Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 50371 | ||
Mouse 2: Thanks for junping in. Let me address your two responses: 1. You quoted that 'a denomination is by definition a part of the whole, hence a party among parties. The theory of denominationalism is that one may be a Christian and a member of the universal and "invisible" church, but by choice may be also a member of a particular segment of "Christianity".' So the Church of Christ's solution to not being identified as a "part" of Christianity is suggesting that they encompass the whole of Christianity. You still habe the same "invisible/visible church" issue within the Churches of Christ, however. You are not a member of a Church of Christ congregation in the city where I live, but rather in a Church of Christ congregation where you live. If the Church of Christ where I live is the true church, how can it also be where you live? See the problem? In one form or another, you have to accept the idea that the Church spoken of in Scripture transcends a single physical space. You just exclude ones with names like "Baptist" or "Presbyterian" or even "other" non-denominational churches (I use quotes since the Church of Christ is indeed a denomination, being a "part" of the visible church) from the mix. Sorry, but simply saying that you are not a denomination does not make you any less of one. That or a false church... Regarding your second response, you quoted: "Yet someone noted that if the game of baseball were wiped off the face of the earth, and someone discovered the rule book a thousand years from now and restored the game of baseball, would it be a new game?" Interesting that you compare the church of the Lord Jesus to a game that consists entirely of rules, as if that is all the church is. Does this quote mean that you do indeed believe the church disappeared off the face of the earth between the first century and it's "restoration" by the likes of Stone and Campbell? Please answer directly. We can take it. And if so, can you point out exactly when it vanished without a trace? --Joe! |
||||||
2 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 50439 | ||
You wrote: So the Church of Christ's solution to not being identified as a "part" of Christianity is suggesting that they encompass the whole of Christianity. You still have the same "invisible/visible church" issue within the Churches of Christ, however. You are not a member of a Church of Christ congregation in the city where I live, but rather in a Church of Christ congregation where you live. If the Church of Christ where I live is the true church, how can it also be where you live? One needs to understand the universal church and the local church. The universal church is the whole body of believers, canvassing the entire globe. Its only officer is Jesus Christ. (Eph 1:22-23) No other organizational structure to be found in the universal church. The local church is just that, local. Jesus is also the head of the each local congregation (Eph 1:22-23; Rev 3:19). Elders and deacons are offices for the local congregations (Acts 14:23, 1 Pet 5:2 – how would elders and deacons fulfill this command if at a universal level?) There is no provision anywhere in Scripture for an organizational structure under Christ on earth. You say rightly that I am not a member of the congregation that meets in your city because I do not live there. If I were, I could ask to place membership with that local group of Christians doing God’s will, obeying His commands and still be right with God. Christ is the head of the Universal church, He will determine who is and isn’t a faithful Christian. Each local congregation will have to determine whether someone may place membership or not (Acts 9:19-31). Becoming a Christian does not grant me automatic membership into each local congregation, the opposite is also true; being withdrawn from does not automatically exclude me either (3 John 9-10). Basically, if all the Bible has said concerning the church only applies to the church universal, we could not abide by God’s commands (1 Cor 5:1-5 “when you are assembled” – only done locally, Heb 10:25 “not forsaking our own assembling together” - only done locally, etc). There are many points to be made concerning the differences, but this will suffice for now. You wrote: Interesting that you compare the church of the Lord Jesus to a game that consists entirely of rules, as if that is all the church is. Can we be real? You completely missed the point or chose to miss it. Obviously the church is not a game nor does it consist entirely of rules! The point is: it is ridiculous to claim the church we read in the NT is “new” because you believe it is new to this age and time. Take note: “the Word of God is the seed of the kingdom (Luke 8:11; Matthew 13:18-23). It is also affirmed that this Word of God is incorruptible and abides forever (1 Peter 1:23-25). In addition, seed always produces after its kind (Genesis 1:11-12). When the apostles planted the seed of the kingdom in the First Century, churches of Christ resulted (Acts 2:47; 1 Corinthians 1:2; Romans 16:16). Seeing that we have the same seed today, when we simply preach the same gospel, churches of Christ will be produced today as well. It should be observed that to get something else, some other seed must be planted. To get the Mormon church, one must plant the book of Mormon. To get the Catholic church, a catechism is needed. For Jehovah Witnesses, the writings of the Watchtower Society, for Muslims, the Koran must be preached, and so on.” You wrote: Does this quote mean that you do indeed believe the church disappeared off the face of the earth between the first century and it's "restoration" by the likes of Stone and Campbell? Please answer directly. We can take it. And if so, can you point out exactly when it vanished without a trace? No, I don’t believe the church disappeared off the face of the earth. “God assured us that this kingdom to be established ‘will never be destroyed…but it will itself endure forever’ (Daniel 2:44)” In the letter to the Ephesians, Paul wrote, “To Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen” (Ephesians 3:21). “If God is glorified in the church to all generations, then the church is a relationship that will exist in all generations.” Read 2 Kings 22:8-13. What did you learn? The book of the law had been FOUND. They recognized their failure in heeding God’s word and the wrath that burned against them. They need to restore worship acceptable to God! Read Jeremiah 36:20-28. The scroll Jeremiah had written was burned by King Jehoiakim, what happened? Did it frustrate God’s plan? By no means, another copy was made. The OT was written for our learning and instruction (Romans 15:4, 1 Cor 10:11). So again, NO, the church did not vanish without a trace. Mouse2 |
||||||
3 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 50456 | ||
You wrote: "One needs to understand the universal church and the local church. The universal church is the whole body of believers, canvassing the entire globe. Its only officer is Jesus Christ. (Eph 1:22-23) No other organizational structure to be found in the universal church. The local church is just that, local." 1. There are many independent churches that are not part of the Churches of Christ who agree ("Bible" churches, "Independent Baptist" churches, "Congregationalist" churches). The congregationalist form of church government is by no means limited to the churches of Christ. 2. Secondly, if there is no other office outside of the local church, how do you explain Titus and Timothy? They weren't elders in the churches in Crete and Ephesus. They appointed elders. We also see church councils in the book of Acts, where leaders from different churches come together to set policy which will be binding on all of the churches. Like it or not, there is precedent in Scripture for overseeing bodies. You wrote: 'Can we be real? You completely missed the point or chose to miss it. Obviously the church is not a game nor does it consist entirely of rules! The point is: it is ridiculous to claim the church we read in the NT is “new” because you believe it is new to this age and time.' I never suggested that you considered the Church of Christ to be "new." I am well aware that you consider it a restoration of the 1st century church. The quote you gave suggested that it was something that was lost completely and then found again by human beings some time later. You wrote: "No, I don’t believe the church disappeared off the face of the earth." Then where was the church all those years? Please show me where people were being buried in water for the remission of their sins? And how did Stona and Campbellhook up with this already existing church, if it was so far removed from the "mainstream." History shows that Barton Stone was not brought into the "true church" that had existed since the time of Christ, but rather that he considered himself as "restoring" the church. Again, please show us when and where there are examples of the "true church" between A.D 300 and A.D 1500. One or two will suffice. --Joe! |
||||||
4 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 50498 | ||
Hello Joe, You wrote: 1. There are many independent churches that are not part of the Churches of Christ who agree ("Bible" churches, "Independent Baptist" churches, "Congregationalist" churches). The congregationalist form of church government is by no means limited to the churches of Christ. Like it or not, they aren’t wearing a Scriptural name and a little digging will reveal they aren’t practicing what was taught in the NT. Where do we find choirs, pianists, soloists? Other creeds? Lord’s Supper served how often? etc. 2. Secondly, if there is no other office outside of the local church, how do you explain Titus and Timothy? They weren't elders in the churches in Crete and Ephesus. They appointed elders. Titus and Timothy? In Titus 1 we are given qualifications for elders. 1:5 “…I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely" He goes on to list the qualifications. He was to ensure that wherever he went, IF men fell under those qualifications, that they are serving as elders. You wrote: We also see church councils in the book of Acts, where leaders from different churches come together to set policy which will be binding on all of the churches. Like it or not, there is precedent in Scripture for overseeing bodies. Where? Give specific Scripture. What church council? Are you referring to Acts 15? “Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them” There is no church council meeting to determine if something is right or wrong…they already knew the answer and went on to make their point. There is no voting, rewording, or drafting of documents. They were shedding light on false teaching. You wrote: Then where was the church all those years? Scripture is sufficient for me. I recall the rich man wanting Lazarus to go back and warn his brothers so they could avoid eternal torment. Abraham’s response: “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.” Luke 16:19-31 If you want to refute what God has said, you show there weren’t any Scriptural baptisms occurring. You wrote: And how did Stone and Campbell hook up with this already existing church, if it was so far removed from the "mainstream." Why would they need to “hook up?” Plant the seed (The Word of God), you yield the same church,the church the Lord established, the church of Christ. mouse2 |
||||||
5 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 50507 | ||
You wrote: " Scripture is sufficient for me. I recall the rich man wanting Lazarus to go back and warn his brothers so they could avoid eternal torment. Abraham?s response: ?If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.? Luke 16:19-31 If you want to refute what God has said, you show there weren?t any Scriptural baptisms occurring." Wow, Jesus and the parable of the rich man and Lazarus has NOTHING to do with what I am saying. I am not refuting anything God said. You, however, are insisting that what you call "Scriptural baptisms" were occurring consistently somewhere, somehow since the first century, with not a shred of historical evidence to show that such was the case. So we have three options, the way I see it: 1. What you call "Scriptural baptisms" are not Scriptural baptisms (or at least not the ONLY ones). or 2. They were indeed Scriptural baptisms, but Scriptural baptism is not absolutely necessary to be saved. or 3. Most, if not all people between the end of the first century and the "restoration" of the Church of Christ are in Hell, with the church non-existent for well over a milennium. You wrote: 'Why would they need to ?hook up?? Plant the seed (The Word of God), you yield the same church,the church the Lord established, the church of Christ.' So you are talking about a re-establishment of the church, after all. Some "visible church" you have there, if you can't give a single example of the visible church for a span of 1200 years! It really makes passages like this come alive, as well: "So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit." --Ephesians 2:19-22 No matter how you try and portray it, what you are describing are "new plants" (churches) springing up the Bible being "sown" (a misapplication of Matthew 13, since Jesus was talking about individuals and not churches). We still have one or two men, completely on their own, disconnected completely from church history, claiming that everything has been wrong since the first century, and establishing a new movement claiming itself to be a restoration of the earliest church. In this regard, the Churches of Christ share a similar legacy as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (hey, they even have a "correct name"!) and the Jehovah's Witnesses. In fact, the quote I gave earlier in this thread, undisputed by you or RAVEN, which began by stating: "To let God be true means to let God have the say as to what is the truth that sets men free. It means to accept his Word, the Bible, as the truth. Hence...our appeal is to the Bible for truth." is actually taken from a book on my shelf entitled "Let God Be True," published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. So we can clearly see that claims to be the restored early church and to cling to the word of God alone can actually be in error. Same with the Churches of Christ. --Joe! |
||||||