Results 1 - 20 of 27
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: mouse2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Mark 16:16 what does it say? | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 51445 | ||
You wrote: "Thus my suggestion -- and I give it without malice -- is that all of you who are of this feather stow away your doctrinal issues in an old trunk someplace and join in and interact, if you wish, with the other users on other biblical topics." Your comment in and of itself is a doctrine. Will you "stow away" your faith only docrine? Would Paul or Jesus followed your advice? 2 Tim 4:2-4 Offended by the truth? Gal 4:16 "...that are not nearly so divisive..." Like what? Jesus' teachings are divisive. Matt 10:34 I have to agree with Jesus' response to the Pharisees seeking to silence Jesus' disciples. Luke 19:40 Mouse2 |
||||||
2 | Mark 16:16 what does it say? | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 51443 | ||
I read your post as you suggested and here is my response: You wrote: "We are justified through FAITH." Faith in the promise fulfilled by Christ. You wrote:"We are sons of God through FAITH in Christ Jesus. " Wouldn't tht require obedience to His word? You wrote: "Where does this say that baptism is a condition of justification or adoption? " Gal 3:26-27 You wrote: "All of those whom Paul is addressing were baptized." Why if it was not essential? You wrote: "The Israelites were declared righteous not by following the Law of Moses,but by believing God." huh? Believing and obeying. You wrote: "It says 3 times in this passage alone that faith is the instrument God uses for our justification and adoption. Where is the word "alone" found? You wrote: "Show me one single passage that uses the word "justification" and "baptism" in the same verse, and I will recant of my "error." " What is justification? Doesn't justification and forgiveness equate? Romans 4:1-8. Baptism is linked with forgiveness. Mouse2 |
||||||
3 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 51440 | ||
Part2: As far as the verses you quoted: "So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." --Philippians 2:13 (works of salvation) "What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" --James 2:14 (where is your fruit?) This individual is not bearing the fruit of his salvation. He is claiming faith, but is not displaying any. "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." --Ephesians 2:10 (again, bearing fruit, serving, doing what is expected of one claiming Christ) If I don’t bear fruit-will this affect my salvation? "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father." --John 14:12 Greater miracles than Jesus performed? (miracles, works of evidence, proof) You wrote: Repentance is a requirement and component of true saving faith. So is baptism. Faith in what God has commanded is going to do what He says it will. You wrote: God, however, knows whether He has worked saving faith in me or not (1 Samuel 16:7; 1 Corinthians 4:5), and does not need the outward manifestations before he can credit me with Christ's righteousness. So, did the Israelites need to “outwardly manifest” obedience with circumcision? God sought to put Moses to death for failing to circumcise his son. Exodus 4:24-26 And before you cry irrelevant, is it not a parallel to your claim above? You wrote: I do not ignore Psalm 119:160. I said you misused by alleging that "the sum" being described in the verse means that passages that say that God's people are saved through faith, specifically excluding works, can be combined with passages commanding us to obey God, to conclude that we are indeed declared righteous on the basis of something we do (actually a LOT of somethings, according to you). It means that the Bible is not a series of contradictions from the OT to NT or vice versa. All the Scriptures are in harmony. One passage is not to be elevated above another, but we need to see the harmony in it. Not to say “…but…” There are no “buts” in Scripture. Hopefully you caught that point and I am not going to get a response showing me the word “but “ in Scripture! Mouse2 |
||||||
4 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 51439 | ||
You wrote: The Old (Mosaic) Covenant was never a means of salvation. So why do you keep repeating that the thief was saved under the Old Covenant? Old covenant system. Old covenant was not designed to cover the cost of sin. Gal 3:24 says it was a what? The old covenant time and again pointed towards a more perfect sacrifice to come, to a new covenant: Isaiah 53; Acts 3:24-26; Jeremiah 31:34; Deut 18:15. The old covenant promised forgiveness would come, but its sacrificial system did not forgive sin. Heb 10:1-10. Obedience to the old covenant system of sacrifice was in faith in the promise to come. Without this obedience, there was condemnation. So then, what is the point of the sacrificial system? It was commanded (Heb 10:8 “..according to the Law…). The new covenant is based and built on Christ’s sacrifice. Heb 9. So the thief on the cross was saved in his obedience to the old covenant criteria. We are not commanded today to offer bulls, lambs, or goats; a system the Jewish Christians wanted to return to. The whole book of Hebrews points to the superiority of Christ and the new covenant. Old covenant required sacrifices in obedience to God for the promise to come. The new covenant requires obedience to the commands laid out in the New Testament to lay hold to the promise fulfilled in Christ. Mark 16:16 You wrote: If the New Covenant was Jesus' last will and testament as you say, whose last will and testament was the Old Covenant? The old covenant was not a “last will” . It was a shadow of the things to come (Heb 8:5-6; 10:1). You wrote: And as that verse says, no conditions can be added to a covenant once it is ratified. Nothing is being added to this covenant. This is a new covenant: Heb 8:13. it is the new covenant to which we are accountable. Again, what is the point of the sacrificial system? Did God not design this system? Then why are we questioning whether baptism is required for salvation? 1 Peter 3:21 “Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…” Mark 16:16 again that “and” seems to be a conjunction, not an option. Luke 24:47 says repentance and forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name from Jerusalem, where we find in Acts 2, Peter and the others preaching the gospel. Acts 2:36 we have “know for certain” believe, have faith. Acts 2:37 “…what shall we do?” Acts 2:38 “Repent and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins…” Acts 2:41 “So then, those who had received his word were baptized; …” You wrote: If we must keep every last requirement of His will in order to be saved, then none of us save Christ will be in heaven, because we all still continually fall short of His righteous requirements. Sounds a lot like Luke 18:26. "Wherein does obeying God’s commands constitute works or boasting in works?" You wrote: You are kidding, right? Works in the sense of as if I had done something to earn or merit my salvation. As if by being baptized, I have done something to earn my salvation without God. There are works of the flesh (Gal 5:19-21), there are works of the spirit (Gal 5:22-23), there are works of merit (Eph 2:9), etc. Perhaps I should rephrase it for you: wherein does obeying God’s commands constitute boasting in works? Mouse2 |
||||||
5 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 51073 | ||
Let’s examine the thief on the cross. Seems like a few questions immediately spring up with the thief issue. 1. Is the thief saved? 2. Was he baptized or not? (although this question is not relevant) 3. Does this apply to us today? (very relevant!) 1. What does Jesus say in Luke 23:43? 2. My whole premise is that this question is irrelevant, because of the change of covenants, but for the sake of argument it needs to be addressed. Nothing in the Scriptures tells us he was or was not baptized, but we do know this about him: he knew of the Messiah and His kingdom to come, Luke 23:42 “Jesus…when You come into Your kingdom!” He died the same day the Lord Jesus did. Both living under the same covenant, the same covenant kept and observed by our Lord up until His death. A new covenant was made and that covenant went into effect after the death of Jesus. The new covenant was His last will and testament. When does a will go into effect? When the testator dies, right? Then his will is read and executed. When Christ died, His will was read (Mark 16:15) and executed (Mark 16:16; Acts 2). 3. Whether the thief was or was not baptized has no bearing on our salvation, for we come after the cross. What Christ did before the cross, in no way nullifies the requirements of His will after the cross. Luke 24:47 says what? Repentance and forgiveness of sins. Repentance too is a requirement towards salvation. Faith does not stand alone. Matthew 28:19-20 who is being taught here? Verse 20 “teaching them all that I commanded you; and lo I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” We must have faith to obey the Lord’s commands. Is that not the greatest manifestation of faith: obedience to His commands? You wrote: Wow...what a misuse of a verse! So now we should conclude that the "faith, NOT works" passages plus the "works" passages, equals faith plus works! Something there just doesn't seem to add up. Let me go get my calculator... Wherein does obeying God’s commands constitute works or boasting in works? How is it that I have, as you say, misused the verse? If you do indeed believe in Psalm 119:160, how is it you ignore what it says? Why is it you refuse to acknowledge the conjunction “and” in Mark 16:16, in Acts 2:38, etc? Read Gal 3:23-27. What was said of those in verse 26? Who were they? Verse 27 continues to define that group. What specification in verse 27 is noted about those mentioned in verse 26? Mouse2 |
