Results 1 - 20 of 31
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: mouse2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 50348 | ||
This is as good a place to jump in as any. I applaud your efforts Raven in trying to make your points. Good job. I would like to address points made throughout this dialogue. 1. Denominationalism defined: "Please note that our motives are pure. We have no desire to become isolationists or exclude ourselves from everyone else. We like people. But we cannot defend or embrace the denominational world, because first of all it is based upon an unbiblical philosophy: One writer notes '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". That segment will have certain features which distinguishes it from other "Christian" segments. These distinguishing features are what denominate that segment, making it a denomination.' (Pharr p. 8) " Source:www.beavertonchurchofchrist.net/Not_Denomination_1.html 2. Question was basically something like this: Where was the church from the 1st century to the 19th century? "Some have recently tried to argue that the churches of Christ have only existed for approximately three hundred years, and that they are simply an American denomination. 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? No, people would proclaim, “This game is over a thousand years old” (Spiritual Sword p. 2). The fact of the matter is that churches of Christ are spoken of as being in existence in the first century (Romans 16:16). In addition, all the practices that are associated with the church of Christ (see the identifying marks above) are not practices or doctrines that are 300 years old, rather they are all found in the New Testament! Thus the challenge to someone who makes the above claim would be, “Which doctrine or practice in the churches of Christ is only three hundred years old?” Finally, the church of Christ may be 300 years old in America from the fact that the country itself is only that old! To argue that the church of Christ is only three hundred years old is about as silly as arguing that the marriage relationship based on the Scriptures is only three hundred years old." Source:www.beavertonchurchofchrist.net/The_church_of_Christ.htm Now perhaps someone will be all up in arms about quoting someone else, but why must I reinvent the wheel. I believe these thoughts precisely echo my thougts and I could not have worded it any better. Thank you for your patience in getting this far. Mouse2 |
||||||
2 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 50349 | ||
Just wanted to make some points that you might find helpful. You wrote: I subscribe to the doctrine found in the 'Baptist Faith and Message.' Why make that statement? Why do you need to subscribe to any committee prescribed statement? I went to the website and clicked around here and there. What does the book of Acts mean when it says: Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." SBC holds "It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper. " It says nothing of baptism for the remission of sins. Baptism is something someone else does to you, not that you do to yourself. It is not a work you do, it is done to you. The book of Acts is church history, with numerous examples of various people becoming Christians. All taking th same route: Hearing God's word, believing that Word, Confessing Christ, Repenting, and submitting to baptism. All taking place before they are added to the Lord's church. You wrote: I challenge anyone to prove that this statement of faith has been, to use your terminology, added to or subtracted from the teaching of the Bible. So I submit to you, one item in the 2 mins I spent on the site. Mouse2 |
||||||
3 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 50407 | ||
You wrote: Do you actually believe that the Church of Christ is the only true Christian Church? No - I don’t believe every group that meets wearing the title - church of Christ – is true to Christ’s command for the church. That seems evident in Rev 2 and 3 with the churches in Asia. “What a congregation is presently doing or not doing determines whether or not it is the Lord’s church.” Yes – I do believe that the church of Christ is the only true church. When I speak of the church of Christ I am speaking of the church that Jesus established (Matthew 16:18). Follow me? You wrote: I sincerely fail to see how it differs from any other denomination. It began at a certain point in history and has divided and merged several times (see http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/who.html) for a brief history. The church was begun in the 1st century on the day of Pentecost and false teachers quickly splintered off. Around AD 150, infant baptism was advocated (Roman Catholics). It was from Roman Catholicism that many more denominations sprung up: Lutheran (1530), American Episcopal (1609), Methodist (1739), etc. There are many respects in which the church of Christ differs from denominations. Perhaps I will be able to shed some light. Would you agree that when you are looking for something specific, you are looking for something with particular characteristics? Those characteristics are the specific items of distinction. So then, what would be those items of distinction? 1. Founded by Christ: Matt 16:18 states that Jesus would build His church. Not Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen G. White, etc. 2. Christ as the Head: Eph 1:22-23 “And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and have Him as head over all things to the church.” Not any human heads (i.e. the Pope), associations, committees, etc. 3. Bible as only creed: 2 Tim 3:16-17. No need for anything else, i.e. Book of Mormon, Koran, Watchtower, etc. 4. No human names: 1 Pet 4:16 “…but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name.” Where will you find Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, etc in the Scriptures. More could be listed, but I think this gives pause for thought. You wrote: Every denomination ever begun felt that they too were 'restoring' the true spirit of the first century church. Usually, all they were doing was overemphasizing one particular point of doctrine. I am not interested in what anyone felt they were doing. I am interested in the truth. Certainly, many people felt they were right with God in the days of Noah, yet only 8 people made it onto the ark (2 Peter 2:5) Jesus has made it clear the way is narrow (Matt 7:13-14), narrow indeed. Scripture predicts the apostasy to come (2 Peter 3:16; 1 Tim 4:1-3 – is that not Catholicism’s doctrine?; 2 Tim 4:2-4; Matt 7:22). Do you still fail to see any differences? Mouse2 |
||||||
4 | 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 |
||||||
5 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 50457 | ||
Funny how Paul, John and other apostles did not see it that way. Gal 1:8-9 explicitly states false teaching will grant you condemnation. If belonging to a particluar denomination doesn't matter, why the tiff with the Gnostics, and other false teachers? Why the many many warnings in learning to discern good from evil, truth from falsehood? Heb 2:1, 1 John 4:1 Why the warn against following after those who wish to have their ears tickled? 2 Tim 4:2-3 Why the warning of "Many will say to Me in that day Lord, Lord..." (Matt 7:21-23) You wrote: It seems that the Church of Christ's position is an example of the worst of denominationalism - we are right and everyone else is wrong! ;-) That would be God's position that you take issue with, since you refuse to read the Scriptures. Many believe Jesus was a "good man, a great prophet, but the Son of God?" Would they be your siblings too? “You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.” James 2:19 People in Noah's day would echo that, but, oops!, they were washed away. Noah, God only spoke to you? (And no-God did not speak audibly to me, just making a point here) God would not destroy us all!? Why do we feel we are above heeding what God commanded? I'm not inventing this; we can all read the Scriptures for ourselves. Have a great one. Mouse2 |
||||||
6 | 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 |
||||||
7 | 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 |
||||||
8 | 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 |
||||||
9 | 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 |
||||||
10 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 50606 | ||
Indeed. Good Luck. | ||||||
11 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 50640 | ||
Correct. I did let mouth get ahead of my mind. Mouse2 |
||||||
12 | 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 |
||||||
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 | 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 |
||||||
15 | 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 |
||||||
16 | 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 |
||||||
17 | 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 |
||||||
18 | 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 |
||||||
19 | 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 |
||||||
20 | 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 |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |