I get emails —
Reading your blog has been very enlightening for me. I grew up in a small Church of Christ Now I’ve moved back to the area and my wife and I are attending there again. It is the only Church of Christ in town. The church isn’t non-institutional or 1 cup, but it appears to be pretty conservative. I know growing up I was taught about how the Church of Christ was the only true church.
The preacher has been teaching the adult class on the theme of “What is the church”. This last week our lesson included the question “Are there Christians in the denominations? Explain your answer” It was the last question of the lesson and the preacher said we’d continue our discussion next Sunday. Before the class came to an end, I said I thought there were probably people who belonged to the universal church that attended the Baptist church across the street. Some other responses were that denominations can’t be part of the true church since they’ve divided themselves from the church, as long as people are worshiping correctly then they are in the church, and that the question isn’t whether there are members of the Church of Christ who attend another service, but whether denominations are Christian.
I’m not sure what I should say when I go to class next Sunday. I believe that the Church of Christ gets it right in most cases of doctrine, but that others can view things differently and that God’s grace will cover either of us when we make a doctrinal error. How would you answer the question?
Thanks for your time and your blog.
This is a tough one, because it’s just so hard for a student to persuade a teacher to change his views so much. It’s just not easy for someone brought up in the “We are the only Christians” camp to change his point of view, as he must change so much about how he views Christianity.
I’m not saying he can’t be persuaded, just that it’s very hard to do it in a classroom setting as a student.
Therefore, I’d be inclined to take these approaches —
1. Meet him for lunch or breakfast and point him to some literature that makes the case for a more scriptural view of grace. You might consider giving him a copy of my The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace, which was written for this very purpose. Ask him to meet with you weekly to study each chapter together. You might invite a couple of other guys to the meeting.
2. In class, ask him this hypothetical: A 14-year old girl grows up in the Baptist Church. She hears the gospel, believes that Jesus is the Son of God, repents, confesses her faith, and her pastor baptizes her by immersion for remission of sins. There really are some Baptist Churches that baptize for remission of sins. Does the baptism take?
If yes, then there certainly are Christians in “the denominations.” If not, then why not? Why does the plan of salvation not work in a Baptist church building?
I would not get into an argument or fuss. I’d just ask the question — because the question will force others in the class to confront their sectarianism. It’s just a good thought question that will push a few to think harder and deeper about their faith.
And by asking the question, you don’t take a position. You just ask the class to consider a difficult case. There are many denominations that baptize by immersion for the remission of sins, including the independent Christian Churches, so this is no mere hypothetical.
Someone will surely say that she is saved when she is baptized but she falls away as soon as she sins by worshipping with an instrument or joining a congregation with a single pastor. The follow up question is: Do we all fall away every time we sin? Or is it just certain sins that make us fall away?
But it’s a judgment call. If asking hard questions in public will embarrass the teacher or cause you to lose credibility with the congregation, you might just sit there quietly, while doing your persuading through private meetings with key leaders. I do think you have a much better chance of being persuasive in private. But I also think it can be helpful to gently open minds by asking hard questions.
It’s important that any questions be posed humbly and gently. People will naturally become defensive when they feel threatened, and this is especially so of a teacher who is used to being the source of biblical truth for the class. Don’t try to make him look bad or get confrontational. Just ask the hard questions, saying that these are question you’ve struggled with and that you’d like to hear the class’s thoughts.
Readers, what do you think?
I think it's difficult to be persuasive on this question with a direct "assault."
I would ask questions that challenge the conclusion in a less direct way, much as you've suggested, Jay.
For example — how does God's grace and forgiveness apply to people in other congregations, who believe in Jesus?
Which sin is it that God is unwilling to forgive?
I had this kind of discussion with a Bible Teacher at the Church of Christ which I was part of. Past tense – "was" part of. I was asked to leave. The sign our front says, "All welcome" but I guess that's short hand for "All welcome except those who challenge a bit too much". Certainly, my problem is that I can be rather direct with my views and feel like I'm passively lying if I keep them to myself in an interactive Bible class situation.
But I failed to convince anyone that the Church of Christ is a denomination. Perhaps it was their fear that I might convince anyone that caused them to ask me to leave.
Tell me about Baptists baptizing for the remission of sins. I had always thought that that actually happening was so rare that for all practical purposes it didn't happen. Often, one who was baptized as a Baptist years ago, may not remember exactly what was said. I thought they generally said something like "God, for Christ's sake, has forgiven your sins." "has"…as in 'it's already happened.'
I guess we need to ask a Baptist what they say.
John, Where in the Bible is "What was said" when one is baptized mentioned? Its like praying "in the name of Jesus", you don't have to end a prayer with those words to be praying in the name of Jesus. The truth is that every Christian prayer is in the name of Jesus (we have no other access to God) and I think most baptisms are for the forgiveness of sins the way it is meant in the Bible.
As to the original question, no denomination, no group of Christians are saved, only individuals are saved. And, in those groups, including churches of Christ, there are always a few who are not saved and prove it with their lives. No one denomination is pure through and through, no one group has everything right in either doctrine or practice which is precisely why we are saved, and kept by grace. We are not capable of meeting God's lofty standards so we cling to Jesus who met every demand and suffered every loss for not keeping them, for us.
Many church of Christ teachers and preachers teach that Churches of Christ began in 33. Some Baptists make the same claim and they are both wrong.
Royce
I’ve been attending a church of Christ now for about 2 years. Most days I want to pull out my hair and scream. I pray almost every day for patience. Looking back, though, I’ve learned so much from this church. And I’m very grateful that I’m here. But it is almost impossible to change someone’s views—especially directly. An indirect method, mixed with patience and love is the only way.
A major thing that I’ve learned is to pick battles—go for the root of the problem not to the ‘front lines’. If you go for IM or baptism or church membership you’ll just hit resistance. Instead, the and only thing I wish I could encourage my teachers is in relation to our pre-understandings—that we all bring our own ideas and questions (tradition) to the bible and that this greatly affects how we then interpret it. I’d just hope that if we admit that we play a part in interpretation that we’d listen better to other traditions, be more self-critical of our views (willing to be wrong in areas that the bible doesn’t shout loud and clear), and that we’d be open to recasting any good and true doctrine that has played too long on center stage…
What are the borders of the church? I’m not going to attempt an answer here, but it is great question to think through slowly. Unfortunately, my experience in adult Sunday school classes is that there is no time to adequately discuss a topic of this import. And so in the end it all seems to be more about reaffirming our tradition’s answers to the question!
Psychologically we all want to believe that we are ‘in‘ and that our way is right. We all know somehow that there must be a line between ‘in’ and ‘out’. We should also recognize that it is very possible that the circle for ‘in’ is smaller than we’d like it to be. But then the problem gets tricky—we start using tricky language—e.g. using the term ‘denominations’ in a sense that suggests our group isn’t one. So right from the get go our rhetoric forces an answer. ‘truth is [often] a mobile army of metaphors…’
This question is always about the tension between unity and difference. A tree, for instance, starts out as one branch (a stem) popping from the soil, all of a sudden there are two branches. How did this happen? Is it still the same tree? Are both branches a part of the same tree, or are there now two trees? If I take a lump of clay and break it in half I have two lumps of clay; and yet if I take a dog and cut it in half, do I have two dogs? The problem of the ‘one and the many’ is a very difficult problem, but it is worth wrestling with—for in the end if we can adequately define something rightly, then we’ll know its essence and its boundaries.
——–
I agree very much with Royce above, most baptisms are for the remission of sins. That the coC demands that these words are said like an incantation is just silly. That we say ‘for the remission of sin’ is all fine and good; but that we believe those who don’t say it don’t believe it, well that’s just plain false.
Aside from all the knots in whether or not, or how, baptism is a symbol, yada yada—everyone (at least everywhere I’ve been) believes and teaches that they are putting off the old self and putting on Christ. What was the old self if not sinful!?! (Romans 6:3-4, Colossians 2:12-14, Galatians 3:27)
kona, that's an excellent question – but I think God's people have spent so much time on it for thousands of years that it is pretty clearly the wrong question. Ethics is basically the study of who's in and who's out of a group of people – who that group marks as "good people" and "bad people."
I don't believe the kingdom of God operates via the morality of the box, where you can rhetorically draw a box or a circle or any pleasing geometric shape around a group of people and say, "They're in, but the rest are out." Well, you can, but you end up spending more time arguing about where the walls of the box should go – how high should they be – how should they be decorated – etc etc ad infinitum et nauseum. (that's NickLatin for on and one forever and ever or until someone pukes) 🙂
Rather, Mark Moore (and others) have convinced me that the kingdom of God works via an entirely different ethical framework. To the Jew, and to most people throughout human history right up to today, uncleanness was contagious. If someone who is "out" touches you, you're "out" too. The whole ministry of Jesus (and you can see shadows and hints in the Hebrew Scriptures as well, of course) reverses that way of thinking. To Jesus, and thus to us, CLEANNESS is contagious. The kingdom of God goes wherever we go, lighting the way and blessing all who encounter it. But since we're always on the move, people (like the beggars on the way to Jerusalem) will always have a choice to follow along or to stay where they are.
Thus, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the question, "What are the borders of the church?" has been an exercise in futility, perhaps even a satanic red herring, for centuries.
Here's my favorite Mark Moore piece on the subject.
Here's another Mark Moore piece on the subject.
My friend Tim Archer wrote on the same subject, a piece entitled Bound and Centered Sets.
Nick,
Again, I was hoping to not answer my own question.
I agree with you that this question, 'what is the church?', can turn into a satanic ploy, leading us to divide and to attack one another (or equally, to unite with error, e.g. with pantheistic view, etc…). But even so we're still left with the question–'there is a church, what is it?' I agree that this question is often tackled wrongly, but instead of not asking it, let's readjust our logic and reasoning. For I think that if we really start working towards an 'essence' that we'll work our way back to Jesus–to who He is, and what He is about… For we should be able to see the difference between a hand and a foot, and how none of it makes a difference without the head.
Saying that the church isn’t exclusionary in the same sense that other groups are (which is what I think you were getting at), still doesn't mean that there isn’t a boundary to the church. (Even if that boundary is as clear as that between a cloud and the sky…)
Sorry if my comment above wasn't clear…
(I'll give your links a read…thanks)
@Royce so when did Christ's church begin?
I think a fair reading of what Royce said, is that any church grouping—whether Baptist, coC, or whoever—that claim that they are the sole heir of the 33 A.D. inauguration (which is often implied) is patently wrong. The statement sometimes made by coC teachers is usually a complex statement—for it is true that the church that the Lord instituted began circa A.D. 33; It is untrue, however, that our churches are necessarily linked to the Lord's church to the exclusion of all others…or that our tradition, in all its facets, reaches anywhere back to the first century.
As Royce said, “[…] no group of Christians are saved, only individuals are saved.”
The Messiah/Christ/Anointed One of the Exodus had a church in the desert, according to Stephen in Acts 7.
Israel was the church of the Anointed One David, son of Jesse.
Jesus of Nazareth began his assembly in Galilee, when he called four fishermen to leave their livelihoods to follow him.
So, in an important sense, the Church of Christ was not instituted on Pentecost, circa AD 33 at all. Joel's Day of the Lord prophecy was fulfilled that day. Membership in the church of Christ was thrown open to all the world that day, although it would be years before the membership actually believed that.
Also, there's a terrible weakness in English that Greek doesn't share. The difference between a past participle and a present indicative is obvious in Greek (so I hear, anyway) but challenging to spot in English.
If three saved individuals are in a car together, that group of Christians is saved (participle).
If three individuals form a group, name it, and hope that God will save it intact, that group will not be saved.
Although, come to think of it, "the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations." So in some sense, even our people-groups will be redeemed. I wonder if that applies to denominations as well as races.
The answer is not in where the line is, but who draws the line. ANY group we join here on this earth is defined by man. We aspire to organize around the line as we precieve it, but our ability to precieve is limited by our humanity. Discussions that lead to the understanding that God draws the boundary between those in and those out and that his grace is his diving rod and it is not man's place to decide to whom grace will be extended, are the best discussions. Those that are ready to go where this leads, will do so. Those not ready or mature enough to deal with it will leave it behind. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink" It takes people time to warm to new ideas. Limited comments that ask more than tell are best recieved, and our brothers are worth waiting on them to mature.
