Church of Christ Library for Logos Bible Software

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1209142#Comment_1209142

... I ask if it is possible to be a church of Christ and not believe that calling upon the name of the Lord involves: "Hear the gospel; Believe; Repent; Confess; Be Baptized into Christ for remission of sins; and Live a faithful Christian life". I am not trying to pick an argument, but if these 6 constitute what is required for the remission of sins, then this is a creed or doctrine. If those who hold this view can view another church of Christ as valid which does not hold this view, then it is NOT a defining creed. I have little experience, but EVERY church of Christ I have been exposed to accepts this summary of the teaching of Scripture as true and necessary.

David, that's a great question. The doctrine you're describing is certainly characteristic of churches of Christ, and has been for well over a hundred years. I would argue, though, that there's a difference between a doctrine - even an important doctrine - and a formal creed or statement of faith.

The "five finger exercise," as it's sometimes called, originated as an evangelistic tool. It was a bit of shorthand, much like the alliterative outlines that are so popular today, and the original form (as I recall) was "Hear, Believe, Repent, Confess, Be Baptized." When I was a kid, I remember some people questioning whether leading with "Hear" made any sense, because if someone was listening to you then they'd already crossed that bridge. Those who dropped the "Hear" usually added "Live a Faithful Life" to get the number back up to five.

If there is a church of Christ creed, that's probably the closest thing we have to it. But it was never formalized in quite the same way as something like the Nicene Creed. It seems to me to be more parallel to the TULIP of Calvinism (Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints) than the Nicene Creed. Denying one of the five steps of the plan of salvation would be considered as serious in the churches of Christ as denying one of the classic five points of Calvinism would be in some other traditions. But churches of Christ have never formally adopted a common confession of faith that would articulate those five steps of salvation.

If there are no commonly accepted beliefs, how would one determine if a book should or should not be included in a Collection or Library as in the heading of this Thread.

There absolutely are commonly accepted beliefs among churches of Christ. I hope nothing I've said has created the impression that there aren't. Even something as amorphous as the "Evangelical Movement" has certain common beliefs and approaches to things. The lack of a formal denominational infrastructure means that the way those common beliefs are developed and maintained among churches of Christ is less formal and more organic than what you might find in some other groups. There's no conclave or assembly that votes. It used to be that several prominent magazines, such as the Gospel Advocate played a key role in maintaining a doctrinal consensus. Someone once said "the church of Christ doesn't have bishops, it has editors." But those publications have lost much of their influence in the last few decades, and my sense is that the doctrinal consensus is beginning to dissolve.

My guess is that 50 years from now there will be little to distinguish most churches of Christ from any other vaguely evangelical, independent community Bible church.

I should add that the lack of any formal denominational infrastructure means that there may well be a church of Christ congregation out there that has formally adopted a creed. It would be atypical, but I wouldn't be surprised.

David Thomas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1209167#Comment_1209167

My guess is that 50 years from now there will be little to distinguish most churches of Christ from any other vaguely evangelical, independent community Bible church.

As pastor of a non-denominational Community Church, I think the role of water baptism in remission of sins will remain a sticking point for many who are outside of the churches of Christ or Independent Christian Churches movements. I know it keeps me from recommending some otherwise excellent colleges to our students. Our doctrinal statement was never the product of a council of bishops, but it is something we ask all potential "members" to affirm. However, we DO have people who worship regularly with us who do not affirm our Doctrinal Statement and are not included in our Membership Roster that votes as prescribed in our Articles of Incorporation filed with our state.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1209170#Comment_1209170

... I think the role of water baptism in remission of sins will remain a sticking point for many who are outside of the churches of Christ or Independent Christian Churches movements ...

That's doubtless true. It's an important issue. It seems to me that some Protestant churches unduly de-emphasize baptism, which is a personal sticking point for me. I do wonder how much these doctrinal questions resonate with the average person in the pew. I suspect that if you polled either of our congregations on the nature of baptism, you'd find a variety of different opinions.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1209138#Comment_1209138

...What that statement means, as it is typically used by thoughtful members of the churches of Christ, is that we don't have a formal statement of faith the way many other church traditions do. Period. Full stop.

But we do have a formal statement of faith. Just because we haven’t written one, doesn’t mean we don’t have one. Before getting hired, many churches of Christ ask a preacher what he believes, in writing, by filling out a questionnaire tailored specifically to churches of Christ beliefs. Same for those who wish to place membership in any given local congregation. They will not hire a preacher that doesn’t answer correctly and they will deny membership to one who was baptized in a denomination, even if that person believes he or she has already done what the Bible says in order to follow Christ. They can claim that, but if is not the way the church of Christ interprets it, sorry, no job and no membership for you.

Other churches of Christ believe there are christians in denominations and give membership to those who decided to “switch.”

The point, we may not have a written formal statement of faith, but we do exercise one based on each congregation’s beliefs and many list it in their websites or use books or tracks to let people know what they “creed” if you would.

I remember the track “Welcome to the Church of Christ” when you come to visit us you will notice we don’t have instrumental music, we don’t call the preacher “Pastor,” we do this and that, etc.

Maybe we haven’t been honest with ourselves because we too follow and repeat traditions without actually understanding what we’re saying as long as is what we’re used to hearing. Like I mentioned in another thread, preachers with 20 and 35 years of preaching experience and they didn’t know what a creed is and just tried to explain it away as they were taught in their school; mainly, it’s a Catholic thing and other denominations use it too and that’s why we reject them (when in reality, each congregation has its own creed too).

When it comes to having creeds, the church of Christ is not different from other religious groups; the only difference is how they interpret and use their own creeds.

Anyway, let’s get back to the original intent of the thread. I’ll keep my fingers crossed and hope Logos gives us a Base Package based on what We Believe! 😁 Sounds ironic, doesn’t it?

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1209174#Comment_1209174

That's doubtless true. It's an important issue. It seems to me that some Protestant churches unduly de-emphasize baptism, which is a personal sticking point for me. I do wonder how much these doctrinal questions resonate with the average person in the pew. I suspect that if you polled either of our congregations on the nature of baptism, you'd find a variety of different opinions.

And no doubt that most would de-emphasize baptism. Many times I have heard and read the proposal that "one is saved and then they are baptized because it is a command of Jesus".... which I don't understand ....

One of the things that got me started studying different denominations.... was that I had a friend named Butch. Butch wanted to "get saved" and the Reverend in the church where I was at the time (I was 16 years old) took Butch's confession of Christ and told Butch he was saved.... then 3 weeks later... Butch was baptized.... which was the custom of that church. The deacons of that church (my step-dad being one) voted on whether to accept Butch's baptism.... which they did not. I argued how can the church not accept a person that is saved? My step-dad said they didn't think Butch was sincere........ Yet the Reverend pronounced Butch saved. I didn't understand.... and that started me searching.... I know the Lords adds the ones that are being saved.... Acts 2:47...

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1209177#Comment_1209177

DAL,

First, thank you for a stimulating discussion. I get the point you're trying to make - I just think you're going about it the wrong way.

But we do have a formal statement of faith. Just because we haven’t written one, doesn’t mean we don’t have one...

An unwritten statement of faith is by it's very nature informal - not formal.

The point, we may not have a written formal statement of faith, but we do exercise one based on each congregation’s beliefs and many list it in their websites or use books or tracks to let people know what they “creed” if you would.

I never said we don't have anything written down - of course we do. I also never said that we don't have a consensus on doctrine, or that congregations don't enforce a degree of doctrinal conformity. Honestly, while critics sometimes assert that that churches of Christ believe in "salvation by works," in my experience it would be much more accurate to say that the typical church of Christ believes in "salvation by doctrinal correctness." That's a problem.

So I get it - we can be as pigheaded as anyone else. But, in my judgement, blurring the distinctions between a tract like “Welcome to the Church of Christ” and classic credal statements like the Nicene Creed or the Westminster Confession of Faith is simply not helpful. It doesn't help us understand the Catholics or Presbyterians better, and it doesn't help them understand us better.

When it comes to having creeds, the church of Christ is not different from other religious groups; the only difference is how they interpret and use their own creeds.

Saying that we develop and maintain a doctrinal consensus in a much less formal way than other groups is not dishonest, and it's not an attack on anyone else. Noting that we don't have a written, formal statement of faith isn't dishonest either. I think we can do that without mischaracterizing the role that creeds play in the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox traditions, for example.

Anyway, let’s get back to the original intent of the thread. I’ll keep my fingers crossed and hope Logos gives us a Base Package based on what We Believe! ...

Amen to that!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1209185#Comment_1209185

Anyway, let’s get back to the original intent of the thread. I’ll keep my fingers crossed and hope Logos gives us a Base Package based on what We Believe! ...

Amen to that!

Amen and Amen!!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1209185#Comment_1209185

Thanks, EastTN, for your mature response! May the Lord help up us mature in the faith and in the treatment of others! I’ll definitely try to see other ways to go about my book on this topic and hopefully it will accomplish what I intend without coming across the wrong way 👍😁👌

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1209185#Comment_1209185

classic credal statements like the Nicene Creed or the Westminster Confession of Faith is simply not helpful.

May I point you to a surprising source for the difference between a creed and a confession of faith? Creeds and Confessions: What’s the Difference? (thegospelcoalition.org)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1209201#Comment_1209201

classic credal statements like the Nicene Creed or the Westminster Confession of Faith is simply not helpful.

May I point you to a surprising source for the difference between a creed and a confession of faith? Creeds and Confessions: What’s the Difference? (thegospelcoalition.org)

Super, MJ! Thanks 🙏 I’ll add it to my research 🔬 🔍

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1209201#Comment_1209201

classic credal statements like the Nicene Creed or the Westminster Confession of Faith is simply not helpful.

May I point you to a surprising source for the difference between a creed and a confession of faith? Creeds and Confessions: What’s the Difference? (thegospelcoalition.org)

Thank you, MJ! That's very helpful. For what it's worth, my understanding of the early history of the Restoration Movement is that while "creeds" and "confessions" were lumped together, the primary issue early leaders of the movement had was with the detailed, theology laden confessions of the time. They were seen as a barrier to working across existing denominational boundaries.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1209197#Comment_1209197

Thanks, EastTN, for your mature response! May the Lord help up us mature in the faith and in the treatment of others! I’ll definitely try to see other ways to go about my book on this topic and hopefully it will accomplish what I intend without coming across the wrong way 👍😁👌

DAL

Good luck with it, DAL! I do think what you're trying to do is important.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1209214#Comment_1209214

the primary issue early leaders of the movement had was with the detailed, theology laden confessions of the time

It is my understanding that for hermeneutics-exegesis confessional exegesis is a separate category. I have yet to be comfortable that I've wrapped my head around what confessional interpretation means for Lutherans, my go to denomination for traditional Protestantism/Middle Way.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1209216#Comment_1209216

It is my understanding that for hermeneutics-exegesis confessional exegesis is a separate category ...

You're probably right about that. I picked up an online degree at a Reformed seminary a few years ago, and several of the professors used the Westminster Confession as a teaching tool or point of reference, but it wasn't a primary focus of any of the classes I took. My understanding is that it was a much more significant part of the ordination process.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1209217#Comment_1209217

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy looks interesting and many people agree with it, others don’t. I recommend Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy audio lectures on sale for $10.99

1. Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy: https://www.etsjets.org/files/documents/Chicago_Statement.pdf

2. Five Views: https://audio.faithlife.com/product/208829/five-views-on-biblical-inerrancy-audio-lectures-28-lessons-on-the-spectrum-of-evangelical-positions

Easier to listen than to read 👍😁👌

DAL

David Thomas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1209218#Comment_1209218

1. Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy: https://www.etsjets.org/files/documents/Chicago_Statement.pdf

Since this discussion has centered on Creeds, Statements & Doctrine, how do we handle revisions?

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/updating-chicago-statement/

I am ordained in the EFCA and sit on the examining board for credentials in our area. We allow a candidate to defend the 1950 SOF, the 2018 SOF or the 2021 SOF. New credentials are asked to defend the current statement, but restored credentials can be based upon the initial SOF that was defended.

I've noticed in Baptist circles some ascribe the BF&M (various dates) and other ascribe to the London Confession.

These revisions are testament to the HUMAN nature of our statements.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1209281#Comment_1209281

how do we handle revisions?

I may not have the answer but I know what NOT to do ... see Eastern and Western Christianity on the adding of filioque to the creed circa 1014 and the unnecessary schism that followed.

David Wanat

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1209342#Comment_1209342

how do we handle revisions?

I may not have the answer but I know what NOT to do ... see Eastern and Western Christianity on the adding of filioque to the creed circa 1014 and the unnecessary schism that followed.

I would have thought that the Photian Schism of the 9th century highlighted the fact that problems between the Latin West and Greek East ran much deeper and longer than that.

Bill Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1209217#Comment_1209217

My understanding is that it was a much more significant part of the ordination process.

In the Presbyterian Church of America and Orthodox Presbyterian Church, two denominations in which I pastored, in our ordination exams we were required to subscribe to the Westminister Standards state any exceptions we had.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1209588#Comment_1209588

I would have thought that the Photian Schism of the 9th century highlighted the fact that problems between the Latin West and Greek East ran much deeper and longer than that.

Depends on perspective - the Latin West and the Greek East have very different expressions of the same doctrines, very different cultural expression, and quite different histories. The West was warped by the collapse of any civil authority that could maintain roads, water sources, etc. If you keep up with the ecumenical talks amongst Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox, you will see no significant theological or liturgical differences -- only cultural and historical differences. I did not mean to imply that the filioque was the only issue, only that the handling of it was inappropriate on both sides.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1209070#Comment_1209070

BTW never ask me to define "glory" ... I've given up ever grasping what it means.

Kaabhohdh and kaabheidh and other permutations of the Kaapph/Beiytth/Daaletth root have a basic meaning of "heaviness", but it has a number of extended and metaphorical senses--in the end, I have settled on "gravitas" as the umbrella concept. ymmv

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1209034#Comment_1209034

HHHMMMmmm~~~

Hey! Did anyone ever find out who Silent Sam is or was? 😂

DAL

I think Silent Sam is still active in this thread

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1209216#Comment_1209216

I have yet to be comfortable that I've wrapped my head around what confessional interpretation means for Lutherans, my go to denomination for traditional Protestantism/Middle Way.

There is debate within Lutheranism about this, so it is hardly surprising that someone outside our debates would walk away confused.

Probably the best collection of texts about the 19th century version of this debate is in Theodore Tappert's book, Lutheran Confessional Theology in America, 1840-1880, and those debates are still echoing in Lutheran circles.

Some significant works available in Logos:

Walther Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel or the newer translation, Law and Gospel.

Elert Structure of Lutheranism

Krauth Conservative Reformation

Bohlmann Principles of Biblical Interpretation

Gritsch and Jenson Lutheranism

Giertz Hammer of God

Iwand The Righteousness of Faith according to Luther

Forde Theology is for Proclaimation

Some significant works NOT in Logos

Schlink Theology of the Lutheran Confessions

Sasse The Lonely Way, What is Lutheranism? and We Confess

Bertram "Scripture and Tradition" in the Lutheran Confessions.

The above works do differ with each other on significant points. Some even directly attack other works on this list. Some works approach your questions more directly - and more clearly - than others. As unrealistically large as this list is, I could probably double the size of this list with more time - and I have my own blind spots of our discussions on this too.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1209638#Comment_1209638

Thank you -- that will keep me reading for a while.

Joe Chase

I would love to see more resources from within churches of Christ. Campbell’s translation of the Bible would be a nice addition. Biography of Raccoon John Smith. Johnny Ramsey’s sermon books, Brown Trail Lectureship books. Anything written by the Winkler family.

In Him,

Joe Chase

@Joe Chase

Please enter each book as a separate request in the Book request section under Product suggestions. That will insure they are at least considered.

@Joe Chase I agree! Anything by Wendell Winkler, Dan Winkler, N.B. Hardeman, Rex Turner Sr., Jimmy Jividen, Carl Cooper, Edward Wharton, H. Leo Boles, Wayne Jackson, Cecil May, and any of the lectureship books of Freed Hardeman University, Tennessee Bible College, Southeast School of Biblical Studies, Florida School of Preaching, and Faulkner Bible College.

I think Logos is missing a lot of sales by not having books from these people and places. My sales for one! Maybe the reason Logos doesn't have any of these great books is that I'd blow my budget wide open! LOL But I would think I have a great library then! 😎

@xnman

I think Logos is missing a lot of sales by not having books from these people and places.

The figures from 2020

As of 2020, approximately 1,113,362 individuals in the United States identified with the Churches of Christ, a branch of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement.

Given that about 62% of U.S. adults identify as Christians, and considering the U.S. adult population is around 258 million, this places the Churches of Christ at roughly 0.7% of the total U.S. Christian population.

While some of us (think Supertramp, DMB, DAL, myself) have supported such a package for years, there are two major hurdles you must address to have success.

by votes against Book requests you must show that the various factions within the ~.7% will gather around a common group of authors
by votes against Book requests you must show that there is a significant interest in some of the books by people outside the tradition

In addition, there is an unspoken rule that an electronic file of the book is available - this requirement sank Johanna Manly for the Orthodox. Until you enter enough concrete suggestions as book requests with sufficient information to interest outsiders, you are unlikely to make much progress towards a denominational package.