||||||
6 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 51072 | ||
Steve, hope you had a good weekend. You wrote: "Do you believe the Bible is inconsistent?" and cited Psalm 119:160 "All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal." That was my point. Throughout, the Bible says to believe, to have faith, to call upon the Lord to be saved. No one is saved without faith. I agree. No one is saved without faith. Or faith alone. How do you define faith? At what point of faith are you saved? I mean is it at mental acceptance? Do you “invite Jesus into your heart”? With faith only for salvation, is confession necessary? Do you need to repent? You wrote: You cited passages in James, Matthew, and John but none of them say that works lead to salvation. They all say that works should be the visible result of salvation. Nor do they mention any specific works. Define “works” for me. You wrote: Paul wrote "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9) How does one boast in obedience to God’s word? (You wrote: No baptism, no style of worship, no schedule for communion, just God's grace accessed through faith. Nothing more.) What type of works does this verse refer to? Mouse2 |
||||||
7 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 50870 | ||
Hello Steve: You wrote: It seems to me this idea has two fatal flaws. First, it negates the many instances where the Bible says that all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved (e.g. Joel 2:32, Acts 2:21, Romans 10:13). This simple, unqualified statement is beautifully illustrated by the thief on the cross. The problem with that is the thief on the cross was still under the old covenant. The new covenant did not take effect until after the death of Christ (Heb 9:15-17). Yet Peter did not stop there at Acts 2:21, he continued to preach and teach what they needed to do. If belief was all that was necessary, why continue on? Why do the people ask what they ask in Acts 2:37? Why didn't Peter simply say, believe? You wrote: But there too many counter-examples to claim that the two are invariably linked. Do you believe the Bible is inconsistent? Do you not look to see how they are threaded together? God wrote all we have in Scripture through inspired men. Psalm 119:160; 2 Tim 3:16-17 Psalms 119:160 says "the sum": the total, it all adds up. You wrote: No legalisms, no performance, no law, none of our own effort, nor the effort of anyone doing baptisms - only his. I do agree, nothing we do on OUR OWN merits salvation. However, there are works we must do: James 2:14,17-26; Matthew 3:8; John 15:8, etc. Mouse2 |
||||||
8 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 50809 | ||
You wrote: I've stayed out of this but one sentence caught my eye: "When your soul is on the line, it behooves us to investigate everything carefully (as the Beareans did)". The Bereans did not study scripture to save their souls, they studied scripture to see if Paul was believable. Steve, Let’s look at Acts 17:11-12 “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.” Paul and Silas arrived in Berea and where did they go? The synagogue. Why? For the same reason they had went to Thessalonica, Acts 17:1-4, to teach them the gospel. So, they went to Berea for the same cause (Acts 17:12), note “Therefore,…” connecting verse 12 to the previous verse. Do you believe the Bereans were already saved, because they were Jews? Verse 11 says “…they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures …” to see if what was so? What Paul was saying was so. What was he saying? Just what he had told the Thessalonians and all others he preached to: Acts 17: 3; Acts 17:24-31; Acts 16, Acts 18 in Corinth, etc. You wrote: What was Paul saying? That there was now a new set of rules to follow or that salvation is by grace through faith alone? The 1st covenant was ended and a new begun at the cross, at the death of Christ. Heb 8:13. AD70 sealed that with the destruction of Jerusalem. Many had believed, had faith that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, the Christ, yet did not yield salvation. John 12:42-43 I believe Scripture makes it rather clear baptism is necessary. Read my previous post to Tim on Baptism. Perhaps that helped. Mouse2 |
||||||
9 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 50807 | ||
Tim, You wrote: Frankly, this is an argument from silence. I could make the same case that God never specifically said that churches should meet in church builings; therefore, the Churches of Christ are violating Scripture by meeting in a building. One could say that the Bible never specifically commands that we use hymn books, or that the pastor stand in front of the congregation, ect.... Arguments from silence are not convincing. If you have time, check out the lesson on this site: http://www.beavertonchurchofchrist.net/Authority_Class_7.htm I think it address the area of silence of the Scriptures very well. I don't believe silence gives permission. It certainly doesn't work that way in real life. I am curious about you thoughts about it afterward. Also on the points of hymn books and so forth, there is 2 other issues here: 1)generic and specific authority and 2)expediencies. If you choose to peruse the site, you shall run across lessons on those as well. mouse2 |
||||||
10 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 50805 | ||
You wrote: Since the structure is as you have described it, how do you reconcile your structure with the New Testaments passage which demonstrate that other's did have authority over local churches in the New Testament. For example, in Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem so that the Apostles and elders could settle a question of doctrine. In verse 20, they wrote to the church in question to 'tell them' that they must do certain things. Further, v. 24 speaks of an 'authorization' which the men in question did not have. But, the implication is that such an authorization could exist. 1 Tim. 1:3 speaks of Timothy staying in Ephesus t command certain men to stop teaching a false doctrine. Titus 1:5 speaks of Titus being told to stay in Crete and to appoint Elders in the local church. “The New Testament teaches that each local congregation is self-governing. The elders only shepherd the flock of which they are members (1 Peter 5:1-3; Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1). No earthly organizational structure is mentioned beyond the local congregation. While First Century churches were autonomous, they did have interaction with other congregations. The brethren in Ephesus wrote to the church in Corinth and exhorted them to receive Apollos (Acts 18:27). One writer noted, ‘It goes without saying that, had Apollos been unworthy, the evident concern of the brethren at Ephesus for the brethren at Achaia would have been shown in warning them about him’. The church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to help the congregation in Antioch (Acts 11:22). Nothing is said about Antioch first asking for such help. Antioch could have decided, in harmony with their autonomy, that they did not need Barnabas. However, the congregation in Jerusalem did not violate Antioch’s autonomy by sending Barnabas. In 1 Timothy 1:3 and Titus 1:5 preachers were sent to local congregations to correct some problems and none of this violated the autonomy of either congregation.” Source: www.beavertonchurchofchrist.net Bible Authority: Lesson 18: The Local Church and the Universal Church You wrote: Concerning the Church of Christ, I was simply trying to say that it is hard to have a 'group' called the 'Church of Christ' if there is no process to identity a church as being 'Church of Christ'. Let me see if I can do a better job of explaining what I see in Scripture. Do you agree at least to the point of a universal church? A church (“invisible”) to which every faithful believer belongs, added to by the Lord. The Lord Jesus is the only one who can add members (Acts 2:47) or remove them (Rev 2 and 3) from the church universal. Would you agree that is true? “Every Christian was simply a member of one united body of believers. Various congregations existed (Corinth, Rome, Ephesus, etc.), but they were all part of the same body. Each congregation practiced and believed the same doctrines or teachings, that is, what was being revealed through the apostles (1 Corinthians 4:17; 14:37). Christians were admonished to remain united, divisions based on following certain leaders within the church” (Acts 20:28-30), “or dividing up the body of Christ into various sects or flavors of Christianity were condemned (1 Cor. 1:10). In fact, even sects based on following elevating one apostle over all others were rebuked (1:12-13).” Source: www.beavertonchurchofchrist.net Bible Authority: Lesson 18: The Local Church and the Universal Church The local congregation, the church of Christ, whether it be in Beijing, China, Nome, Alaska, Johannesburg, South Africa, or anywhere upon the face of the earth, it is a group of faithful believers carrying out the work set for it (the church) to do, in accordance with Scripture. Nothing more, nothing less. Does that help any? Mouse2 |
||||||
11 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 50801 | ||
You wrote: Do I and other professing Christians of various other communions, in your view, have any hope of salvation, since we are not card-carrying members of your 'Church of Christ' but do maintain that we are truly members of the Church of Christ? First, it isn’t my church, nor do we carry cards (perhaps that was in jest, but I have found that one needs to be clear). What I write is directly from God’s word. I believe I have supplied Scripture to my posts. Secondly, as I attempted to point out before, there is a universal church to which every faithful believer is a member of. Acts 2:47 “…and the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.” Now, does that mean only in one location? Or does He speak of the whole body of believers, church universal? The Lord Jesus is the only one who can add members (Acts 2:47) or remove them (Rev 2 and 3) from the church universal. Would you agree that is true? “Every Christian was simply a member of one united body of believers. Various congregations existed (Corinth, Rome, Ephesus, etc.), but they were all part of the same body. Each congregation practiced and believed the same doctrines or teachings, that is, what was being revealed through the apostles (1 Corinthians 4:17; 14:37). Christians were admonished to remain united, divisions based on following certain leaders within the church” (Acts 20:28-30), “or dividing up the body of Christ into various sects or flavors of Christianity were condemned (1 Cor. 1:10). In fact, even sects based on following elevating one apostle over all others were rebuked (1:12-13).” Source: www.beavertonchurchofchrist.net Bible Authority: Lesson 18: The Local Church and the Universal Church The local congregation, the church of Christ, whether it be in Beijing, China, Nome, Alaska, Johannesburg, South Africa, or anywhere upon the face of the earth, it is a group of faithful believers carrying out the work set for it (the church) to do, in accordance with Scripture. Nothing more, nothing less. Thirdly, your hope of salvation does not lie in my views, it lies within Scripture, with Jesus Christ. I am simply trying my utmost to present that to you. I find example after example, in Scripture of folks failing to do what they were suppose to do. For instance: Lev 10:1-3-Nadab and Abihu offering up “strange fire” to the Lord; 2 Sam 6:1-7 Uzzah reached out and touched the ark. Certainly he thought he was doing the right thing; however, the ark was to be carried by Levites, specifically Kohathites (Num 4:15 and 7:9), not rolled along on a cart. The whole period of the Judges, the Kings, all the events that led to their captivity. God laid out specific instructions in the NT as well. He has given us the pattern to follow, we need only to follow it. Mouse2 |
||||||
12 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 50659 | ||
I'll get back to you on this point. As far as churches of Christ it is difficult to determine what you mean and I find it hard to delineate in text what I mean without being able to use italics and bold print to emphasize or deemphasize a point. Mouse2 |
||||||
13 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 50647 | ||
You wrote: I was curious though as to how a local Church becomes identified with the Churches of Christ. What is the process? Who makes the decision? A local church is started by just what it is composed of...local christians come together, often times they begin meeting in someone's home. Of course, bear in mind 2 things: those christians must plan their worship service, meeting times, work to be done, etc. And 2) it is up to each of us to ensure what is being taught is Scripturual: book, chapter, and verse. When the congregation grows, they get a building, etc. When we visit other congregations (while traveling or even just in the area), wearing the name C of C, it is up to us to ensure what we are hearing fits the NT teachings. If it does not, we go elsewhere. As I mentioned before, just because the sign says C of C, doesn't mean they are following NT teachings. When your soul is on the line, it behooves us to investigate everything carefully (as the Beareans did). I'm not sure what you mean by a local church being indentified "with" churches of Christ. Each congregagtion is autonomous. We are not connected to another local congregagtion in any means, except a shared faith in the truth. We are not answerable to another local congregation, our elders have no authority in any other congregation. Our members place membership (identifying yourself to work for the Lord with a specific group of christians) in one place at a time. If they move, they place membership in the congregation near them and work with the saints there. Perhaps that answered your question. Do know, I am sincerely apologetic for my earlier comments today. My tongue can sometimes be my shortcoming in life. mouse2 |
