His image (one that is supposed to look like He is going to look when He manifests Himself), and what does He create? Another invisible spirit? No. He creates a body, breathes spirit into that body, and that body becomes a living soul that can die and be resurrected to live somewhere in eternity. Adam had a body, was given a spirit, and became a living soul. So, God always planned to have a human body, He always was a Spirit, and the life, the volition or will or power or personhood/godhead that was to accomplish His plans always existed as Concept or Logos or Holy Ghost, if you will.

 

Now, the way scripture teaches us to differentiate between God's body, His Spirit, and His Soul is thusly: His Spirit created, therefore His Spirit is called "Father." The Body that He fashioned for Himself, that was not made of the will of men but of the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, was born of a woman. The Body was not God. The man Christ Jesus was fully man. The relationship between the man and the indwelling Spirit was a Son-Father relationship. We call Jesus Christ the Son of God, like scripture says He is. Not God the Son. The soul (mind, volition, will, personality) of God dwelt bodily in that man, and when the Spirit left Him on the cross, His Person was indeed humbling Himself, becoming obedient, and therefore proving by the spirit of holiness that He was the Son of God in power(Romans 5:1-4). He did not die when the Spirit left Him. But He did die when He gave up the ghost. That Ghost is the same Holy Ghost that we receive when we are born again. It is the very mind of Christ that had existed that was with God and was God before He became flesh and dwelt among us.

 

Therefore, Jesus is exactly what scripture says He is: the express image of the invisible God. All of God was in Jesus! Not one third of Him.

 

My explanation of the godhead is not something that was taught to me by men. Indeed, I have not really seen anybody else explain the godhead this way. I feel that this was given me by revelation, but I am not so protective of it that I am unwilling to have it tested. So far, nobody has challenged me on it. We do have a position paper posted on this board concerning the humanity of Jesus Christ that does a wonderful job of defending why we reject certain terminology when discussing the godhead and why God's movements through time necessitated an imposition upon our language in order for us to understand it. I will try to find it and bump it up. I'll also copy this post onto that thread and we can continue our discussion there if you like.

 

Let me just say that I do not believe it is necessary for someone to have the revelation of the mighty God in Christ in order to be saved. I find in scripture that all they need to believe is that Jesus is the Son of God, empowered with all authority in heaven and in earth. That much will prove itself evident as one walks through this life, doing all things in the name of Jesus Christ, beginning with water baptism for the remission of sins.

 

God bless.