Comments on: A Plea to Reconsider: Must We Have Authority?

By: One In Jesus » Richland Hills, Instrumental Music, and the future of the Churches of Christ: In Reply to Robert

Sat, 12 Mar 2011 16:07:35 +0000

[...] argued in previous comments that Colossians 3:17 requires authority for Christian practices. I responded to this argument in detail three years ago. And we had a later discussion on [...]

By: Surprised by Hope: Evangelism — In Response to Readers’ Comments, Part 1 « One In Jesus.info

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 03:04:48 +0000

[...] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” “In the name of” indicates becoming a representative of or acting in honor of someone else. For example, (Acts 3:6) Then Peter said, “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I [...]

By: Jay Guin

Jay Guin — Fri, 09 May 2008 14:41:46 +0000

Todd, You might enjoy these posts on "that which is perfect."

By: Todd Collier

Todd Collier — Fri, 09 May 2008 10:26:39 +0000

Thank you! The use of this proof text has made me scratch my head more than once. Similar to our use of 1 Cor. 13:8-11 it is an important passage with much to say, but it doesn't say what the legalists want it to say. And yet, they so want it to that they lose the ability to see the truth in the words.

By: instrumental music

instrumental music — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:19:24 +0000

instrumental music

I really like your posts.

By: Bobby Valentine

Bobby Valentine — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:07:33 +0000

Jay thank you for a very thoughtful piece. There are very large logical and exegetical holes in Miller's arguments. Thanks for pointing (in a kind way) to many of them.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

By: Friday Rest Areas « Out Here Hope Remains

Friday Rest Areas « Out Here Hope Remains — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:57:33 +0000

[...] Jay Guin tackles David Miller’s writings. [...]

By: Alan

Alan — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:33:28 +0000

Amen, Jay!

Col 3:17 is widely used as the primary proof text for requiring CENI authorization for everything we do. Yet that is quite obviously not what Paul was talking about in the passage, as you've demonstrated. So the Col 3:17 argument — apparently the strongest that the advocates of that doctrine can muster — is contrived. It is taken out of context and twisted to make the point. That shows how weak the support is for their position.