||||||
14 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 50641 | ||
Tim, Hank was correct. I do owe you an apology. I do apologize for my spur of the moment, lack of forethought comment. Mouse2 |
||||||
15 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 50640 | ||
Correct. I did let mouth get ahead of my mind. Mouse2 |
||||||
16 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 50606 | ||
Indeed. Good Luck. | ||||||
17 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 50544 | ||
Part 2 Tim, 3. Lord’s Supper: You wrote: Passages describe occurrences of the Lord's Supper, but no passage defines how often one must observe the Lord's Supper or on what day. Let’s examine this. Acts 2:42 “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” Note the word “continually” denoting some degree of regularity and frequency. Let’s read on. Acts 20:7 “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.” Note, “on the 1st day of the week”, how often does the first day of the week occur? Would you agree, every day? For what purpose were they meeting? To break bread. Certainly God needn’t put in every 1st day of the week, it is implied in 1st day of the week. He did not with Exodus 20:8 did He? "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” It was also implied every Sabbath day. A little further we walk. 1 Cor 11:20 “Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper,…” What were they to do when they met together? To eat the Lord’s Supper, yes? Finish reading the passage before you get too excited that I have contradicted myself. 1 Cor 16:2 “On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come.” Did they meet regularly? Yes. When? On the first day of the week. To do what here? To give. How often? Every 1st day of the week. So we have the Lord’s Supper observed when they met together (1 Cor 11:20). They met together on the 1st day of the week (1 Cor 16:2) and they did what? Partook of the Lord’s Supper (and gave of their means). 4. Baptism for the remission of sins: You wrote: As the numerous posts on this issue illustrate, there is not a unanimous understanding of what the Bible teaches on this issue. Perhaps, with a little examination of what Christ taught, we can gain some understanding. Read Mark 16:15-16: belief and baptism hand in hand. Read Acts 2:36-41: What had they heard and what had they done? Vs 37 they are “pierced to the heart” . VS 38 what are they told to do? Repent and what? VS 40 they are urged to “Be saved!” How? Vs 41 “So then…” Next, Read Acts 8:26-39. Eunuch is reading vs 28. Philip teaches him vs 35. Exclamation “Look! Water…” vs 37 needs to believe and in vs 38 what? Saul to Paul, read Acts 9:4-19. Hears the Lord’s voice vs 4-6. he is blinded vs 8-9. he receives his sight vs 17-18. What’s the first thing this man does after not eating for 3 days? Vs 18. Then what in vs 19? Why baptism if he was saved without it? Where in Scripture was he saved without it? Read Acts 22:16 for more details from Paul. Two more: Cornelius. Read Acts 10:1-48. Note vs 2. What kind of man was he? Yet he is told to send for Peter. Vs 22 we have the reason for summoning Peter. VS 24 was it important? Vs 34-44 Peter is preaching and teaching. Holy Spirit has come upon the gentiles in vs 44, yet Peter orders them to be baptized vs 48. Read Acts 16:25-34. We have the Jailor now. Vs 29-30 he has been listening to Paul and Silas, no doubt. He certainly saw their condition. Vs 31 Believe! Did it stop there? Vs 32 Paul and Silas spoke to them. What happened in vs 33? Vs 34 is interesting “…and rejoicing greatly having believed in God…” Baptism was included in that belief. Many more examples in Acts. Now what is so confusing about what God asks of us? Why the debate? Where do we come up with things like “Just ask Jesus into your heart?” I have yet to find that one. “We only need faith?” Seems Cornelius had lots of faith and that alone did not save him. 5. Scriptural name: “Almost doesn’t deserve a response.” Hmmm. Is what we are called by unimportant, of no consequence? God certainly made a point of names. He named the 1st man-Adam Gen 5:2. Adam named Eve Gen 3:20. God changed Abram’s name (Gen 17:5), Sarai’s name (Gen 17:15), and Jacob’s name (Gen 32:27-28). Will you now tell me that is of no significance? It was not important? Does God record frivolity? Church of Christ is a designation representing to whom we belong, to whom we owe our allegiance (Acts 4:12). Still believe names are not that important? Bear with me through a syllogism or two. True False “The Bible condemns human names.” 1 Cor 1:12 True False “ ‘Methodist’, or any other human name you wish to use, is a human name?” True False “Therefore, the name “Methodist” is under condemnation.” How about this one: True False “Man is commanded to glorify God in the name ‘Christian.‘ ” 1 Peter 4:16 True False “Catholics, or any other human name you wish to use, is trying to glorify God in the name ‘Catholic’. “ True False “Therefore, Catholics are in disobedience to God’s command.” mouse2 |