Anne, Let me say it another way that will make it more clear to you.
The "body of Christ", his "church universal (catholic), composed of all the saved of every age, is not the exact same thing as the several churches with "church of Christ" on the sign out side.
How do I know? Well, the most obvious reason, even if I knew nothing of church history, is that in the "churches of Christ" there are members who are not saved. Anyone who claims that every member of every church of Christ is saved (or any other group..) is either ignorant or ……
There are plenty of folks in more conservative churches of Christ who will tell you very quickly who is not saved in churches of Christ.
"Christ's church" (his body of believers) is far, far broader than one group of churches that was begun by Baptists who were former Presbyterians and others in the early 1800's.
I am a member of the church of Christ and I believe my heritage goes back to 33 A.D. , not beginning with Campbell and Stone. The name "Church of Christ" may not have always been hung outside the door, but I believe that Christ's church has always existed somewhere. We may not have a written record many times, but I don't subscribe to the theory that the church all of a sudden appeared during the Restoration, not do I believe that the Catholic church is our roots either. I cannot prove any of this and it may sound far fetched, but I believe that just as God always had a remnant of his people in the Old Testament, He also had a remnant of his people somewhere down through the ages.
When my Grandsons were baptized four years ago in a Baptist(Southern), They were Baptized in The Name of The Father, The Son and They Holy Spirit. I don,t know if all Southern Baptist Churches do it this way or not. But the ones I have been to do.
And I might to my above comment that when my Husband and I went into the Baptist Church, The Pastor announced to the congeration that we were already Christians, but had been baptized for the wrong reason. That has been 45 yrs ago so I don't know if they still make those comments. Probably some do and some don't. I have not witnessed it being done.
"Ethics is basically the study of who’s in and who’s out of a group of people – who that group marks as 'good people' and 'bad people.' / I don’t believe the kingdom of God operates via the morality of the box, where you can rhetorically draw a box or a circle or any pleasing geometric shape around a group of people and say, 'They’re in, but the rest are out.'” (nick gill)
This is a very interesting statement for two reasons (which are really the same reason): (1) Ethics has nothing to do with defining the borders of groups. (2) Defining who's in and who's out has nothing to do with morality but ceremony.
The problem is that although Jesus taught a moral message, since Paul Christianity has not been a moral religion but a ceremonial one. Its all about whether we fit into the category of 'Christian' or 'church' or not, and that is all based on definitions that involve ceremony almost exclusively if not always exclusively.
To most Protestants, a Christian is one who believe that Jesus is the Son of God who died for their sins, and who believes in the Trinity. Nothing about morality is found here. Pure ceremonialism. The COC just adds baptism to the equation, then maybe also proper observance of the Lord's Supper, maybe non-institutionalism, maybe no Sunday school, maybe no women preachers, etc. etc. In the end we just have a long list of ceremonial requirements for who is in and who is out, and the result is that in the end God sends people to eternal hell over pure ceremony!
All the morality has been sucked out of Christianity. It has been sucked out to the extent that you literally think of ceremony now as morality!
Whether you believe in Jesus or not is a moral question? No, its an intellectual one. Do you deem the evidence for his existence, for his having performed miracles, for his being God, for his resurrection, to be sufficient or not. Its a purely intellectual and not at all moral thing. But to you this is now morality because Christianity has become utterly devoid of morality.
John,
I know a number of Baptists baptized in a Baptist Church by a Baptist pastor for remission of sins. Now, it may well be that some of the pastors had a different opinion as to what they were doing, but it's the intent of the person being baptized that matters, I think, and they say they were baptized for remission of sins.
Nick, Tim, Dennis, and others,
I've never felt entirely comfortable with the criticism of bounded-set thinking, to use John Ortberg's term. There are some issues that are binary (either-or). Either you are saved or you are not. Either you have the Spirit or you do not. Either you are in Christ, in the church, adopted by God, redeemed … or not. And the scriptures frequently speak in either-or terms. Yes, salvation comes about by a process — and process that doesn't end at baptism. But salvation is a point-in-time event.
There is in fact a moment when you transition from seeker to saved. Paul's letters are replete with such language. It's a useful and necessary way to think. And in terms of salvation issues, it seems the best way to think because it's how Paul thinks —
I could fill the internet with examples.
And for someone dealing with 20th Century CoC thinking, bounded set thought is a good place to start.
Now, as Tim notes,
But sancification is for those already saved. The usual critique of bounded-set thinking (which Tim appears not to be guilty of) is that we shouldn't draw a firm line between lost and saved, pre-Christian and Christian, but God does — and it's a most important line. On the other hand, I think we often draw too dark a line.
For example, it's entirely appropriate to allow seekers to be involved in church ministry where the fact they aren't yet Christians won't be a problem — and there are lots of volunteer positions that a sympathetic but unconverted person can do. And including pre-Christians in the life of the Church is a great way to help them see Christians being Christians and take ownership of the mission — and therefore Jesus.
Moreover, we in the CoC don't have the Calvinistic problems pointed out by Ortberg:
and —
These are problems for Calvinists (Ortberg is a Presbyterian). They aren't problems for non-Calvinist theology or practice — as we've covered many, many times.
On the other hand, contrary to our theology, we often act as though baptism is the big moment in our salvation history and that what we do later is just hang on for dear life. We in the CoC have done a terrible job, generally, of teaching mission and kingdom. Indeed, to us, "kingdom" = "church" = "five acts" and "sound organization." That's a "faithful congregation" — so I can certainly see how treating baptism as the be all and end all of Christian life is a colossal mistake. But I don't think the cure is to reject bounded-set thinking.
Rather, the cure is to teach that we are baptized to undertake a mission with and in Jesus. Salvation should be seen not as the end of Christianity but the beginning.
Anne, When in the context of the body of Christ, the "church" the word catholic simply means universal. It has no reference to the Roman Catholic church.
Church history is not kind to those who claim to be the only true church.
Royce
Dear questioner:
As I've read the comments and prayed over this, I'd like to suggest that you must teach from your chair beginning where the teacher is in his thinking. You can't start with very deep theology. You have to start with what he understands. That's the essence of good teaching.
So here's a question to ask in private conversation:
Surely we can agree that the church consists of all saved people minus all people who've fallen away. It really is that simple.
First question: Who is it that is saved?
Answer: Those who hear, believe, repent, confess, and are baptized.
(Now there is much to debate in each step and the whole step approach, but this conversation is not the place for such debate.)
Second question: What is "faith"?
Answer: It's what we confess: that Jesus is the Messian, the Son of the Living God.
(For our purposes, an understanding sufficient for a 12-year old is enough, because most 12 year olds can confess and be baptized.)
Third question: According to God's holy word, who falls away?
Now, this is the key question. The 20th Century CoC assumes that anyone who is in error on instrumental music or many other things falls away. They are false teachers and don't have the teaching of Christ.
But if that's right, then any error at all damns. Or any sin at all damns. And this is the cinch point. The place where CoC theology utterly collapses is where it has to defend its choices re what sins damn and what sins don't.
The Churches have no explanation for how to tell the difference between sins covered by grace and sins that take us out of grace — and it's easy in a one-on-one conversation to get the other person to see the problem (not as easy to get him to admit the problem).
Now, teaching a better understanding is a tough job – but the first step is to show that the traditional view has a huge, huge failing — either all error damns or only some errors damn. If all errors damn, no one goes to heaven. If some errors damn, you must explain from the scriptures how to tell the difference.
And I take essentially this approach in The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace. But the first conversation really ought to be an effort to find out the teacher's theory for what disagreements damn and what disagreements don't.
"Anne, When in the context of the body of Christ, the "church" the word catholic simply means universal. It has no reference to the Roman Catholic church. / Church history is not kind to those who claim to be the only true church." (Royce Ogle)
That's not at all true, but is totally false. In church history the term catholic is used to distinguish the combo of the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church from all other sects, like the Nazorean, Naasons, Marcionites, Marcosians, Valentenians, Arians, Monophysites, Nestorians, etc.
The word catholic has never really be used in ecclesiastical circles to mean 'universal', but more to be a synonym of 'orthodox.'
The rule that something becomes 'catholic' by having been believed by "all Christians at all times" simply conveniently excludes everyone who disagrees from being worthy of the title of Christian first, that way their vote doesn't count!
Really, looked at rationally, catholic essentially means "the guys who killed off all the sects that disagreed with them" whether that be Roman Catholics or not.
I wrote the email and I appreciate all the responses. I guess the way I worded things might be confusing. Growing up in this congregation I had a Sunday school teacher (who is in the current class) who taught that the CoC is the one true church – however he also told me that Baptists follow the teachings of John the Baptist. I haven't heard the preacher who is teaching the class say that the CoC is the one right church. He did say during this last lesson that his Baptist preacher neighbor told him that anyone who wasn't a Baptist is lost eternally. However he has mentioned in his sermons things like "Titus, a Church of Christ preacher,…"
So far all our lessons (since I've been attending which began on July 4th) on the church have been on the universal church. For example we looked at the old testament prophesy about the church and Jesus' relationship to the church. That is why I have a hard time with the question. I do believe that all the saved are in Christ's church, but that some of those members can be attending a denomination.
Thanks for the suggestions, I pray that they'll come in useful Sunday morning.
All of this CofC bantering (much of it nonsense really) makes my head hurt. Please forgive me for being so blunt; I just can't take much of this stuff so I won't participate further. I know, I know, systematic theologies also engage in a an awful lot of speculation, but much of it is over weightier issues IMO, but I guess that's why I no longer attend a CofC. If y'all want to go on with this, and I know you do, then go for it.
In the meantime, Bobby Valentine has had a spectacular series on Jonah at his blog. In case you want to read the series it can be found at: http://stoned-campbelldisciple.blogspot.com/
Hesed,
Randall
Thanks for th link Randall. 🙂 A place that is interested more in studying the Bible rather than a continuous cycle that leads to division rather than unity.
Randall, are we supposed to believe that anonymous is someone other than you? Speaking for myself, I don't care what a Calvinist says about anything. The belief that God sends people to hell based on a lottery, or sends babies to hell, these ideas prove someone to be mentally deranged and quite frankly unable to provide any insight on any subject that is even a mere tangent to morality, justice, goodness, or mercy. I think this discussion is better off without your kind.
Randall:
I always enjoy your posts, and don't desire for that to cease. Look: you said COC is your heritage…then you understand from where we are coming. This questioner is trying to wrestle with some teaching that doesn't make sense to him — yet he doesn't want to pick a fight.
Now, what good happens if he goes in and teaches the "sound theology" that you'd espouse? Of course, we both know the answer.
So what seems to you like typical COC hair-splitting is actually the questioner trying to get people to think and challenge their preconceived beliefs. And that is a sloooooooooooow process.
But what else should he do? Leave them? Indeed, that is a tough question.
As to your frustration with the subject, offer us grace. We are all seeking God, and some of us have more legalistic baggage to unpack than others. It is a process.
"As to your frustration with the subject, offer us grace."
Strange words to speak to one who teaches that it is God's good pleasure to broil infants in hell for all eternity because they lost a lottery.
Jay:
Just a few HSARG challenges I've had recently:
1) "When John talks about being confident in your salvation, he means to be confident in the process (5 steps) of salvation."
2) "In Grace" is never used in that context in the bible (well, it is one time, but doesn't apply). To this, I replied: "How can we fall from grace if we aren't 'in grace'? Isn't that implicit?"
3) Adamant refusal to use "in grace" to refer to a saved state. I admit, this was a new argument to me.
JMF,
Regarding 2 and 3 —
(2Pe 3:18 ESV) But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
(2Ti 2:1 NAU) You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
(Col 4:6 NAU) Let your speech always be with [Gk. en] grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.
(Gal 1:6 ESV) I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel–
(Act 13:43 ESV) And after the meeting of the synagogue broke up, many Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who, as they spoke with them, urged them to continue in the grace of God.
Josh C:
You've asked a good question. In respect to you, I feel I should offer you an honest response.
I don't see this going well for you. I say this as one that was sitting in your seat, oh, about three months ago.
First off, just by asking the questions you'll immediately rule yourself out of ever teaching, etc. Why? Because a conservative COC does not look for challenging thinkers — it looks for indoctrinators. The mere fact that you "struggle" with whatever question you are asking shows that you are incapable of indoctrination.
Second, you'll not be trusted. At all. And for good reason: these people have been taught (and taught) all of their lives to be on the lookout for false teachers and wolves in sheep's clothing. You, Josh C., are the big bad wolf.
And I don't care how much capital you've built with these people: your "doctrine of men" will mark you. Worse, since you are trying to not be divisive and cause problems, you'll have platform from which to speak.
Just keepin' it real, bro.
My parents' church split a few weeks ago (about 40 members). Now there are two hyper-ultra-radical conservative COC's in a little Midwestern town. My grandparents saw a lady they'd known and gone to church with for 40-50yrs out at a store the other day (she went the other way in the split) and she refused to look at them, speak to them, or say 'hello.'
Anyone that has any success in challenging the thinking of an ultra conservative COC from a non-leadership position gets serious props from me.
Rey,
You are simply uninformed or being dishonest.
Here it is from the dictionary.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catholi…
rey, you also claim that in the Hebrew Scriptures God is really Satan!
rey, on February 12th, 2010 at 12:25 am Said:
And as to the word of God, it is slander to teach that God commanded genocide and child rape (as in Numbers 31 “kill everyone, men, boys, women who aren’t virgins–but keep the young virgin girls alive for yourself!”) The letter of the Old Testament kills, Anonymous, for it is full of Jewish fables that turn from the truth, and we have no so learned Christ for the God revealed in Christ loves all humanity–he is no genocidal loon. Nor would the God revealed in Christ flood the world and kill all the babies, for he says “let the little children come unto me.” Those Old Testament stories are Jewish fables that turn from the truth, that turn from Jesus Christ who is the Way, the Truth and the Life. If you could be saved by a slavish adherence to the story of Adam and Eve or the flood or any of the genocidal war stories of the Old Testament, then Jesus would not have died on the cross to save us. These stories damn, not save, for they confuse men into worshiping Satan as God. Does not Jesus say to the Jew “you have never seen my Father’s shape nor heard his voice”? and does not John say “no man has ever seen God; the only-begotten Son in the bossom of the Father has declared him”? But you say that Adam and Eve, and Moses and all the Jewish prophets saw and heard God. Therefore you make Jesus and John into liars.
Anne,
I can't prove my belief either, but I strongly believe that the protestant/reformed/restoration movements including the CofC (all linked!) split off from Catholic/Orthodox traditions. You only need to look at the CofC fixed service format (song – prayer – song – reading – song supper etc.) – it's like a mini liturgy. Where did that come from? Not from the Bible! Nothing in the Bible even hinting at such structure. Nothing at all. I believe it's based on the Presybterian format, which is based on the Catholic liturgy.
The CofC is a denomination. To believe the CofC is "The True Church" is arrogant beyong belief.
Vicki, I'll have to disagree with you on a couple of points. The service format you can trace to Acts where the young church met to sing, pray, take part in the Lord's supper and read from the scriptures or listen to a sermon.
The church of Christ is not a denomination by the definition of denomination because we do not have governing body like nearly every other major religion. Some may argue that we have evolved into a denomination without the governing body, but it is still not a denomination.
I do believe that the church of Christ is the true church and do not think that is a bit arrogant. Why would I want to be a part of any church that I did not think was the true church? I see this not only in religious discussions, but also political discussions that if we believe we are right that is arrogance and that is just not true. There can be a right and a wrong.
Arrogance or ignorance?
Questioning Jay's answers, to dear questioner.
First question: Who is it that is saved?
Answer: Those who hear, believe, repent, confess, and are baptized.
(My question: Jay, is that the whole thing in a nutshell? Is that all there is to it.)?
Second question: What is “faith”?
Answer: It’s what we confess: that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.
(my question: Jay are you sure "faith" is not trust in what we believe?)
Third question: According to God’s holy word, who falls away?
Now, this is the key question. The 20th Century CoC assumes that anyone who is in error on instrumental music or many other things falls away. They are false teachers and don’t have the teaching of Christ.
(My question: "false teachers" Isn't that a wee bit strong Jay? my understanding of false teachers is someone who teaches a different gospel. Jay, do you consider one who teaches we should attend church on Sunday , a false teacher.? how about tything show me where Jesus said that was in the gospel, how about paying the preacher, how about a church having elders)
I don't see any set rules in the gospel as to how we are to worship, most of if not all 20th Century CoCs I have attended did not teach one falls away from salvation, they teach error takes one away from the path to salvation, the Idea that one can be saved and then lost is a late 20th Century teaching, say like 1980 forward.
I don't understand why one would join any organization not knowing the rules, or knowing the rules, with which you disagree. When you joined the Church of Christ, did you consider what you were doing as right, or just the best you could do at the time.?
In regards to Anne’s comments:
The issue of the churches of Christ identity is one long stream of non sequiturs. On the one hand we’ve often defined church with such narrow precision that all but us are apostate [ http://www.fishers-churchofchrist.org/media/class… ] (the graphs on pages 11 & 15 are just hilarious). Then in the next breath we admit that the church of Christ is some ethereal entity which has always existed in a shadowy way throughout history since the first century [ http://www.fishers-churchofchrist.org/story.php?i… ] We then pick and chose from history people who have evinced similar concerns and issues to ours—they had the same name on their door as we do, or they didn’t have a hierarchical church structure—but we always forget the overwhelming differences these same people would have had to ours—they also baptized infants, they served bread and wine, they were Premillennial …etc.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry!! Fallacies and half-truths—oh, let me count the ways!
Laymond, are you really asserting that the standard pre-1980's CoC teaching was "once saved, always saved?" Because I think that literally TONS of literature (tons of tracts alone!) could be produced to refute such an assertion.
Laymond, then you agree with Jay. I know you've read enough material here to know that when Jay speaks of "The 20th Century CoC," he is speaking of the "traditional" or "conservative" position, rather than his own. And Todd Deaver has done an excellent job in several different venues (in his book, at his own blog, at Grace Conversation) of showing that the "20th Century CoC" position was precisely what Jay characterized it as:
I have been reading and praying through this chain and have noticed how the conversation gravitates to identity in a religious melting pot — not unlike first century Roman Asia. Let me offer that Rev. 2-3 reveals something of how the risen Lord views His people. Certainly, He sees us individually; and He looks at us congregationally. Has helped me to keep in mind what "church of Christ" means to the risen Lord.
Also, the suggestion that "Conservative" congregations do not look for challenging thinkers — they look for "indoctrinators" — may be at the heart of this web chain. I am not the convinced the blanket conclusion is accurate; I will note that it is not the case in the "Conservative" congregation where I worship. I suspect a great deal depends on:
A culture in volatile change — socially and religiously — coupled with a good many "I thinks" can leave folks unsettled spiritually. We open the door for Satan to have his way. At least one key to peaceful classes in the Katy congregation has involved a significant focus on Scripture.
Scripture is read a good bit where I worship. Study groups read it; listen to it. It is read at length in each Sunday assembly. That makes a considerable difference in peoples' feelings. For example, one Oklahoma Baptist University student mentioned a couple of weeks ago how different he found the teaching and assemblies (came with a friend). He said he liked; and also said he liked the singing — and he came back.
Hearing and singing the Scriptures at length lays a foundation that helps us think together. And it helps wash away differences calmly with time. The example of Jesus in a desert war guides well.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Nick asked; Laymond, are you really asserting that the standard pre-1980’s CoC teaching was “once saved, always saved?”
Well in a way, but probably not as you would think.
What I am saying for the most part is pre-1980 CoC taught , you are not saved until Jesus says you are saved, baptism only puts you on the road to salvation, baptism is not the end of that road, death is.
None of this "do you know if you are saved ? yes because I have been baptized".
There are a lot of people who have been baptized, who won't be saved , not my words. as far as I know Jesus, and the dead in Jesus, the righteous dead have been saved.
Yes, that does sound familiar.
I always wondered, from that perspective, how one could "fall from grace" at all? I mean, if you haven't received grace yet, if you aren't in grace yet, if you are still waiting for grace to save you, how could you fall from it?
Nick said ; my understanding of false teachers is someone who teaches a different gospel.
Laymond, then you agree with Jay.
Yes Nick I do if these people claim their teachings are in the gospel message, but I believe they teach against these things because they are not found within the gospel message. there is a big difference.
IMO.
Let's take a concrete example: the music issue.
So saying that instrumental worship is *not* part of the gospel is okay, but saying that a cappella is part of the gospel is not?
Even when, by saying IM is not part of the gospel, they plainly mean that those who include it have fallen away (even though they don't really believe falling away is possible, as I demonstrated above?)
Bruce Morton,
At times things will not be peaceful when people of opposing views gather to discuss things. Hopefully, however, Jay's site is a relatively safe place to discuss our differences. Congregations, like yours in Katy, are usually peaceful because they will not have quite the diversity as an online gathering like this. Most of us, I'm sure, enjoy the same peace with our congregations at home…
Unfortunately with this new form of communication we can no longer hide in our cloistered communities. So, conversations like this one will most likely continue as we wrestle with our different approaches to the word of God.
But you are right, I've found both 'liberal' and 'conservative' teachers to both oppose challenging thinkers, and both sides in some way look for 'indoctrinators'. Rarely do we find people strong enough to encourage and to relate with others who contradict or oppose their own approach to the bible…
Nick, I am not standing up for or against music of any brand in worship services, I don't see where singing musical praise to God is demanded in worship at all.
But I don't feel comfortable calling anyone false teachers on issues of worship. I believe how we worship God is a personal choice. As long as we do.
I believe worship is paying homage to a higher power,
and God is the highest.
Nick said; Even when, by saying IM is not part of the gospel, they plainly mean that those who include it have fallen away (even though they don’t really believe falling away is possible, as I demonstrated above?)
Nick the music was never a big deal in the CoC in which I was raised, we couldn't have afforded a musical instrument if we were to want one.
We were taught that sin, was the cause of veering of the straight and narrow, and if it continued we would be lost. not that sin couldn't be forgiven, but you had to repent (stop) and ask forgiveness. I don't recall any sermon about "saved and falling away" I believe they left that part up to the Calvinist.
In other words, they were very free with telling you that you'd be lost, but wouldn't risk putting words in Jesus' mouth about whether you'd be saved.
Well, the teaching was, you are not deemed saved or lost until you die, or Jesus returns in your lifetime.
If you die in sin, you are lost. I don't know, maybe the Catholics can pray away your sins after you are dead.
Not the CoC.
Laymond,
To me, that is a complete contradiction of John's charge to be confident in our salvation.
The result? We are NOT confident, so we are in a constant state trying to justify ourselves with works and knowledge. And the result of that? We never move from the meat into the milk, as Hebrews 6 puts it.
I believe this is highly based in laziness. The church I now attend goes and does service projects on Wed. nights. My prior (very conservative) church will likely be lecturing on IM tonight, and then the class will end up veering into whether or not it is a sin to listen to IM Christian music if it is not in worship.
They'll go home feeling that they've really "studied to show themselves approved" when in fact they're just having fun playing the game of legalism. It is kinda fun to try and think up new arguments and defenses.
But, at the end of the day, my new church will have actually shown Jesus to some people. And that is hard. And not always fun. We've been landscaping a poor elementary school recently…the families/faculty are thrilled.
And my fat butt is exhausted and sweaty…yeah, it would have been a heckuva lot easier to go play "Stump The Legalist"…that is why I say I think it boils down to laziness in many respects.
"We'll get out and set the world on fire soon, but first, we need to make sure our own church is cleansed and doctrinally pure." And nothing ever happens. And the COC has the numbers (or lack of) to back it up.
Should have said "milk into the meat" in 2nd paragraph.
JMF, I remember what John said about confidence, and knowing.
1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
But I seem to remember a lot of "ifs" preceding this statement.
1Jo 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
1Jo 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jo 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Anne,
Merriam-Webster defines "denomination" as —
Definition of DENOMINATION
1: an act of denominating
2: a value or size of a series of values or sizes (as of money)
3: name, designation; especially : a general name for a category
4: a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denomin…
The Churches of Christ clearly meet definition 4 as well as, say, the Episcopalians or Baptists. I have never understood the 20th Century CoC predeliction for claiming not to be a "denomination" — as though the word means "people who teach error" or something like that.