@MJ. Smith I understand the decks are stacked against what I would like to see in books to be purchased in Logos…

But… One can still ask and suggest. As I've been told, it doesn't hurt to ask…. 😎

I was just trying to increase your chances but telling you how to be effective … which is not hazy suggestions in a discussions forums.

@Daniel Lange —- Hello from a voice of the past! (You should know my email, it's the same as always. LOL) I'll share some things about Logos which I know many will disagree with but here goes…

I will say, I mean no disrespect to to anyone, but there are some facts that I don't think people are really considering, especially Logos….

While Logos claims to be "denominational open" to books and such, that is really not truly the case. I.E. Logos has two programs a. Logos and b. Verbum. Verbum is a program made for made for Catholics (although anyone can use it) and it mainly works with Catholic libraries and such. This program by itself shows Logos is biased towards Catholics in the books it buys and the programs it develops. There is no such program for Mormons or Baptists or any other group, other than Logos program itself. I know, there are a lot of Catholics. But still, to write one program and to keep udating it for Catholics has to show something doesn't it? I think it shows bias-ism. People have disagreed with me, but it's still the fact. Logos developed a specific program for Catholics! That's a fact.
Logos makes it hard for "smaller" churches, i.e. "Church of Christ" to get books into the library. Logos has gone to this "voting of books" thing which again is biased towards Catholics and Baptists, simply because there's a bunch more Catholics and Baptists that spend money on such things. I understand somewhat about "It's a money thing". But is it really fair with all the different "faiths" that use Logos for them to spend so much money in Logos on books that will be biased towards Catholics and Baptists and Mormons? My opinion is "No".
So someone from a smaller church, such as "Church of Christ" has very little if any chance of getting their books or "books of teachings" into the library. "Smaller churches" are completely frozen out because of the "Logos voting rule" and by the more people being Catholic and Baptists. I don't care how some argue for us to put a book or author in the "voting game"… our books just fall into the "dead letter file box" simply because we do not have the votes to get them passed.
And for sure, Catholics and Baptists and Mormons are not going to vote for our books as they don't like the teachings or our books as much as we don't like the teachings of their books. But we have no choice, other than not buying Logos at all and not buying their books. See we buy into Logos blind, because it is an excellent help in bible study. But along with that comes all the "groups of books" and "categories of buying" and "default libraries" that we get because of the Logos Plans that we sign into. In a way, it's all biased towards Catholics and Baptists because of that. I don't think Logos intentionally planned it that way. But it has developed and become that way.
But Catholics and Baptists and Mormons….. well, there's enough of them to vote and get anything. I'll raise a thought, that maybe Verbum was programmed because a bunch of Catholics voted to get it done??? I may be wrong… but it is a thought.
I have never liked the system. I have complained against it. I would think it would be to Logos benefit to have books from all "churches" no matter of their affiliation. I think Logos would sell more books because of that. But again, I am in the minority here. You see, I only have one single vote….. LOL 😎

DMB

This thread definitely displays 'the problem'. I'd hesitate to even suggest a library acceptable to a similar group of universities (eg Abilene, Pepperdine, etc).

But Logos could do collections of authors (as an example, just looking at Everett Ferguson, who has a bunch in Logos). Well, maybe a bunch, minus one:

https://www.logos.com/search?filters=publisher-3240_Publisher&sortBy=Relevance&limit=30&page=1&ownership=all&geographicAvailability=availableToMe&useFuzzySearch=false&viewMode=list

~~I think my post got held up or deleted~~…. hmmm Strike that … it made it (above).

I think I have purchased all the "Church of Christ" books that Logos has. I would definitely purchase more if Logos was to ever buy more. (hint hint hint)… 😎

DMB

I'm surprised Florida College is updating their lecture series (prepubs):

@DMB ~~I didn't know Florida was updating…. Thanks for pointing that out!! I just purchased them! Woo Hoo! 😎~~

Edit: Now I'll spend time to index them as Logos doesn't do that. I wish Logos would get more lectureship books from Freed Hardeman University and Tennessee Bible College and Brown Trail School of Preaching. These are excellent study books, in my opinion.

Oops! No the Florida place I thought it was… my bad! They don't teach the same! Sorry.

Although the storefront no longer provides counts, these are the denominational categories in Logos in order of number of resources:

Note the Waldenisians rate a collection but no mention on this list.

DMB

@xnman

Oops! No the Florida place I thought it was… my bad! They don't teach the same! Sorry.

I suspected you might have confused Lakeland with Temple Terrace.