||||||
18 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 50543 | ||
Tim, my original post is too long so I'll divide it to part 1 and 2. 1. Correct Structure: You wrote: There are verses which mention certain elements of structure, but none that prescribe a certain structure as being the 'only' way. Read John 14:6. We have established that Jesus is the head of all things, Eph 1:22-23 2 offices and respective work were created by God. Definite qualifications for those offices exist. (Titus 1; 1 Tim 3) They, elders and deacons, had definite roles in the church. Deacons, as their title indicates, are servants. Servants under and assisting the eldership. The elders are to shepherd the flock of God among themselves. 1 Peter 5:2-4. Doesn’t seem optional to me, when there are qualified men to serve. 2. Acapella Singing: You wrote: No matter how one interprets Eph. 5:19, there isn't a single verse anywhere in the Bible which forbids the use of musical instruments. Last time I checked, we were still under the New Covenant Heb 8:13. Eph 5:19 “…speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;…” Acts 16:25 “ But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns of praise to God, and the prisoners were listening to them;…” Rom 15:9 “and for the Gentiles to glorify God for His mercy; as it is written, ‘THEREFORE I WILL GIVE PRAISE TO YOU AMONG THE GENTILES, AND I WILL SING TO YOUR NAME’." 1 Cor 14:15 “What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.” Col 3:16 “Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.” Matt 26:30 “After singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.” Heb 2:12 “saying, ‘I WILL PROCLAIM YOUR NAME TO MY BRETHREN, IN THE MIDST OF THE CONGREGATION I WILL SING YOUR PRAISE’." Heb 13:15 “Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name.” Jas 5:13 “Is anyone among you suffering? Then he must pray. Is anyone cheerful? He is to sing praises.” Lastly, remember there are 2 kinds of commands issued: generic and specific. For example, when Noah was given instructions for building the ark (Gen 6:14), God said specifically gopher wood. That automatically excludes all other types of wood, does it not? IF God had said, “make an ark of wood, ” that would have be generic authority. Noah would have been free to select whatever type of wood he saw fit to use. IF the NT had said, “Make music” we would be free to use whatever we saw fit to use, vocal, instrumental, or both. He specifically said, “Sing.” There is no mention of instrumental music anywhere in the NT. Christ left it out, which settles it for me. You wrote: The only church which can truly claim to be non-denomination is a single local church with no other connections to any other church. What connections? Connected how? Mouse2 |
||||||
19 | 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 |
||||||
20 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 50497 | ||
Greetings again, You wrote: I don't recall any verse which mentions a denomination, called the Church of Christ, started in 18 something by a couple of individuals who felt that somehow everyone else was wrong and they were right. I have read the Bible through many times, in several languages, but I have yet to see that verse. :-) What I do see though is that the Church is made up of all those God has called, justified, sanctified, ect... But, never any mention of this particular denomination. We all pretty well agree that denominationalism is not the best thing which has ever happened to the Church. But, to start another denomination, and say it isn't a denomination, is not the answer to the problem. :-) Nor, is the answer to exclude everyone from the Kingdom of God who isn't part of your denomination. Scripture simply doesn't define the term 'Christian' in that way my friend! More questions for you…Is it possible for to be non-denominational? What about the church of Christ makes it a denomination? What facet of its practice is of human origin? It is patterned after the church in the NT: -It has the correct structure: Jesus as head (Eph 1:22-23); elders/deacons (Titus 1, 1 Tim 3) -Acapella singing Eph 5:19 -Lord’s Supper observed every 1st day of the week Acts 20:7, 1 Cor 11:23, Acts 2:42 - Baptism for the remission of sins Acts 2:38 1 Peter 3:21 -Scriptural name Romans 16:16 Again I ask, what part of that is human origin? Mouse2 |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |