College Press NIV thoughts/impressions

I'm wondering if some owners of the College Press NIV commentaries could give me some thoughts on the set: theological perspective? what makes this set different or unique from other sets? etc...

This is one of the few sets that I haven't been able to "pin down" and determine whether it should be on my wishlist. I can't seem to find much good information on it (reviews, opinions, etc) compared to other sets.

I do not own this set, but College Press is in the theological tradition of the Stone-Campbell movement. The Stone-Campbell movement spawned the Disciples of Christ, the Christian Church, and the Church of Christ denominations. I believe that College Press reflects the "Christian Church" variety of the Stone-Campbell movement.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239252#Comment_239252

College Press is a publishing house founded by Don DeWelt ) for works from the Independent Christian Church /Churches of Christ. It is located in Joplin, Missouri near Ozark Christian College and was primarily publishing reference works to be used in Bible colleges.

The churches do not constitute a denomination (no hierarchy) but consider themselves all part of "The Restoration Movemen t" and are called by others the Stone/Campbell movement or "Campbellites."

The College Press NIV Commentary is written by authors from this perspective and uses strictly the NIV text. One of the editors of the set is Jack Cottrell who is also published in Logos. He is a fine scholar and I've only found disagreement with him on one issue so far (labor unions [:D].)

Here is a sample from the set: http:i//www.collegepress.com/storefront/files/NIVCEzraNehem-outline.pdf You can see it is written at a level that can be used by newer students of the Bible while also including some features only more educated users would appreciate. I especially like the outline presentation (a feature that is carried over from The Bible Study Textbook Series that College Press used to publish and now offers online for free)

I do not know all of the authors but could ask my father about them. (My parents have been missionaries and my father still ministers for the Independent Christian Church) I did get to meet Don DeWelt once, when I was a young boy. He was quite a kind and happy man.

NB.Mick

The Bible Study Textbook Series that College Press used to publish and now offers online for free

wow, thanks for that link!

Aside: since they see that re-printing such a set is not commercially viable these days, I think this should be ideally suited to be converted into Logos resources, if the set can be reasonably priced.

Paul Golder

theological perspective?

This page gives a good overview of the theological perspective of the commentary series:

Who are the churches of Christ and what do they believe in?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239252#Comment_239252

The churches do not constitute a denomination (no hierarchy) but consider themselves all part of "The Restoration Movemen t" and are called by others the Stone/Campbell movement or "Campbellites."

Though the Campbellites insist their churches are not part of a denomination, this is only a semantic argument. A fellowship of independent/autonomous churches can function as a denomination without hierarchy. Campbellites have schools, a common funding system for missions, fellowship with other Campbellites, etc. They are not truly non-denominational, since they participate in the broader community of the Stone-Campbell movement.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239354#Comment_239354

Part of them anyway have common funding etc. The part my family belongs to would be dialing 911, having collectively all had heart attacks. Personally, when you read of 1st century judaism (bce/ce), the issue is the same .... trying to get labels pinned on very independent groups and getting it to stick.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239356#Comment_239356

Part of them anyway have common funding etc. The part my family belongs to would be dialing 911, having collectively all had heart attacks. Personally, when you read of 1st century judaism (bce/ce), the issue is the same .... trying to get labels pinned on very independent groups and getting it to stick.

I think the OP needs to know that each branch of the Stone-Campbell movement has a coherent common theology. And from this theological tradition, the College Press NIV commentary is written. This series is not written by Christians from various non-denominational backgrounds, but by Christians from a common background.

John Nerdue

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239362#Comment_239362

In Response to the original question: I like the set. I only have the New Testament and maybe one of the Old but very good. Conservative and easy to read in my opinion. I would say they are not devotional but also not technical. I would place them in the middle. I typically use them alongside the WBC, NIGTC, and the EBC.

Hope that helps

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239362#Comment_239362

I think the OP needs to know that each branch of the Stone-Campbell movement has a coherent common theology.

You are correct and it is important for the OP to know. I won't argue semantics. So here goes my attempt to distill it:

A quick & easy guide to the "non-denomination" of the Stone/Campbell movement

"No creed but the Bible"
"Where the Bible speaks, we speak. Where the Bible is silent, we are silent."
Each congregation is autonomous in church polity.
All believers are of one body (that of the Lord Jesus Christ.)
Unity (They will know we are Christians by our love.)
The Lord's supper (Communion) is open to all. (So let a man examine himself...)

The Stone-Campbell movement spawned the Disciples of Christ, the Christian Church, and the Church of Christ denominations. I believe that College Press reflects the "Christian Church" variety of the Stone-Campbell movement.

You are absolutely correct in identifying the "Christian Church" perspective as what College Press publishes.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239371#Comment_239371

A quick & easy guide to the "non-denomination" of the Stone/Campbell movement

"No creed but the Bible"

"Where the Bible speaks, we speak. Where the Bible is silent, we are silent."

Each congregation is autonomous in church polity.

All believers are of one body (that of the Lord Jesus Christ.)

Unity (They will know we are Christians by our love.)

The Lord's supper (Communion) is open to all. (So let a man examine himself...)

If you get a little more under the hood, you will find a more specific common theology that is shared by the Stone-Campbell movement. For example, Alexander Campbell taught a form of baptismal regeneration that is often embraced by those in the Stone/Campbell movement today. My point is that there is a theological tradition behind modern day Campbellites. They may say, "No creed but they Bible," but they tend to embrace (rightly or wrongly) the theological positions of their spiritual forefathers. That is why Campbellites remain in their respective churches. If they changed theological positions on certain issues, they would have to commune with a non-Campbellite church for conscience sake.

John Nerdue

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239380#Comment_239380

I think this may be moving off topic and if we are not carful we will end up in a debate over Christian churches and churches of Christ theology.

Time for me to leave this alone [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239388#Comment_239388

I think this may be moving off topic and if we are not carful we will end up in a debate over Christian churches and churches of Christ theology.

Time for me to leave this alone

I have no intention of this moving off topic or becoming a heated debate. I think we have stayed on topic so far, and believe that the OP now has a few different perspectives in order to make an informed decision on the College Press Commentary series.

Ron

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239394#Comment_239394

Good discussion, thanks for the info everyone! I will take a look at the various links that were posted as well.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239425#Comment_239425

I have used
several of the volumes in the NT set extensively. While some of the preceding messages
have brought up the Stone-Campbell background, I would estimate that far less
than 1% of the total content is directly related to doctrines thought of as
specific to the Stone-Campbell movement, and the writers certainly don’t have
an apologetic agenda in that regard.

As another
noted, it will be from a conservative/evangelical point of view. On a scale of
popular level (e.g. Weirsbe) to conservative academic level (e.g. WBC) I’d
place them closer to academic, maybe 70/30. One minor incidental which I like
is that it is the only commentary set I know of which provides the Greek words in
both the Greek and anglicized letters (I’m a seminary student and just can’t
make the anglicized words look right).

If I’m
teaching a class on a chapter from some NT book next Sunday morning, and don’t
have time to study 10+ commentaries like I’d do for a term paper, and want to
look at a couple of commentaries with a fair amount of depth, they would be one of
those two.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239380#Comment_239380

For example, Alexander Campbell taught a form of baptismal regeneration that is often embraced by those in the Stone/Campbell movement today.

Which is why I welcome The Millennial Harbinger in Logos format. Within it's pages we discover Alexander wavering on the baptismal question when his son drowns in the family pond at Bethany. Alexander had refused to baptize his boy because of his youth. Interesting reading.

But generally the baptism question is common to all the churches bearing those names mentioned.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239371#Comment_239371

A quick & easy guide to the "non-denomination" of the Stone/Campbell movement

"No creed but the Bible"

"Where the Bible speaks, we speak. Where the Bible is silent, we are silent."

Each congregation is autonomous in church polity.

All believers are of one body (that of the Lord Jesus Christ.)

Unity (They will know we are Christians by our love.)

The Lord's supper (Communion) is open to all. (So let a man examine himself...)

Yes, all that is true. But in the region where I live, the largest group among the Stone-Campbell churches - the Church of Christ - also believes that water baptism is essential to salvation. That is probably the biggest issue that sets the Church of Christ apart. And for this baptism to have saving power, it must not be done using the trinitarian formula, but only "in Jesus' name", and it must be by immersion, of course.

Also, the Church of Christ uses no musical instrument, such as a piano, in worship. Only a capella music is permitted.

This is not true of all Stone-Campbell groups, but in the south it is true of the largest.

So I would like to know to what extent does this view of salvation influence the College Press NIV commentaries? To me that would be very important.

Ron

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239621#Comment_239621

So I would like to know to what extent does this view of salvation influence the College Press NIV commentaries? To me that would be very important.

Thanks for raising that issue Michael. I'd be curious to know that as well. [:)]

Pam Larson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239626#Comment_239626

I attend a Christian Church in southern California. We have a worship band. Baptism is by immersion but there's no set formula. Several of the professors from Hope University, including the one that wrote the NIV College Press commentary on Revelation (who is amillenial), have come and taught Bible study courses at our church. There's a lot of diversity among them. Most subscribe to the historical-critical method. One was a huge fan of N. T. Wright.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239380#Comment_239380

If they changed theological positions on certain issues, they would have to commune with a non-Campbellite church for conscience sake.

They practice open communion in almost all of their congregations. If the Pope (or Luther, or Calvin, or Billy Graham) visited heir church they would have no theologically based objection to the visitor participating in communion since it is the Lord's Supper and the fitness of the participants is supposed to be after self-examination, not approval of the Pastor. Thomas and Alexander Campbell were members of a Baptist church after departing the Presbyterian Church and infant baptism. They left the Baptist church under friendly circumstances and ended up later requesting the Baptist Pastor immerse them because they felt there were none among their newly formed congregation that was properly qualified to baptize. I find this interesting as the Baptist perspective of baptism into local church membership differs from the ICC/CoC view of baptism into the corporate body of Christ.

But I'm not here to debate who is right or wrong. Wiser men than I have never settled these differences. I just find it all very fascinating.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239621#Comment_239621

So I would like to know to what extent does this view of salvation influence the College Press NIV commentaries? To me that would be very important.

The two commentaries I consulted (Acts & Romans) do teach baptismal regeneration, but this is not prominent. I had to search the comments on these verses to find the information quoted below:

[quote]The response of Paul and Silas differs from previous
invitations to accept the gospel truth in that faith is mentioned without the
command to repent or be baptized (see 2:38; 3:19; 14:15). This fact does not
mean that inconsistencies exist between the commands. The response of faith
includes repentance and baptism. Faith was presented as the means for salvation
with Christ as the object of that faith. This language, of course, is very
similar to Paul’s language in his letters (see Rom 3:21–31; Eph 2:8–9; Phil
3:8–9).

Dennis Gaertner, Acts,
The College Press NIV commentary (Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 1993), Ac 16:34.

[quote]Compiling such a list requires looking at all that Scripture
has to say about the way of salvation. (See J,
1:112–115.) In Romans, Paul has already explained the saving significance of
baptism (6:3–4); he need not repeat it here. Many other texts do the same. (See
Cottrell, Baptism.)

JC Romans, by Jack
Cottrell

^[1]
Jack Cottrell, Romans : Volume 2,
College Press NIV commentary (Joplin, Mo.: College Press Pub. Co., 1996-), Ro
10:9.

After searching for these references, I may have to look that this series more often. I thought the comments were generally good (BTW, I do not believe that Scripture teaches this doctrine).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239621#Comment_239621

... it must not be done using the trinitarian formula, but only "in Jesus' name", and it must be by immersion, of course...

Michael,

In my experience with the Church of Christ in different places, I have never seen
one who baptized “in Jesus name” only; all use and insist on the trinitarian formula.
You must have encountered a rare exception.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239621#Comment_239621

So I would like to know to what extent does this view of salvation influence the College Press NIV commentaries? To me that would be very important.

Here is a good book explaining baptism from the perspective of ICC/CoC. Baptism: A Biblical Study by Cottrell, Jack.

It is written by one of the editors of the College Press NIV Commentary. The vast majority of College Press published authors are not non-instrumental. The non-instrumentalist group are not the majority in the Stone/Campbell brotherhood. This is why I do not call them a denomination. They are no nore a denomination than Pentecostals, Independent Baptists, or Plymouth Bretheren. My colloquial use of "denomination" is also what Wikipedia uses :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-denominational_Christianity

Due to the ICC/CoC's "liberty in the non-essentials," you will find many divergent practices and opinions. Some of these differences have manifested themselves in labels and worship practice. Some of the many labels include:

One-Cup (They pass a single cup during communion)
No Sunday-School (and many who do have Sunday morning classes only call them "Bible School")
Non-Institutional (reject Bible Colleges & other Co-Operatives among congregations)
Non-Instrumental (no use of musical instruments in worship service. Some still allow music in non-worship settings like Sunday Bible School [:)])

I read several of the Wikipedia articles linked and all are correct to the best of my knowledge. Here are a couple to start with:
The churches of Christ (non-institutional) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_churches_of_Christ_%28non-institutional%29
Churches of Christ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churches_of_Christ

I know of some ICC/CoC congregations stat still preach from KJV and still recycle Standard Publishing Sunday School materials from the 1950's. I know of others (my brother is Pastor of one) that use the overhead projection, have no pulpit and dress casual for worship, and use "small-groups". I'm wary to paint any congregation with a broad brush anymore. I once visited a Southern Baptist Convention church to discover a rock band on stage (no piano at all), a worship team with a proudly gay leader, and a Pastor who donned a brilliant white sports coat to deliver his message. I thought I had awakened in a TV Evangelist nightmare.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239626#Comment_239626

So I would like to know to what extent does this view of salvation influence the College Press NIV commentaries? To me that would be very important.

Thanks for raising that issue Michael. I'd be curious to know that as well.

I think that on the 5 to 10 major passages in the NT on baptism, they are probably going to make a connection to salvation, but, as I alluded to in my message above, these 5 or 10 verses are such a small part of the entire NT that their discussion would constitute a tiny part of the commentary material in its entirety, and would not come up at all in most of the 27 books of the NT. Most of the authors of the set are professors at the graduate level and don’t have an agenda here; it doesn’t receive disproportionate treatment. I would draw an analogy to the issue of Calvinism vs. Arminianism. I have, use, and gain much from commentaries written by those on both sides of the question, and in the passages of scripture where it comes up (which is probably more frequent than baptism), I don’t mind it when the author argues for his point of view, even if its not the side I am on.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239672#Comment_239672

it doesn’t receive disproportionate treatment. I would draw an analogy to the issue of Calvinism vs. Arminianism.

Good analogy. When I first became familiar with Baptist churches I was amazed to find all positions in the spectrum represented. There are Free-Will Baptists ("you can voluntarily forfeit your salvation"), Arminian Baptists ("Christ died for all") coupled with eternal security ("once saved, always saved") and there are differing positions among Calvinist Baptists (points 1 thru 5) All under the name Baptist.

I think the common baptism perspective of the authors of the College Press NIV Commentary is not near as influential to the commentary as their other common perspectives. I am reasonably confident the authors are in agreement on free will (Arminius) and salvation being finalized at death citing "He who is faithful to the end receives a crown of life."

Like you Keith, I find much spiritual nourishment from writers I don't agree with 100%. I am not a Calvinist but Spurgeon speaks to my heart, every time. And as I have mentioned before, I disagree with Jack Cotrell on at least the labor union question. (If you're reading this Dr. Cottrell, I base my opinion on the parable of the vineyard. [C] )

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239642#Comment_239642

I attend a Christian Church

Thanks, Pam. That is very helpful. The Christian Church is a great church! I certainly have no hesitation about the influence of the Christian Church.

In fact, I am not putting down the beliefs of any church. I just wonder if the larger (in the south) Church of Christ has much influence in the commentary. I have never seen this commentary, and I am trying to get a handle on it before I buy.

What you describe sounds very good to me.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239672#Comment_239672

I would draw an analogy to the issue of Calvinism vs. Arminianism.

I think that on the 5 to 10 major passages in the NT on baptism, they are probably going to make a connection to salvation

I am sure there is much to gained from the commentaries, and I appreciate your comments.

However, to me that is a much bigger difference than the issue of Calvinism vs. Arminianism. Both Calvinism and Arminianism would acknowledge salvation by grace through faith. To add ritual, such as baptism, to the plan of salvation is a major difference, and a big deal in my mind.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239681#Comment_239681

before I buy.

The whole commentary is included in Portfolio Edition. That alone is not enough to justify the upgrade price but thre are pleanty of other resources added that do make the upgrade worthwhile.

Maybe Logos can offer a "Day-After" sale (Monday, April 25th) where buyers can choose one item at 50% off.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239688#Comment_239688

Calvinism and Arminianism would acknowledge salvation by grace through faith.

So do Campbellites. The "works for salvation" accusation leveled against them is mistaken.

I understood Keith to be saying the authors do not try to add a "baptism" spin to every volume of the commentary set. (I own the set and can affirm they do not do this.) Likewise, I can benefit reading what G. K. Chesterton or Raymond Brown say on many issues even though I may disagree with their views on Mariology.

If you listen to what an author says about his own denominational views rather than what critics say of them, you may discover as MJ once.said, "If I really believed what they say I believe, I wouldn't be one of my group either!" (--or something like that.)

Steven Baxley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239699#Comment_239699

Well, speaking as someone who some in this discussion would label a "Campbellite" (I describe myself as a Christian only), I can state emphatically that I believe in salvation by grace through faith. Having said that, the next step would be to explain what "faith" means. That doesn't belong in the forums, but if you're interested in discussing that, feel free to e-mail me (sdbaxley "at" yahoo.com), and we can study together.

I have most (but not all) of the NIV College Press commentaries, and quite honestly, I find them to be superior to just about anything else in my electronic library (which is extensive). I think you will find them to be well worth your investment.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239712#Comment_239712

John Mark Hicks is of this tradition and has impressed me as a Bible scholar - at least on the web.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239699#Comment_239699

deleted by poster

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239712#Comment_239712

Well, speaking as someone who some in this discussion would label a "Campbellite" (I describe myself as a Christian only)

I mean no disparagement using the term "Campbellite." I would lean a little closer to Barton W. Stone if I had to use a moniker other than Christian. (But "Stone-er" doesn't have as much respectability to it's ring as "Campbellite." Soup vs dopehead? [:P] )

Another Logos resource touches on this "works salvation" misunderstanding.
The Faith Once for All: Bible Doctrine for Today by Cottrell, Jack. College Press Publishing Company | 2002
You can view the table of contents on the product page.

Here are two interesting snippets from Chapter 16 "Salvation: By Law or by Grace?":

And Cottrell pulls no punches on this issue here:

That is why The College Press NIV is trustworthy in my opinion.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239751#Comment_239751

Thanks, Matthew. That is exactly the kind of passage that gets to my concern. From that, I also would agree that Cottrell is very solid and relaible.

I apparently was getting the wrong impression. Someone said that baptism was linked to salvation in these commentaries. It Cottrell reflects the teaching of this set, then it must be solid.

Ron

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239751#Comment_239751

That is why The College Press NIV is trustworthy in my opinion.

Good stuff...thanks Matthew

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239659#Comment_239659

They practice open communion in almost all of their congregations. If the Pope (or Luther, or Calvin, or Billy Graham) visited heir church they would have no theologically based objection to the visitor participating in communion since it is the Lord's Supper and the fitness of the participants is supposed to be after self-examination, not approval of the Pastor.

I realize this, but my statement above is addressing a different issue. The point is that Cambellites go to their respective churches because they are convinced that the theological tradition of the Stone-Campbell movement is biblical. If a Campbellite becomes convinced that Stone-Campbell theology is unbiblical, they will likely go to a church that reflects their new theological position. I did not say that they would be forced out of a Campbellite church, but that they would have to leave the Cambellite church for the sake of their conscience.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239757#Comment_239757

gets to my concern

I can show you two other commentaries from the ICC/CoC that take the stand you are concerned with.They are single author sets (for the most part) and have been around for many decades. Commentaries by David Lipscomb (Gospel Advocate) and James Burton Coffman (Abilene Christian University)

Neither is in Logos yet but I hope someday they will be because both author's are pretty good.

Another scholar from the Restoration Movement tradition that is available in Logos is John William McGarvey. (Wiki bio) His scholarship is appreciated broadly across denominational lines.

It is good to consider the views and education of the scholars we read and consult. I appreciate the little biographical blurbs on the Logos product description pages. I appreciate even more the forum posts where others discuss writers. They have both persuaded me and warned me on some occasions regarding purchase considerations. [:O]

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239757#Comment_239757

Someone said that baptism was linked to salvation in these commentaries.

In the post at the top of this page, I said that the two commentaries I consulted (Acts & Romans) do teach baptismal regeneration, but that it is not a major concern in either one. I suppose that in comments on Acts 2:38 and Romans 6:4–11 that doctrine will be more prominent. However, what I read was very good. I reserve the right to disagree on that point.

David A. Peterson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239806#Comment_239806

After the Millennial Harbinger, the next resource I would like to see in Logos is the Restoration Quarterly:

"If by baptismal regeneration the accusers mean that the act of immersion
inherently regenerates or converts or saves a person, then the charge
is not true. From the earliest days of the Stone-Campbell Movement, the
teaching has been that the only proper subjects for baptism are those
who have faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and who repent of their
past sins. It is the blood of Jesus that cleanses people from all sin
by his grace. Baptism is not a ritual act that has inherent redeeming
power. It is not true that when people “get baptized,” they are
automatically “born again.”" Douglas A. Foster,"Churches of Christ and Baptism" Restoration Quarterly. "Volume 43/Number 2 (2001)"

In Christ,

Dave

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239739#Comment_239739

John Mark Hicks is of this tradition and has impressed me as a Bible scholar - at least on the web.

MJ, since you mentioned John Mark Hicks, I'll add a comment - He wrote one of the volumes in the College Press NIV commentary series (1 & 2 Chronicles). He can operate equally well on a scholarly level (doctorate from Westminster) and popular level (his 336 pg book "Yet will I Trust Him" is a great treatment of the question of human suffering, both theologically and from his personal experiences; btw it's available on Logos: http://www.logos.com/product/7940/yet-will-i-trust-him-understanding-god-in-a-suffering-world.)

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239895#Comment_239895

ahh, this is all fun fun fun!!!!

As for the OP's question: I have found a few of the NIV pieces to be only marginally helpful. Others I have found to be quite good, never overly technical, but giving fair treatment to a variety of positions in a clearly comprehensible manner. I have actually raised my opinion of them. I refer to them a LOT more than I used to. I have used Deuteronomy and Psalms (two different authors for the latter) of the OT, and several in the new. Dr. Hall's on Deuteronomy is solid with some keen insight. He has a good sense of how structure affects interpretation. But he doesn't go overboard with zany and complex structural schemes. The set is in my top five give or take, (depending on volume and need) consults along with Tyndale, NICNT, and others.

Lonnie Ritchie

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/239380#Comment_239380

Si, you are lovingly incorrect. Matthew has put it about as suscintly as it can be put. That we in the churches of Christ "tend to embrace...the theological positions of [our] spiritual forefathers" is only true as they adhered to a "Thus saith the Lord." Neither Thomas Campbell, Alexander Campbell, nor Barton Stone controls the theology of those of us who are members of the chruches of Christ. Our one guide is the Bible, and the Bible only. Every member is free to study and think for themselves.

You are apparently knowledgeable regarding some of the history of "The Restoration Movement," but you are lacking in a clear understanding of its application to the present time. I don't mean to start an argument, but offer these comments for clarity's sake. Let's all keep studying, praying and loving one another - (Jn. 13:33, 34).

Peace, my friend.

Lonnie

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240043#Comment_240043

Si, you are lovingly incorrect. Matthew has put it about as suscintly as it can be put. That we in the churches of Christ "tend to embrace...the theological positions of [our] spiritual forefathers" is only true as they adhered to a "Thus saith the Lord." Neither Thomas Campbell, Alexander Campbell, nor Barton Stone controls the theology of those of us who are members of the chruches of Christ. Our one guide is the Bible, and the Bible only. Every member is free to study and think for themselves.

You are apparently knowledgeable regarding some of the history of "The Restoration Movement," but you are lacking in a clear understanding of its application to the present time. I don't mean to start an argument, but offer these comments for clarity's sake. Let's all keep studying, praying and loving one another - (Jn. 13:33, 34).

Peace, my friend.

Lonnie

Lonnie,

I appreciate your comments, but I think you have misunderstood my point. I understand that the Campbells and Stone do not "[control] the theology of those of us who are members of the churches of Christ." But this is quite different than what I am saying, namely that the Stone-Campbell movement as a whole agrees upon certain interpretations of particular passages in the Bible. The Stone-Campbell movement does not baptize infants. Why? Because they do not see this as biblical (And I would be in agreement on this point). But, Presbyterians believe that paedo-baptism is biblical. If what you say is true, wouldn't you see various positions on baptism (believers or infant) represented on a large scale within the Stone-Campbell movement. Also, if one is convinced that paedo-baptism is biblical, doesn't he have to leave his Campbellite church and find a church with like-minded theology for the sake of his conscience?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240043#Comment_240043

Our one guide is the Bible, and the Bible only. Every member is free to study and think for themselves.

I believe this needs to be put in perspective to support Si's comments.. There are a number of denominations that would appropriately make this statement. However, they reach differing doctrinal positions. What makes the Restoration Movement a distinct movement is the tradition of Biblical interpretation the participants learn. This is no different than any other movement. A child learning to interpret Scripture learns how to interpret from their parents, older siblings, church sponsored education (call it Sunday School, Bible classes, youth group, faith formation) and pastors / preachers. That is not to say that members don't think for themselves - it merely means people learn to read, study, think in a particular environment. Or put another way, it is the same reason often used to decide to home-school.

Lonnie Ritchie

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240097#Comment_240097

Si, if I differed that drastically from the church I was in wouldn't I want to find a group with which I would be more like-minded? The reason infant bapism isn't practiced in the churches of Christ is simply because the NT says nothing whatever about it. It isn't biblical. This sets the standard...what does the Bible say or not say as the case may be. Let's call Bible things by Bible names and do Bible things in Bible ways. Isn't that enough?

May I make a counter argument: if I was in a church that taught and practiced infant baptism wouldn't I be asked to leave if I taught that only adult baptism is biblical? And in that case, wouldn't I be better served to find those of like faith to work and worship with?

Love you, my friend.

Lonnie

Lonnie Ritchie

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240127#Comment_240127

Hey, MJ, let's not make this sound like some sort of brain-washing technique. We each are self-determining individuals and have the right to use our gray matter. Good rules of interpretation and logic will take us a long way down the road to good biblical conclusions - (Isa. 1:18). However, if upon further examination and gaining some maturity, we're all at freedom to reject the things we were taught and do our own investigation, which is what every one of us should do regardless of the respect we have for our teachers. After all, we're all human and subject to frailty. What our parents/teachers taught us is only a bridge to our methods of investigation and research. They should be followed only so long as they yield truth.

Lonnie

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240127#Comment_240127

if I was in a church that taught and practiced infant baptism wouldn't I be asked to leave if I taught that only adult baptism is biblical? And in that case, wouldn't I be better served to find those of like faith to work and worship with?

Lonnie,

It would depend upon how important that particular doctrine was to you, and where you felt God called you to serve. Not everyone agrees that infant baptism isn't biblical, and not everyone finds one's view on baptism to be central to the Christian faith. Not every doctrine is crucial and central.

Now if I believed, and many in the certain groups do, that the way one is baptised or not baptised could keep you out of heaven, then yes. But I don't believe that. Baptism is not a make or break fellowship issue for me. In fact, I have changed my mind several times about what scripture teaches about infant baptism. Glad I didn't leave my church over the issue.

"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." (1 Cor. 1:17)

Peace, joy, and love in Christ.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240127#Comment_240127

they will likely go to a church that reflects their new theological position. I did not say that they would be forced out of a Campbellite church, but that they would have to leave the Cambellite church for the sake of their conscience.

Si, if I differed that drastically from the church I was in wouldn't I want to find a group with which I would be more like-minded?

I am seeing drastic similarities in both posts. And I will jump on the band-wagon and agree with both of you. The poor member who tortures his own conscience for remaining in a fellowship he believes is errant is no better than Lot trying to change Sodom. It isn't going to happen.

wouldn't I be asked to leave if I taught that only adult baptism is biblical?

You would if tf the church leadership is properly paying attention. I was raised in the Christian Church, schooled in their Bible college, and served as a Youth Minister, Sunday School teacher, Deacon, and preaching Elder. I know from experience not all persons in leadership roles agree on all points of doctrine. Some churches require signed commitments from staff & volunteers as a condition of engagement. These "contracts" cover more than just doctrine, they may even regulate leisure time and private life. I once applied for a pastorate in a rural community. We loved everything about the church and were all excited about going there. The pulpit committee and congregation approved but I had to walk away due to one minor requirement. (They asked me to place my children in the local public school. and I was not at liberty to comply.)

It is very difficult to find a body of believers to worship with that has ALL things in common with you. I don't even agree with my wife & 13 kids on all things. So how am I going to agree with 2000 fellow church members? Truth be told, I don't even agree with my self over my lifespan. [:S]