I don’t think it’s widespread, but there is some of that out there. Most who hold such unorthodox views know, I suspect, that actually verbalizing them to anybody in their congregation would not be good for their job security.

As for the Campbells, Stone and others, while I find what they did and taught interesting, their beliefs and practices in no way influence what I believe. They, like me, were flawed men, uninspired and searching for truth.

Not one of us can claim we have a monoply on the truth either as an individual or as a church. I do believe though that we must be right about Jesus and the story of his perfect life, sacrificial death, and triumphant resurrection once we learn what the Bible says.

One does not need a doctorate in theology to be saved but when confronted with the truth about Jesus and his work for sinners I have doubts about those who reject that truth.

In his discourse in Matthew 7 it might be that Jesus had in mind the “few” that would be finally saved are of those who profess to be Christians, not the whole population at large. I think there are always tares growing with the wheat, believers and make believers in the same congregations.

Royce

I took your initial comment to suggest this was a somewhat widespread view among the cofc that had some history behind it – OK, maybe not widespread but at least a minority view held by more than a handful of people). It sounds like it is limited to just a few and does not have any history in the Stone Campbell Movement (SCM) older than our contemporary times.

Regarding creeds: The SCM has opposed creeds – initially not so much as for what they were but for how they were used. Creeds were used to draw lines of fellowship. In the Presbyterian Church of the Campbells day you had to toe the creedal (is that a word?) line or be excluded from the Lord’s Supper when it was offered once a year. One did not regard those who affirmed a different creed as a brother in Christ.

The Campbells and Stone were about as open as anyone could possibly be as evidenced by their ability to unite. You asked if there might be some things one must believe in order to be a Christian. Apparently they had a very short list that consisted of confessing that Jesus is the Christ and showing evidence of it by a pious lifestyle. Stone did not believe Jesus was an eternally existent being (indeed God) co-equal with the Father; he did not believe in the Trinity; and his view of the atonement was perhaps closer to the moral influence theory than any other – it certainly was not penal substitution. He spoke disparagingly of all that (and more) as “speculative theology.” So it seems to me that the first generation had those that believed what a person had to believe to be a Christian was simply that Jesus is the Christ.

In reality a creed is a statement of belief. Some are longer and detailed, but they can be quite short. For example, “no creed but Christ” is a statement of belief and could be regarded as a creed, even if it was not intended to be one.

And of course you know so well that creeds can be written or unwritten and precise or not so much. Our own history is as good a place as any to study imprecise and unwritten creeds. And we effectively used those very things to draw lines of fellowship. I think Jay has been making a point of that for some time now.

Peace,
Randall

I am not going to be more specific as to the identity of the individuals. I have confronted them man to man and was soundly rejected.

The resurrection of Jesus is the absolute bed rock of Christianity. If it is not so there is no Christianity and our “faith is vain” to quote Paul.

I know that our brotherhood is resistant to creeds but isn’t there some things one must believe to a Christian? Why is it wrong to put them in print and say we believe them? Curious huh?

Our folk have no problem listing the dozens of ways you can supposedly be kicked out of God’s family but are not in favor of stating any absolutes regarding saving faith and it’s objects with few exceptions.

I have difficulty believing that coC men who deny Christ’s deity and his resurrection do so in innocence.

Royce

That some deny the deity of Jesus has existed in the Stone-Campbell movement from the beginning as Stone himself was heterodox on this issue. However, Stone would affirm any particular verse of the scripture as being true. He simply did not believe that the scripture was plain that Jesus was true God of true God (coexisting eternally with the Father) as the creed stated. I suppose he was something of an Aryan on this issue. Of course he necessarily had problems with the doctrine of the Trinity as well. I have met at least a few in the cofc that deny the divinity of Jesus – at least one was unaware that it was the orthodox position in all Christianity – including the cofc. These folks did know that IM was wrong though! Simply evidence that the cofc has majored in the minors and minored in the majors.
Peace,
Randall

I was stunned when I learned that there are coC preachers who deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus and members who agressively deny his deity, and are treated as brothers.

I believe I have the moral duty to say a wolf is not a sheep.

Royce