Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
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 | 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 |
||||||
2 | 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! |
||||||