The original reason the CoC refused to be called a denomination is because the original idea was that we'd be "Christians only but not the only Christians." We weren't a denomination, we argued, because we had no desire to be separate from others. But the 20th Century Churches took that concept and reversed it, arguing we're not a denomination because we're the only true church — pretending that "denomination" means "false church," I guess. But it's an argument that fails in light of the dictionary. It's just not what the word means.
PS — We don't have a central governing body, but neither do the Baptists nor many other congregationally organized denominations. The Southern Baptist state and national conventions have no authority over local churches and participation is optional. Many Baptist Churches are not part of the convention. Rather, the convention is a joint oversight body for common ministry, through which local churches coordinate many of their cooperative works.
The independent Christian Churches have no governing body at all.
Laymond,
Is it really necessary that I explain my views on faith and baptism and repentance in detail every time I mention the words? I'm trying to explain to the reader how to communicate some ideas very simply to someone trapped in 20th Century CoC theology. "False teachers," for example, is my statement as to the 20th Century CoC understanding. Please re-read my comment in that light.
Nick,
Thanks.
Konastephen,
I appreciate your taking the time to post and comment. I will share as fyi that the Katy congregation does indeed 'reach out' — and is a melting pot as a result. For example, a growing number of people who have been baptized into Christ of late have represented a departure from the Roman Catholic Church. I have noticed that reading the Scriptures at length continues to make a considerable impact on folks and brings peace.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Rey, You are simply uninformed or being dishonest. Here it is from the dictionary. <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catholic” target=”_blank”>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catholic (Royce Ogle)
On a matter of historical inquiry a modern dictionary is of little use, since it dumbs things down quite a bit. Everything I said is straight from my knowledge of the "church fathers" which was obtained something interesting called actually reading them. There is no substitute for first-hand knowledge in these matters. The "church fathers" used the term "catholic" as a synonym for "orthodox," and automatically excluded anyone who disagreed with them from being included in that term. That means, they did not use it to mean "universal." As for the rule (as I said) that something is considered "orthodox" or "catholic" if it was believed by "all Christians at all times," that rule is flawed in its application, because before applying the rule one first assumes a whole slew of groups weren't orthodox and therefore shouldn't be counted, thus manipulating the results. For you to insinuate, nay state, that this explanation of mine which is based on actual knowledge of church history is "uninformed or dishonest" clearly proves you to be too lazy to pick up the "fathers" and read them. And I will state preemptively, that I will not apologize for that statement.
Jay said,"The Churches of Christ clearly meet definition 4"
4: a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices
UNITED !! does that really sound like the churches of Christ today. ?
Jay, if #4 is the definition of a religious denomination,
today's CoC is definitely not one.
It is hard to fine even one congregation, that agrees in all things, there might be one , I just don't know where.
If you need more proof, just read back through the comments on your posts. The church of Christ is scattered more today than it has ever been. IMO
Jay, a friend of mine was in Ft.Worth on Sunday (people in hospital) said he went to a church down the street from hospital sign said "_blank__ st. church of Christ. When services started he went outside to check sign, yep said CoC. He returned to hospital amid familiar surroundings.
Maybe the signs should read.
#1 conservative Coc – we ain't changing
#2 progressive CoC – yes we are
#3 Christ' church worships here – welcome brother
I hope I don't start trouble by placing the C-CoC first, you can arrange them in any order that you wish.
Rey,
Obviously there is more than one meaning to many words. The context I used the word "catholic" in was pretty obvious to most readers I'm sure.
It has been fascinating to observe down through the years that most people who reach the conclusion that the Bible isn't true claim to have reached that conclusion because of their superior intellect and devotion to study. Are you really so smart that you can decide which parts of the Bible are true and which are not? Or did you learn that from the church fathers too?
Several men who would fit into the category "church father" were just as unorthodox as some unbelievers today.
Apology? You have not offended me in the least. Everyone here who has read many of your comments can make up their own minds about you and your contribution to these discussions.
Have a nice day.
Royce
Jay, I stand corrected on the Baptists, I would not consider them a denomination either. I must be using a generally accepted definition instead of the purely strict dictionary definition of denomination. If you use the strict dictionary definition you could also call us a cult, but I don't think that any of us would consider ourselves a cult (I guess I shouldn't have said that because I know that will open another can of worms of some saying yes you are or well we should be!)
Disagreeing, just to be disagreeable, or to get attention is a waste of bandwidth. Jay's posts raise serious questions and deserve serious answers. There are hundreds of people who read these comments who never make a comment themselves. It would be a good thing if we (myself included) conduct ourselves so that those who read our comments will think they have observed discussions among Christians.
Jay said, "Laymond,Is it really necessary that I explain my views on faith and baptism and repentance in detail every time I mention the words?"
Not to me, I'm just saying there might be a better way to build bridges than name calling, like "false teachers"
sounds kinda like (they are intentionally lying)
As far as "denominations" are concerned, the word is very, very broad. For instance, "Baptist". There are Baptists that insist other Baptists are lost because they are friendly to people who are friendly to someone who does not accept the inspiration of the Bible in the way they understand it. There are far more different kinds of Baptist churches than different churches of Christ yet "Baptist" is usually the first word associated with the word "denomination". But, Baptists (like churches of Christ) are a denomination because every one of those several odd groups insist on believers baptism by immersion. The name "Baptist" is a dead giveaway huh?
Churches of Christ are a "denomination" according to the usual meaning of the word.
Royce
Bruce Morton,
I did not mean to insinuate that Katy doesn’t outreach, I certainly assume you do—and well, I can imagine. My comment was that I’ve found very few (either conservative or otherwise) who can tolerate actual differences for very long (tolerate, not accept). What I mean is that, sure we find Catholics or others, and we snag them with various commonly held presuppositions—points of agreement. But what do we do when people challenge our presuppositions and want to discuss? What do we do when people challenge our approach to the bible? How long do we stick around when people point to the sand under our ideas?
I fully agree that reading Scripture at length is of incalculable importance. The gospel and the truth are simple—but error (whether conservative or liberal) is difficult and frustrating. But we’ve all grown fond of, and blind to, our various difficulties and tangles…
Konastephen:
I appreciate your comments and questions. I can only say that where I teach and worship, disagreements are accepted when they are kind and respectful. And when they are not (I have not heard such at Katy), the teacher has responsibility to urge 1-to-1 conversation. May be some deep hurt involved, etc.
Folks need to have time to learn; and others need to listen. The listening part is key: listening to others; listening to the Word. People appreciate others being willing to listen to their emotions, etc. And continues to amaze me how much it helps when we read Scripture at length together. I speak from experience; I listened to a friend 'rant' for hours about "churches" before suggesting we open the Gospels and read them together (he had never done so). Less 'debate' and more opening and reading at length versus "prooftexting" puts people at ease. Without fail I see people more emotionally ready to tackle the disagreements when they have spent time reading the Word at length with each other. Indeed, that is part of the challenge associated with weblogs in our time. Their value is limited. That is no fault of Jay; it is the character of the arena.
I will also note that The National Endowment of the Arts studies over the past 15 years have pointed to a steady decline in literary reading in the U.S. — to the point where the national vocabulary is now roughly one-third of what it was in 1992. We may be seeing a slight trend upward in the past couple of years; hard to say. But the studies reveal that literary reading — including reading Scripture — has taken a considerable 'hit' over the past twenty years or more. I am convinced we are seeing the ripple effect of such in popular religion in our day. We need to undo the spiritual damage — with urgency.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
@Jay I did some research on the word denomination and it's origins are "late 14c., "a naming," from O.Fr. denominacion "nominating, naming," from L. denominationem (nom. denominatio) "a calling by anything other than the proper name, metonymy," from denominare "to name,"
This may shed some light on why some of us have a different understanding of what the dictionary term is and the "street" definition. This may point to the use of the word meaning a religion not called by a biblical name, which I can see how the name could evolve from that to what I understand as the definition of the word and in fact that definition of not a Biblical name would be part of the definition that I understand the word to mean.
One dictionary places denominationalism as first used in 1855 which I found interesting. That would place it's use in the midst of the Restoration Movement. Maybe Campbell coined that word!
Sorry to divert from the topic, but it was an interesting search.
Anne,
Are you aware that "Church of Christ" is not the only biblical name for a church? The truth is the name of a local church matters far less than what they teach and how they live in light of that teaching.
Royce
The idea of having a right biblical name for the church is about as funny as requiring our kids to be denominated biblically. (Does the mother of the mother of God count as a biblical name…?)
Our focus on the name of the church is part of our habit of 'denying to other what we demand for ourselves', and also shows our syncretism with western modernity: our adoption of the key Enlightenment prinicple of 'tradition against tradition'!
In reality, however, names mean much more and much less that we usually profess. For the 'churches of Christ' does mean being a part of the 'restoration movement' tradition (for all the good and the bad). At the same time our name means much less; as Royce said, it's "what they teach and how they live in light of that teaching."
Yes I'm aware that "church of Christ" is not the only biblical name, but it is A biblical name. We could be called a variety of names including "the way", and the "church of God". I'm remembering my restoration history just from the top of my head, so I may not be correct, but as I remember that was one point to be called a biblical name, which leaves out many "denominations".
Ann is correct in my opinion, as to why the church of Christ claims to be non-denominational. They claim "the Church of Christ" is not a name but a description. No name just identifying, the church that belongs to Christ.
Does that include the churches of Christ that use instruments, clap to the music, and have praise teams?
Who does all the other churches in the world belong to?
Has everyone forgotten that churches of Christ were not around until the 1800's? Churches of Christ were begun by good men who were from Presbyterian, and Baptist backgrounds. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there were any local churches with "church of Christ" as their name or part of their name before the time of the Restoration Movement.
Royce
The word translated "churches" in Romans 16:16 is translated "assemblies" in both Darby's English Translation and Young's literal translation. It is every bit as biblical to read "the assemblies of salute you" instead of "the churches of Christ" greet you.
The Greek word was used by the Romans when a certain group of people were "called to assemble", like the legislature, or the same meaning when the military were "called to assemble".
The word in Latin was translated "assembly" and centuries later was translated church because of changes in language in the 3rd century. The root of the Greek word "ekklesia" meant "called", as in "called to assemble" at the word of the King.
There is a very good article, well researched and footnoted here http://www.bible-truth.org/Ekklesia.html
So, as far as a name goes "Assembly" is perhaps more biblical for the name of a congregation of Christ's followers as "church".
When we speak of different types within the same category (or different types of one thing), like coins, we call them denominations. So nickels, dimes, quarters–these are call denominations of coins. If then Baptists, Lutherans, church of Christ-ian (or whatever you would call such a person), Methodists etc. are denominations of Christians. And it isn't the organization but the people themselves who are so denominated. (Look it up in the dictionary and you will see that denominated is a fancy word for called or named.
Now, what if I said that a nickel is not a denomination? I would have to mean by this, either that nickels are somehow not coins, or that pennies, dimes, quarters, silver dollars, etc. are not coins.
So then, in order for the church of Christ to NOT be a denomination, it must belong to a different category than these others. It must mean either that the church of Christ is not Christian or that these others are not Christian. Otherwise, it is a denomination of Christianity as they are, just as nickels are denominations of coins as quarters are denominations of coins.
So then, the theory that the church of Christ is not a denomination hinges on the theory that nobody outside the church of Christ is a Christian.
In short, then, if you don't believe that nobody outside the church of Christ is a Christian (I don't believe that) then you can't logically state that you believe the church of Christ is not a denomination.
Rey,
I think you explained that very well. I plan to "borrow" the argument on a regular basis, because I think it's exactly right. The claim that the Churches of Christ is not a denomination is built on the belief that only those in the Churches are saved.
I guess no one reads my posts or else dismisses them.
I disagree with "The claim that the Churches of Christ is not a denomination is built on the belief that only those in the Churches are saved." If anyone read my above post there can be another definition of the word denomination other than the definition of coinage.
And I also believe that the church of Christ existed prior to the Restoration, maybe not in the form that we recognize today, but nevertheless I believe it existed.
"If anyone read my above post there can be another definition of the word denomination other than the definition of coinage."
One created by church of Christers along with their other terminology, like the word digressive, the phrase "out of duty" for someone who merely misses one church service, and so on. Talk about speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where it is silent — does the Bible give us a definition of denomination? If not, why is the definition of this word and determining whether a particular church is one, such a big deal?
Rey,
Finally we agree on something. You said it exactly right, concise, and to the point. Amen!
Royce
Royce
To enhance your point about "ekklesia", the word "church", etymologically, is derived from the German word, kirche, which translates into cathedral.
So, it seems somewhat obvious, that the King James translators did not want to "uneducated" masses to get the impression they did not have to attend worship at the cathedrals, so they avoided the better word, assembly or congregation and made up a new word, church.
Probably one of the most damaging translation jobs ever inflicted on English speakers.
Well said, Rey
I don't think the definition of denomination is a big deal, nor do I find it in the Bible. If you look at my above post it was not used until the 14th century by one dictionary and in another source it was not used in a religious context until the 1700's. And if the word etymology was coined by "church of Christers" what is wrong with that? Words are very fluid and the finer definitions of a word in one area of the country or setting may be different in another.
My understanding of denomination stemmed from the church of Christ is autonomous, there is no governing board over many churches. The church is allowed to choose their own minister, elders, etc. and they do not send contributions to the "main office".
Anne, I'd be curious to know what you think the word etymology means. Obviously you have the wrong idea. The word is not religious or theological, it is a discipline dealing with language. "Etymology" is the study of the history of words, their origins, and how their form and meaning have changed over time.
I think Jay has already mentioned that Baptists and others are also just as autonomous. They either choose or not to participate with others of like mind in missions. No one can tell a local church what they can or can't do.
To argue that somehow the church of Christ is somehow superior to all others because of a name, or that it is not a denomination just will not stand the test when weighed against facts.
Royce
David, I thought that kirche was in turn derived from contracting the Greek phrase kuriou oika, "house of the Lord".
"My understanding of denomination stemmed from the church of Christ is autonomous, there is no governing board over many churches. The church is allowed to choose their own minister, elders, etc. and they do not send contributions to the 'main office'." (Anne)
The place of a governing board is filled by periodicals, and the main office's function is fulfilled by the editors of said periodicals and/or by the big meetings and preachers' studies and such as that. These things are just like the denominational synods and councils of old that the Catholics held, and Protestants too, like the Synod of Dort.
The main difference is that whereas those old councils imposed their Christological speculations and (in the case of Dort) speculations on Predestination on Christians as some infallible standard, the COC periodicals and preachers' studies impose their speculations on entirely different matters like whether a woman can cut her hair or not, and whether wearing pants will send a woman to hell, and so on.
From my memory of a class taught be Monroe Hawley in the late 70's:
Imagine the metaphor of the open plain stands for the church. One group comes in and raises a fence. Another group raises a fence and so forth until the church is surrounded by fences on all sides. The fences were built by those who chose to separate themselves (thus denominations). The church did not create the fences and thus is not necessarily a denomination. However, if the church forgets and acts like those fences are theirs, then it behaves as a denomination.
Royce, let me assure you that I do know the definition of the word etymology. It was only a case of my hand typing ahead of my brain. I should have written something like…If the etymology of denomination was influenced by the "church of Christers" what is the big deal?
And once again if you had read previous posts you would see that I acknowledged my error on Baptists. Although by the definition that I am accustomed to (which is not evidently in any dictionary other than that secretive, exclusive Church of Christ dictionary) Baptists would be a denomination by the fact that they do not have a biblical name other than John the Baptist.
I really don't know why I keep answering posts on this. I'm not out preaching the churches of Christ are not a denomination. Anyone outside of religious circles does not even know what the word denomination means other than relating to currency. And I do not think that saying the church of Christ is non-denominational is a free pass to heaven.
And Rey, I do not think you can equate a governing board to reading periodicals.
Royce, et.al.:
Has the discussion of churches been about superiority within at least the Restoration Movement? Certainly, pride can get in the way, similar to efforts to collect the treasures of the Vatican. However, I recall having met a large number of selfless people within churches of Christ — whose focus has been Christ.
I, for one, hope the discussion keeps focused on congregational identity shaped by apostolic teaching. The Word of the Lord exposes deception (Paul's point in Eph. 5:11). As Leonard Allen has well written, that continues to be the strength of the Restoration Movement: a focus on apostolic teaching and nothing less. (The Cruciform Church, 2nd ed. Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1990, p. 74)
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
I don't think anyone is going to convince Anne that the CofC is a denomination. And I don't think Anne is going to convince anyone it is not.
So, let's just agree to disagree and move on
You're right David. And I don't think anyone is going to get what I evidently poorly explained about A definition of denomination and the history of the word. Nor is it very important.
Rich W,
I'm a Monroe Hawley fan, but I have to disagree with his metaphor. I think nearly all would consider the Episcopalians as a denomination, but they don't consider themselves the only ones saved. Indeed, many denominations (as we usually use the word) don't consider themselves the only ones saved. Oddly enough, it's the non-denomination/denomination Churches of Christ who build the tallest fences.
But this is just not what "denomination" means. Rather, as Rey has pointed out, to denominate is to divide a set into subsets with differing names — and the Churches of Christ/churches of Christ very much insist on a unique name. The CoC tracts all claim that any biblical name will do, but call yourself the Tuscaloosa Church rather than the Tuscaloosa Church of Christ and you will quickly be disfellowshipped by the legalists — indeed, they'll accuse you of no longer wearing the name of Christ. And yet "church" simpliciter (nothing but) is by far the most common designation of the local church in the NT.
Here's the test. Open your local Yellow Pages. If the Churches of Christ in your hometown are listed under "nondenominational" then they are allowed to argue they aren't a denomination. If they skip that category and list themselves in parallel with the other denominations under "Churches of Christ," they look, walk, and quack like a denomination and shouldn't be heard to claim otherwise.
Jay,
If you want to use the very simple definition of the word "denomination" then no "tax exempt" group can legitimately claim to be non-denominational because it must have a name for identification purposes. Even the "Tuscaloosa Church" is a name that separates your group from others in town.
The real issue is much deeper than that. The issue is why the separation in the first place. Monroe Hawley's point (if I remember properly, my college years were many moon's ago) was that the original is valid. The others changed things from the original making them separate (the real fences). Those who alter the original pattern are the ones building the fences.
I know there is a fringe within the cofC who get all bent out of shape over the name. I try not.
I know some places, for marketing reasons, like to drop the denominational designation in their name. I would prefer they didn't (easier for me to find a group to join in worship while traveling) but it's not the end of the world.
Perhaps in your case, you want to change your name to designate your different belief system from churches of Christ. Your belief system is different.
"Monroe Hawley's point (if I remember properly, my college years were many moon's ago) was that the original is valid. The others changed things from the original making them separate (the real fences)."
There is no "the original" anymore. Everyone has changed. The original church changed and became Catholicism, which kept changing and changing. Then Protestants tried to reform and get back to the original, but they didn't succeed. Then the Restoration movement tried to restore the original, but they failed too. You cannot point to any church in existence today and say in truth "there is the original church." As a result, all are denominations even by this definition.
"Those who alter the original pattern are the ones building the fences."
Is there a pattern? The only Biblical pattern for the Christian is the pattern of Jesus' suffering, as Peter says in 1st Peter 2:21 "or to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:"
— There is no pattern for the church or for worship (a subject that actually gets little attention in the New Testament). Worship "in spirit and in truth" means "spiritually and sincerely" as "in truth" is a Greek figure of speech for "sincerely" and so "in spirit" for "spiritually." This phrase does not mean "worship in a jolly manner and according to a pattern."
This idea of a pattern for worship comes from a misreading of Hebrews 9:1 "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary."
From this COC preachers interpret it that Paul is saying we have ordinances of "divine service" (or worship) and "they also" had them under the OT. Nothing could be further from the meaning of the passage.
The "also" here is not to compare the OT with the NT but to be part of a list. In addition to many other things they had, they also had ordinances of divine service. Careful attention to Paul's argument will show that his entire point is that we DO NOT have ordinances of divine service as they did, not that we do. His entire point is that we do NOT have a pattern like they did. Their pattern, their ordinances of divine service were just symbols pointing to the cross. Their holy of holies merely pointed to Jesus making a way for us through the veil of his flesh. They had a pattern to prophecy of the New Covenant. Their symbolic system existed for that purpose, and that fulfillment having already come, there would be no purpose for us to have such a symbolic system, a pattern of divine worship, Moses had to make all in accordance with the pattern shown him in the mount so that he did not mar the symbolism that would prophecy of Christ, but we have no such reason for our pattern of 5 songs a prayer, a sermon, the Lord's Supper, and so on.
Hebrews 9:9 " Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;"
There pattern didn't do anything for them. It was pure symbolism and was totally worthless to doing anything for them. Neither does ours do anything for us.
Hebrews 9:10 "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."
See how he attacks their pattern as of no real use? It was "imposed on them" — how very negative that word "imposed" is!
Hebrews 9:11 "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;"
Christ has abolished such patternizing by fulfilling the pattern, and therefore there is no more reason for pattern theology. The pattern of Moses pointed to Christ. Christ has come. We have no more pattern. This is what Paul is actually saying.
As an addendum to what I just said, if the passage in Hebrews 9:1 “Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary” really meant that we have a pattern of worship or ordinances of divine service as they did back then, then what about the worldly sanctuary? do we have one of those? Maybe that's why some people call the church auditorium a sanctuary!
I believe a closer examination of John's context would show that when he writes, "in spirit and truth," he means by the Holy Spirit and in Jesus. I think it would be better for us if we interpreted John according to his own writing style, and Hebrew mannerisms, rather than assuming that Jesus would speak in Greek "figures of speech."
Rey,
I sure hope there is more to Christianity than just suffering. I think even Jay would agree that Acts 2:42 is a good pattern for us to follow.
You are correct here because we flawed humans have not gotten it totally right. But does that mean we should stop trying? It's the concept of stop trying and it doesn't really matter to God that I disagree.
"I think it would be better for us if we interpreted John according to his own writing style, and Hebrew mannerisms, rather than assuming that Jesus would speak in Greek 'figures of speech.'" (nick)
Why not that John translated what he said into Greek, and used Greek figures of speech? It seems doubtful to me that Jesus would say to the Samaritan woman "in truth" and mean "in me," since he never told the Samaritan woman "I am the truth." Again, perhaps Jesus spoke Greek to her because she was a Samaritan, and therefore he DID use Greek figures of speech. Surely the son of God is multilingual.
"But does that mean we should stop trying?" (Rich) No, but it means all churches are denominations.
Rich W,
The naming concept has to be seen in the context of what Rey earlier wrote. A "denomination" is a subset of a larger set, distinguished by name. Hence, a nickel is a denomination of currency, because it's a kind of currency but not exactly like currencies of different names or denominations.
The separation issues are deep and important, but whether the Churches constitute a denomination is of no help to answering the question. We do much better to call Bible things by Bible names, as Alexander Campbell recommended. And a denomination is either a division of the church universal or a separation from the church universal or the very same thing as the church universal. Either it's in, outside, or the same thing as the church (or partly in and partly out, I guess).
Unless we're willing to assert that the Churches of Christ are identical with the church universal, then we look a lot like a division within the church. And that's wrong. The cure is to no longer be divided, not by changing the name necessarily, but by visibly and meaningfully being united with our brothers and sisters outside our denomination. That is, we need to stop acting like a denomination — which is much more important than the choice of name.
You say, "Perhaps in your case, you want to change your name to designate your different belief system from churches of Christ. Your belief system is different." I assume you use "churches of Christ" in a denominational, sectarian sense, as there are plenty of believers in Jesus who are in accord with me. But if by "churches of Christ" you mean those who adhere to 20th Century CoC theology, you're right.
My own congregation isn't called "Tuscaloosa Church" or "Tuscaloosa Church of Christ." That name is used by no one.
I've not advocated for a change in name. I just think we show ourselves to be a denomination by our insistence on the name, very hypocritically saying you can use any name in the Bible but getting upset when someone uses a name other than "Church of Christ." When we reject the use of "church" without a denominational modifier, well, we are obviously enforcing human traditions as though laws of God — and that's not a good place to be.
He didn't need to tell her, rey. She already knew. Look at how she expresses her Messianic expectation.
I don't mean to say that Jesus and John would never use Greek figures of speech – rather, I mean that they aren't the first meaning I look for. I first look to see how the author uses key words in his writing (and both spirit and truth are key words in the 4th Gospel), and then I try and think about how a Jewish prophet would speak, before I look for how a Greek would speak.
I recommend reading this offering of Jay's from a while back, including the comments, where this very topic is discussed at length.
Rey,
So I assume you believe that all churches listing themselves under "Non-denominational" in the yellow pages are simply liars.
I think there is more meaning within the usage of the word denominational than is listed in Websters dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/non-denomi…
gets closer to the usage of the term denominational as presented here by Anne and others.
Back on track with the original subject of this thread. Listen to the words and do your best to understand their meaning in the mind of the other person. This is well over half of the journey toward understanding and hopefully agreement. Often the act of reflect, "I think you are saying …" Finish in your own words what you think the other person is saying. Keep trying until that person thinks you understand them before going forward. No need to argue for or against something that person doesn't mean to actually say.
Rich,
" I think there is more meaning within the usage of the word denominational than is listed in Websters dictionary."
We've already plowed that ground and the crop didn't grow.
I think we must have grown up in the same part of the country and had the same dictionary. I also said something similar that I understood denomination to have a little different meaning from the official Webster's definition. Evidently to some it is a euphemism for we are the only saved church and all our members are the only ones going to heaven.
Jay,
If I understand your last post I think we agree. I'm not nearly as hung up on a proper name as some. The Bible uses multiple descriptions for the same church. Why can't we?
Our usage of denominational comes from the negative example of the Corinthian church in 1 Cor. 1. Some followed various people (names listed) and some followed Christ. Those following people are denominational (separated by name). Those following Christ are not denominational. At least that's how the phrase was originally described by me. The word isn't explicitly in the Bible but the concept is.
Excuse me. I meant to say "At least that's how the phrase was originally described TO me."
I agree with everything said in this paragraph until the last sentence. Notice that Paul has no praise for anyone in 1 Cor 1 – even those that claimed the name of Christ alone were acting just like the Cephans and the Apollonians. They were using the name of Jesus the same way that the others were using the names of their favorites.
Anne,
I was heavily influenced by churches in the Midwest. The level of cooperation among about 10 congregations in the town where I went to college was absolutely phenomenal. They virtually all worked together in bus ministry, gathering clothes and food for the needy, sponsoring lectures and supporting each other in VBS and gospel meetings.
Unfortunately, the level of cooperation went downhill proportionally to the influx of progressive thought.
Nick,
I guess if we could hear the inflections in Paul's voice as he thought about the words he wrote, we would know whether there was a pause between the last phrase or not.
I have a hard time believing the phrase "I follow Christ" is inherently wrong.
I was also going by the very next phrase (verse 13) where Paul asks, " Is Christ divided?"
"Inherently wrong?" Hardly. It isn't inherently wrong! That's a very strange conclusion to make either from what I wrote or from what Scripture says.
However, Paul's point in v.13ff is that WE follow Christ. If the "I follow Christ" crowd had done less quarreling, less talking about what *I* do and more talking about what *we* (all the believers in Corinth) do, they would have been praised. But Paul has no praise for anyone – even the ones saying, "Well, *I* follow Christ!" as if that were reason to boast.
One can divide Christ without claiming the name of another leader.
You could read "I follow Christ" also as "I don't care about Paul, Kephas or Apollo". Such can be heard even today when Paul says or writes something Christians don't like, they sometimes say: "I follow Christ". E.g.: "Christ treated women as equal and made no distinction, but Paul has a mindset deeply influenced by the male-domintated society of the ancient world. So I rather follow Christ, where there is so much more liberty and love."
It is really hard to stand up to such people who seem so Christ-centered and loving, but are in reality unsubmissive, full of selfwill and pride … in fact they cast out half of the NT and create their own Jesus.
I strongly disagree with such an approach, because all the Apostles are called and authorized by the Lord who sent them. So the really correct approach is: "All are yours" – Paul is yours, Apollos is yours, Kephas is yours – in the sense of: They are your servants to lead you to the fullness of Christ. 1Co 3:21-23
Alexander
Lets cut to the bottom line.
Is the church of Christ the only "true" church?
Is the church of Christ the same as the "body of Christ"
?
Are there Christians in groups other than churches of Christ?
The answers to these questions are the problem, not the origin and meaning of words, correct view of church history, etc. Far too many people in the coc still give wrong answers to those 3 questions. That is our problem.
Many of our churches, conservative and progressive, are so far removed from what the founders of RM taught that maybe to be honest some of us should stop saying we are Restoration Movement people. There are few groups in the world more sectarian than we are and that is sad because we do it in Jesus name.
Royce
Royce – arrogant ignorance.
Royce – for context – wasn't referring to you as arrogant and ignorant!
…was responding to a previous question you asked on whether Church of Christ exclusiveness is arrogant or ignorant! :o)
In 1 Corinthians 1 Paul isn't talking about denominations. He is not talking about churches that "Apollonian Church" or "Pauline Church" or "Kephan Church" or "Petrine Church" on the sign outside. He is talking about differences of opinion within one church. "I follow Paul" vs "I follow Apollos" vs "I follow Cephas" has to do with following the doctrine of these men, not with naming a church after them.
Frankly, if anyone is able to say "I follow Paul" while another is able to say "I follow Cephas" then Paul and Cephas must differ from each other doctrinally — otherwise the statement is nonsensical.
Therefore, there was a real doctrinal difference between Paul, Apollos, and Cephas (Peter) on some issue. The issue was probably the role that the Old Testament is supposed to play in Christianity. From available extra-biblical sources in the first few centuries of the church in which this very topic is the hot topic, it seems likely that they were divided into a desire to see the Old Testament as having been a valid text for Jews but no authoritative for Christians, wanting to view the Old Testament as fabulous but of some allegorical use, and wanting to view the Old Testament as still authoritative for Christians. This is probably the exact division going on.
Considering that this doctrinal division (Whatever it was) was between three very apostles: Paul, Apollos, and Peter — it is obvious that the apostles themselves were not perfectly united in doctrine. Paul, frankly, seems to be overreacting. This is a perfect case of unity in diversity, and Paul in OPA fashion seeks to squash it, obviously not to unite everyone under the banner of diversity but under the banner of buying into his interpretation and rejecting that of Peter and Apollos.
In other words, Peter, Paul, Apollos were in the same sort of struggle that we are in today, probably with Apollos and Peter arguing for unity in diversity and Paul arguing against it. We see the same thing in Galatians where Paul is unwilling to allow Peter to keep kosher in order to avoid offending those from James and feels it necessary to write him up on the front page of the OPA by name.
When I call 1 Cor 1 a case of unity in diversity it is because they have not split into separate congregations. Paul writes to one congregation in which "there are divisions among you." They were capable of some following Paul's interpretation and some Apollos' and some Cephas' and some trying to ignore the whole issue by saying "I just follow Christ" and still with all that going on they could meet together in one congregation. What they were doing was perfectly fine. Paul messed it all up with his factious spirit which he displays again in Romans 1:13 where he expresses a desire to come to an already established congregation in Rome "that **I** might have some fruit among you also, just as among the other Gentiles."
He says that "I" might have some fruit among you, not that Christ may. For indeed he is writing to a Roman congregation among whom Christ already has fruit. But now Paul wants personal fruit — he wants to convert these brethren to his opinion rather than that of Peter and Apollos which they may hold.
Romans 1:13 "Now I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that I often planned to come to you (but was hindered until now), that I might have some fruit among you also, just as among the other Gentiles."
Was he hindered by Peter because Peter knew Paul would cause a mess like he did in Antioch (as mentioned in the Galatian letter)? It is obvious that by treating the epistles of the apostles as if they were dictated by God Himself rather than written by men like us, we have screwed Christianity up almost beyond repair. I know many of you will call my interpretation blasphemous because it makes Paul a MAN rather than a god or an angel, but you need to grow up, even as Paul himself say "When I was a child I thought as a child" — when we were children we though of Paul as a demigod who could do no wrong. If were are mature now and no more children, we must see that he is a man and that everything he did and all the decisions he made in dealing with these congregation were not perfect but were often flawed and bad ideas.
I've never understood why some people have such a beef with Paul and seek to discredit him through suppositions, conjectures and downright made up theories.
So, Paul is a demigod? Read Romans 1:13 about how someone hindered Paul from coming to Rome and how Paul is finally on his way to reap some personal fruit among them. Then ask yourself, why is it that we find doctrines in Romans that we find nowhere else in Scripture? I speak mostly here of Romans 9. There Paul argues a strange theory of Predestination which prompts someone to ask Paul:
"Wait a minute Paul — if God controls all our actions like you are saying, why does he still find fault with sin, seeing he must have made us do it?"
What is Paul's answer? "How dare you argue against God! Who do you think you are?"
Is PAul not seeking to press his personal speculation on predestination to the limit, to even the point of destroying a brother for whom Christ died and dividing the church?
He is! He wants personal fruit among these people. They are Christians already, but he's going to convince them of his personal predestinarian views of bust a gut trying, or just flat destroy their faith and run them out of the church if he has to.
Perhaps then this is the debate between Peter, Apollos, and Paul. Peter the Arminian, Apollos who doesn't believe in predestination of any sort, and Paul the Calvinist (per Romans 9). Peter tries to keep Paul away from Rome knowing the destruction that Paul brought to Corinth with this evil doctrine, and Apollos agrees with Peter. Then being unable to come yet in person, Paul sends a letter to divide the church before he arrives!
Rey,
Interesting thoughts. One cannot accuse you of writing boring posts! 🙂
As far as Paul being "hindered", I always assumed he was in prison. Alternatively, he could have been hindered by the Spirit. I know in one place he talks about going to visit a church and mentions the Spirit wouldn't allow him to come earlier.
My real point is that where everyone else just accepts the traditional line that Paul is opposing "denominationalism" in 1 Cor 1, I think he is establishing it. Here is a church where we have a division in doctrine along the lines of a disagreement between three apostles, Paul, Apollos, and Peter — and the people are capable of meeting together and fellowshipping one another in spite of the disagreement. They have not separated into different churches and placed their fences up with different names identifying these churches. They are able to disagree and stay united…..until Paul throws a hissy fit and proceeds to try and force everyone to accept his opinion of Apollos' and Peter's. Paul exhibits the opinion that we might as well separate if we will not have a perfectly uniform doctrine, and this is what we call "denominationalism." Look at 1 Cor 14 and Paul's accusation that whoever does not accept that what "I" write are the commandments of the Lord, he is not spiritual. Is this a reference to one of the items on which Paul and Apollos and Peter were in disagreement? Did Apollos, perhaps, allow women to speak in the assembly? 1st Timothy 2:12 "But **I** suffer not a woman to teach…." — is this a doctrine personal to Paul? one which Peter and Apollos did not agree with?
Rey,
I really don't want to start a debate over the inspiration of Paul's writings, given that Peter himself endorsed them and the church nearly universally does as well. If someone wants to discuss, based on textual criticism, whether a particular passage was written by Paul, fine. Or I'm good with a discussion as to whether Paul sometimes disclaimed inspiration for a particular teaching. But this is not the place to challenge the inspiration of Paul generally.
My point isn' that Paul is not inspired — (I'm not sure what
'inspiration' could even mean when you are saying things like "I want to have some fruit among you" and "I don't allow women to teach" and such "I" statements — my point is that Paul is the author of denominationalism and is the author of the factious spirit that you oppose in the COC. I ran into a famous quote on the Net today, "Protestantism was the triumph of Paul over Peter, fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ. – Will Durant" He's right. The legalism in the COC today can't really be blamed on the editors of any periodical or on elders for not studying the Bible enough, and it certainly can't be blamed on Jesus or God. It can only be blamed on one man: Paul. Until we stop elevating this man and his convoluted epistles above the sermon on the mount, we're all hopelessly lost in a sea of legalistic insanity.
Time for some: 'What Saint Paul really said…'
Just not interested in spending time on the argument that Paul is pro-denominationalism. And I've read Durant's history of Christianity. He was not knowledgeable about or sympathetic to the cause of Christ.
To Royce
Yes, absolutely.
Yes, absolutely.
No, never.
BUT: the church of Christ is divided into several thousand denominations; and one group that started out to re-unite the church of Christ is called church of Christ as well (which is still the only really fitting self-description for any church, such as Christian church or disciples of Christ or assembly of God or … – any name which is inclusive and not factional in nature)
May answers above are for the church of Christ not the churches of Christ. 😉
Sad to say: Almost every denomination is – to some degree – as secterian. The RC with their pope are – the Eastern Orthodox who don't fellowship with other denominations are – and these are two of the largest bodies. Some Protestand groups are (closed brethren, some Pentecostal groups, some Baptist groups, some Presyterian groups, …) and many of the conservative Anabaptists are.
So, please don't paint so churches of CHrist that black. We are just not a lot better than the rest like we claim to be. We are blind to our own faults – and the others are as well. But we are not extraordinarily evel. Just a bit too "normal", just a bit to much like any denomination …
Alexander
I was reading where one of the comments questioned that the writings of Paul were the result of inspiration by God, and you seemed pretty sure, no absolutely sure they were, and became kinda short with the commenter. I find two places where inspiration is mentioned in scripture, and none where it refers to new testament writings. As a matter of fact there are scriptures denying this teaching.
Job 32:8 But [there is] a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.
n?shamah = breath, spirit
What Elihu said here is ,all men have a spirit and you don't have to be old to have an opinion, and here is mine.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
theopneustos = 1) inspired by God
We know by context that Paul was speaking of the old testament only when he spoke to Timothy, because the new had not been in print when Timothy was a child.
Now what does the Hebrews writer tell us ?
Hbr 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hbr 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son,
And I see nowhere he said it would be by inspiration. I would greatly appreciate it if anyone can point me to where it says any Apostle will write by inspiration, instead of memory.
I don't see where Paul claimed to write by inspiration.
1Cr 15:1 ¶ Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Cr 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1Cr 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
I'd probably go with Peter's application of the prophecy in Joel 2, for a start.
But Laymond, you seem to be missing just how sharply the point you want to make actually cuts. Unless you're going to argue that the gospels are actually Old Testament books, your beloved red letters become just as suspect as any apostolic writing, since the only writing we have straight from Jesus is the scribbling on the ground in John 8.
I don't see how we can be off subject, when the subject is " “Responding when you disagree with the teacher”
I am disagreeing with "the teacher" 🙂
Laymond raises some fair questions, based upon the content of the Text of the NT.
But regardless of where anyone may stand on that question, it is clear from Hebrews 10:16, God intended there to be more power in the hearts of men devoted to Him, than in commands on paper or in stone.
This is a point we can never emphasize enough — at least in my "book"
Nick, I said they wrote from memory, unless you want to say there were no witnesses to what Jesus said.
Actually where we get that from is the decisions made by the catholic church as to what books were or were not to be included in the bible.
Just disagreeing with teacher Nick.
Nick, if you notice, Jay's best argument Is, it has always been accepted as such. that is not a great argument.
Oh, there were witnesses, Laymond, but I'd prefer inspiration to memory, thankyouverymuch. How many conversations from 30 years ago can you reassemble verbatim?
The way people reject clear historical evidence in favor of making the RCC the scapegoat for whatever issue they need one for, is pretty amazing.
The RCC didn't set the canon.
David, I believe you are agreeing with Elihu, so do I.
You need to elaborate on your last statement, Nick. If the RCC did not set the canon, then who did?
We have no clear revelation from God which listed the books generally accepted as forming the NT canon. And equally clearly, the RCC was the first to publish the list we currently follow.
Ridiculous. His best argument is that Peter accepted them as scripture. But, since you don't believe Peter was a prophet of God, I doubt that holds much water either.
Nick, I know what you prefer, but what I seek is truth.
Nick, can you point to where Peter said specifically Paul's writings were scripture, or was he giving a comparison?
The church, following the example set in Acts 15, established the canon we follow many years before Constantine and the RCC consolidated power in the mid 4th century.
Irenaeus and Origen, a century and more before the first Bishop of Rome called himself Pope, were already using the books we call Scripture, and were already arguing against the use of the Gnostic texts, etc.
PS. I believe Peter said Paul wrote by wisdom, memory.
Nick
While I don't dispute the points you present, they are an incomplete argument. There were arguments pro & con the Gnostic texts at that time — and of course, the books of the current canon were being used before the RCC prognostications on the subject.
But both of those arguments say nothing about inspiration, only the historicity of the canon.
So the gift of wisdom is a good memory, Laymond? Is that what the Psalms, Proverbs, the Prophets, and James teach us? That the gift of wisdom is merely a good memory?
Peter says that what they do with what Paul wrote grapho they also do with the other graphe scriptures. So Peter is including Paul's epistole in a larger group. Is Peter talking about everything ever written, or a smaller group of writings? I believe he is including Paul's letters in the group of writings he called Scripture.
Peter's warning would be a good one to heed, brother.
As the church came together several times, a la Acts 15, to seek the wisdom of God's Spirit in discerning marks of inspiration, I believe that the historicity of the canon and the matter of inspiration are deeply related.
Nick, if you are saying the canon was based strictly on inspiration, would it not have been mandatory to strike the verses where Paul said he spoke of his own volition ?
Only if it is essential to interpret Paul's words as saying he is speaking of his own volition. I do not believe that is the clearest conclusion.
I believe Paul is simply saying that, unlike his previous response, he does not have words of Jesus to quote on the matter. He is speaking from his own apostolic authority to interpret the marriage teaching of Jesus to a situation Jesus never directly addressed.
In order to avoid using terms loaded with code, I have begun using, as much as possible, "Kingdom" rather than "church" and "disciple" rather than "Christian" when speaking within our tribe.
Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Nick, I read this to say to the apostles, you will be taught, and you will remember.
What do you prefer it says. I am just saying, you said you prefer inspiration over memory.
What does God breathe? His Spirit.
Thus, Spirit-taught memories are inspired, not mere frail human recollections. You may prefer to read that as, "You will remember," but what it actually says is that the Spirit of God will cause the disciples to remember.
That's a whole different thing from just writing from what they remember on their own.
I think we're conflicting because of deeply different definitions of "God-breathed."
I believe that whatever the Spirit causes is God-breathed.
You seem to believe that only words that come directly from the "mouth" of God are God-breathed. Am I misinterpreting your understanding of inspiration/God-breathed-ness?
OK Nick let's go back to your previous comment.
"I believe Paul is simply saying that, unlike his previous response, he does not have words of Jesus to quote on the matter. He is speaking from his own apostolic authority to interpret the marriage teaching of Jesus to a situation Jesus never directly addressed."
If you are saying Paul is speaking on something, Jesus gave no authority on, then we agree.
But if you are saying God gave Paul the inspiration/spoke to Paul, but it was not a command. we disagree, I don't believe Jesus or God ever said "if you want to"
Inspiration, most people who believe the bible is infallible believe the words were spoken by God even the interpreters were guided by the hand of God, no mistakes what-so-ever.
And I believe that would be the only way it would be perfect.
"I believe that whatever the Spirit causes is God-breathed."
Nick that would not stand muster in most churches.
That is a presupposition that only prayerful reading of Scripture can cure.
1. I don't believe I mentioned an opinion on the infallibility argument.
2. I don't believe you could prove that "most" people in the infallibility group believe that.
Who's talking about preference instead of truth now?
Laymond:
You have me confused just a bit. Actually, I think you and Nick's dialog is fascinating; I'm greatly interested in this.
Pulling back from older posts of yours, I know you hold that the HS is only active throughout the Word. Being said, how can you challenge the inspiration of the Word?
Perhaps your are just being a devil's advocate (but you don't strike me as the type of guy that tries to be a pain in the rear 🙂 ). But I do find your positions on inspiration and the HS/"Word only" doctrine to be confusing.
It's just that I've never seen anyone hold both of those views.
PS: Laymond— will you please start pasting your scriptures from the NIV or ESV? Too hard to understand the KJV and I sometimes ignore you arguments because of it…just too hard to follow your point. As old as you are, you may actually use the King's language in conversation. 🙂 I find it difficult.
Nick, I know from your writings , you believe in God through the gospel of Jesus christ, just as much as Paul did, and you believe in the indwelled spirit, what would keep your writings from being spirit breathed, inspired if Paul's and Mark, and Luke's were. and others included in the canon ? Is the spirit within you, less/weaker, than that in Paul, or any other writer of the bible? Are gospel teachings less important today than in years past.? Why do all Christians, not agree as closely as Matthew, and Mark do.?
JMF, if you read my last comment to Nick, I believe you will find me very consistent. As for the KJV that is the only version I had when I was beginning, grew to like it and stuck with it, I will be seventy, the first day of October, my grandpa was a CoC preacher, hard to break old habits.
Why are my writings not "spirit-breathed, inspired if Paul's and Mark, and Luke's were?" Because, Laymond, I have not been given the particular charism they received. (Rom 12:6ff)
"Is the spirit within me less/weaker than that in Paul or any other writer of the bible?" Not at all, brother, but that Spirit has given me different gifts than theirs. I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet.
"Are gospel teachings less important today than in years past?" Not at all – which is why I understand the difference between canon and other spiritual writing. Canon means STANDARD. The canon is the standard by which spiritual writing is measured. If my writing has any inspiration or authority, it is only as it measures up to the standard, the foundation which was laid by the apostles.
"Why do all Christians not agree as closely as Matthew and Mark do?" For the same reason that, as rey has uniquely addressed, Peter and Paul did not closely agree on table fellowship between Jews and Gentiles, but they did agree closely on Jesus. The mission of God required that Matthew and Mark's Gospels agree closely – but the mission of God to all the world must be worked out over time. He is not the tyrant you portray, who never says, "If you want to…" Rather, He invites people to count the cost of declaring allegiance to Him, of taking up their cross, of joining His rescue mission to all cultures.
JMF, I actually use "Texas Language" when conversing, some find that is almost as confusing. 🙂
In the passages Nick quoted by Peter, Peter when discussing Paul's writings said they should be treated "as the other scriptures". It seems pretty clear that Peter considered Paul's writings inspired just as he did others.
Royce
For the orginal questioner, may I suggest Edward Fudges' book "A Journey Towards Jesus". Especially letter sixteen. (available on line)
JMF, I am concerned we are getting to far afield to suit Jay, so this will be my last word on the subject.
The Holy Ghost/ Comforter, lets examine just what that is and who received it. and why no one else could receive it while Jesus lived.
And just who the written word was for, and from whom. and why I don't believe one is in conflict with the other.
Luk 3:21 ¶ Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
Luk 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
Luk 4:1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,
(I don't necessarily see Luke's description of the holy ghost, but I used him because of his description of Jesus being filled with the spirit)
Jhn 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
As we see Jesus did not give the comforter/ holy ghost until after his death and resurrection. ( the spirits Jesus received at baptism, was in use)
Jhn 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
Jhn 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace [be] unto you: as [my] Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
( No longer required by him, he could pass these powers/spirits from God along to the apostles, even so send I you)
Jhn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: (he gave the powers which he had received, to them)
Did Jesus come to his apostles,? (yes) did he leave them comfortless? (no).
The holy ghost as I see it is not a person, but the powers of God given to Jesus and passed to the apostles to give them comfort in their job here on earth. the spoken word is the truth given to the apostles and others, and was written down for the population, then and now, so we would know the truth. If we could receive the holy spirit as the apostles did, we wouldn't need the written word. Jesus didn't leave any written instructions, as far as I know.
Now I see it it think. Each of us can have our own designer religion. The Bible isn't true, Paul, Luke and others are certainly not credible (but their critics are..this is to sad to be funny) Just make it up as you go and live a good life and your personal God will save you from (…you fill in the blank…)
Not sure why Jesus died, he ought to fit into this someplace. Oh boy..
If the poor fellow who asked the original question took some of the advice here the church might have him taken away by men in white uniforms to a padded cell.
I'd like to see what's left when these theologians take out of the Bible what they don't approve. It would be much easier to carry, that's a plus I guess.
Royce
Royce:
I appreciate your post above.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Yeah, I do to Royce 🙂
"If the poor fellow who asked the original question took some of the advice here the church might have him taken away by men in white uniforms to a padded cell." (Royce Ogle)
Our canon unfortunately has always been established by such persecutorial tactics historically. And whenever and wherever it is questioned or analyzed you always will find at the very least that those who support it as inerrant will suggest that such and such ought to be done to the questioners. (What inerrantist doesn't wish the church had the authority to lock away all who deny inerrancy in a mental institution?) But historically, it has gone beyond suggestion many times.
The groups that used alternate canons were all persecuted out of existence by the state church which set itself up as the defender of the canon it enjoined. Yet even in their ranks there were doubts that lingered on 2nd Peter for centuries, making it quite ironic to use it to buttress Paul's claim to infallibility.
As to 2nd Peter, only one word "other" separates Peter's statement from saying that Paul's epistles are scripture versus merely that they are twisted like scripture.
Without the word other: "in all his epistles…which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the scriptures" versus with the word other "in all his epistles…which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures" — it would be naive to deny the possibility that this word was introduced by the persecutors who established our canon in order to shut down inquiry.
In any case, the very content of Paul's epistles cries out for inquiry into this matter. When Paul's doctrine in Romans 9 becomes so absurd as to make a poor brother cry out "Why does God then find fault with sin, if he controls our actions as you suggest, meaning he makes us 'sin'?" and Paul's answer is as weak as "who are you to reply against God?" — shall we just accept that without question? The man's doctrine was disproven by a simple question, and so he attack the questioner, much as you are doing by the way. What happens of course after the questioner cannot be shut up by bully tactics like sneering and suggesting that he is against God, is you bring out the persecution, lock us all in mental institutions in Europe and South America…..too bad big bad democracy doesn't give you that authority in the US, right?
rey,
For centuries Christians who are not a smart as you think you are have believed the Bible as we have it and many have gone to their reward because they believed it.
I am not fond of snobbery, especially when it is only unbelief passed off as superior intelligence. I am about a C student, not nearly your equal in some ways. But, Even I know that it is just plain foolish to keep attacking the veracity of the Scriptures, belittling the Apostle Paul, and in general adding nothing of substance to any of these discussions.
That is only the opinion of a "C" average guy.
Royce
rey,
Constant berating of Paul without any supporting evidence other than your subjective displeasure with his writings is not interesting, and I'll not be letting such comments through the moderation henceforth. Now, you do sometimes raise worthwhile questions, but in the flood of complaints against Paul, it's not possible to respond to them all. And I sometimes wonder whether you're even interested in hearing a response.
How about you list your 3 foremost complaints against Paul, and we'll see whether they can be answered.
Jay, I am not wanting to remove Paul from the canon nor belittle him. My point is merely that it is inerrancy that fuels the need to always be right on every doctrine and the mentality that says unless you believe every word of Scripture as I interpret it, you will burn in the pits of hell. I think we see this very thing on display in the responses to my thoughts on Paul. As long as you hold on to this notion, you will be holding on to the very thing that fuels denominationalism and the legalistic abuses of the 'conservative' churches.
Paul himself, unfortunately, displays this attitude from time to time, as in Romans 9 where he refuses to stop pushing his speculations on predestination even in the face of rational opposition from a fellow Christian, but also in 1 Cor 14 where he levels the charge against anyone who disagrees with his view on women speaking in the church that unless they accept his position they are not spiritual. Yet in that very place he says the reason a woman can't speak in the church is because the Law says so. The Law says no such thing, and in fact allows a woman to have authority over a man which Paul says "I do not allow" — look at Deborah in Judges 4, who was given authority over all Israel and made THE judge of the whole nation, who also was a prophetess and clearly spoke and taught publicly. She was not relegated to being "in obedience" to men "as also the Law says" as Paul claims in 1 Cor 14. This is not an axe to grind against Paul but against the attitude that says any man's interpretation of Scripture (and that's what Paul's epistles are, an interpretation of Scripture) is infallible and inerrant. IF Paul's epistles were not an interpretation of Scripture he would not argue that the Law is the support for his doctrine. He woudn't use the story of Adam and Eve as his basis for saying a woman can't teach in Timothy because "Adam was formed first." If he was just an inspired pontificator he would pontificate and not interpret — but he is clearly an interpreter, and as such, not infallible, especially when his arguments and interpretations do not hold water.
I am not fond of snobbery,…only the opinion of a “C” average guy." (Royce)
Then you should not be fond of Paul's treatment of our poor brother in Romans 9. When that brother asked Paul how God could still find fault against sin if Paul's doctrine were true, he should have answered the question rather than berating the man and attacking him and slandering him to shut him up.
Post this or not. Its Ogle's loss if you don't, not mine.
Royce made an excellent point. There is no need for a Christian to be ashamed of believing the Bible to be true. Great people throughout the centuries have placed their faith in Christ, have been changed internally, and have been saved because they have believed the Bible to be completely accurate and trustworthy. We stand in good company when we believe the Bible. We are trusting in God when we are trusting what he has said.
This issue has nothing to do with the intellect but with the ability to test one's beliefs. Many just accept what their parents taught or whatever, and refuse to test it, to even for a moment look at it the way an outsider would. It isn't because they are stupid, but I suppose because they are afraid they might find that they would have to change, and fear of change trumps stupidity as an ill every day.
"Great people throughout the centuries have placed their faith in Christ, have been changed internally, and have been saved because they have believed the Bible to be completely accurate and trustworthy."
Again, Jay, see the error of inerrantist thinking in practice! See how it leads to legalism! These people were saved not by faith in Christ — oh no — but by faith in the Bible as completely accurate and trustworthy. In other words, if one were to doubt one single sentence in the Bible, they would go to hell for all eternity. Do you not see my point now?
Royce you truly amaze me You said "For centuries Christians" ——-I left out the non essentials here ———" have believed the Bible as we have it and many have gone to their reward because they believed it."
what happened to the "by grace only" teaching?
Jay, you post a blog which is called "Responding when you disagree with the teacher" then become upset when one, such as rey, does so. Paul was a teacher if he was anything, some even place his teachings over that of Jesus, in some circles his teachings are considered more complete than God's word breathed out by Jesus Christ.I don't think it can be denied that the "New progressive church" follows the direction of Paul more closely than that of Jesus.
All the "how to do church" instructions come from Paul, and they bring the most arguments/splits among those who claim to follow Jesus. There is not much we disagree on that was spoken by Jesus, now Paul is a different matter, most if not all splits come from the teachings of Paul. Dare I say the misunderstand of Paul's teaching. We spend more time trying to clarify what Paul wrote, than caring for those who need help.
I agree with Peter, what Paul wrote is kinda hard to grasp fully. It leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
Where do you see "upset" in what Jay wrote? Boy, for a big tough Texas oilman, you sure are sensitive sometimes, Laymond.
How about…
marriage-divorce-remarriage
forgiveness (who should be forgiven, how often should be be forgiven, do they have to ask first?)
loving neighbors and enemies
the nature and role of the Holy Spirit
church discipline
how/when/where to pray
Lord's Supper
"spirit and truth"
the Second Coming
speaking against the Holy Spirit
"Before Abraham was, I am"
"if your right eye offends you, pluck it out"
"born from above"
And that's just off the top of my head, without consulting a single reference.
I agree with Peter, too. What Paul wrote is kinda hard to grasp fully – so unless it is inspired Scripture, I really wouldn't spend my time trying to grasp it. I mean, I don't lay awake at night chewing on The Shepherd of Hermas, or Augustine, or Patrick, or Calvin, or even Campbell, Stone, or Lipscomb.
Paul's writing is just as inspired as Matthew's, Mark's, Luke's, John's – and even Peter's and James'.
Laymond,
You are easily amazed… Why bother to explain? You are convinced that salvation is by human works and I can't change your mind.
I really think the terms "conservative" and "progressive" are inaccurate. They should be "conservative" and "liberal". Those who believe the Bible and hold to the historic doctrines of the Christian faith are "conservative" and those who reject the Bible as God's revelation and do not hold to those doctrines that have defined Christians are "liberal".
Evidently, liberals are the same in religion as in politics. Facts are only distractions brought up by the less intelligent. They (liberals) believe everyone should know that the complications of politics and Bible doctrines are unknowable by the common man. Only those who are the mentally elite can comprehend such complexities.
Royce
Amen, Royce!
1 Corinthians 1:26-31 “For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the LORD.”
Nick said, "Paul’s writing is just as inspired as Matthew’s, Mark’s, Luke’s, John’s – and even Peter’s and James’."
Actually I agree with Nick, unless of course, they are repeating verbatim what Jesus said to them.
Just because I have worked in the oilfields , not only in Texas, but pretty much across the country from Bakersfield California, to Ripply West Virginia, to the desert of North Africa, don't make me insensitive. Heck, I even consult some now, but I am sensitive when I do. 🙂 You do know that I live 18 miles from where J.R. Ewing (Larry Hagman) was born don't you, look at how sensitive he was, he had to be sensitive after all his mother was Peter Pan.
So their memory of Jesus quotes is inspired, but their memory of actions, settings, events, and even responses to Jesus (from friends, enemies, or even bystanders) is suspect? You wouldn't happen to have a copy of the elusive "Q" document that the Jesus Seminar is so infatuated with, would you?
My point being not that you have no sensitivity, but rather that one who makes such a big deal of being a tough, blunt, tell-it-like-it-is troubleshooter (who thus can't be bothered with such graces as tact and gentleness of speech) would hardly be expected to find straight-forward language, when used by others, worthy to be described as "upset."
In other words…. what's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander, right?
Nick, I believe I remember you have your own interpretation of biblical inspiration, which closely follows the modern day definition, inspired by words or actions of others, motivated. I highly doubt that was the version Paul was using when he spoke of the "Holy Scriptures" being of inspiration, I believe he was referring to "breathed out/ spoken" I also understand that is what people of today are saying when they say "all scripture" is by inspiration. Not that the writer was motivated, but was spoken to. Some people gasp, even claim blasphemy , if you mention burning a bible, because of that very thing.
Theopneustos: God-breathed, i.e. inspired by God
Pneuma: spirit, ghost — From
>pneo>; a current of air, i.e. Breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively, a spirit
What is pneued by God is his Holy pneuma. Whatever that pneuma causes is God-pneued.
The assertion that theopneustos necessarily means spoken is certainly a difficult one to prove, when God has shown many different ways of inspiration.
Nick, I agree with everything you have said, but many do not. Thank you for making my point. do I believe Paul was motivated by Jesus Christ and the word of God ? I certianly do.
Yes, but what I said was the Spirit of God. Paul's writing and ministry was inspired by the Spirit of God – not just "motivated by Jesus Christ and the word of God."
I think we disagree sharply, because it seems to me that you elevate the recorded words of Jesus above the rest of Scripture in such a way that Paul's writing (and sometimes any writer who wasn't a member of the Twelve) stop being authoritative and start being advisory, stop being trustworthy and start becoming something unreliable.
In your mind, there seems to be a hierarchy of Scripture (I could be wrong, but this is what I've perceived over the years of discussing the nature of Scripture with you online):
The words of Jesus as recorded in Matthew;
The words of the Old Testament (we've never delved into how variegated your ranking of OT writers might be – I know you hold the unknown compiler of Job in higher esteem than Paul, though);
The Epistle to the Hebrews;
The words of Jesus as recorded in Mark and Luke (insofar as they agree with Matthew, the apostle);
The words of Jesus as recorded in John;
The words of Jesus as recorded in Mark and Luke when they differ with Matthew;
The words of 1 Peter;
The narrative content of the apostolic gospels;
John's other NT writings;
The narrative content of the non-apostolic gospels.
That's where your canon seems to close. Paul, Acts, 2 Peter, and Jude seem to rank about even with the ECF, and even commentators like yourself and Jay here.
Nick said, "I think we disagree sharply, because it seems to me that you elevate the recorded words of Jesus above the rest of Scripture—–"
No, the words of God are elevated beyond reach of all others, whether they are spoken by his son Jesus, or his servants , the Prophets, through whom he chose to speak many times in the past. I hold the words of God in the highest regard, because I worship "one God" If we don't believe Jesus spoke the words given him by God, then there is no hope of a salvation, and a resurrection from death. It is that simple .
Laymond, that is precisely where we differ.
See, I believe the writers of Scripture are also prophets of the One True God, whereas you believe that only some of the words they wrote down are prophetic in nature. How you make that distinction without sawing off the branch on which your worldview sits, I cannot fathom.
How are their records of conversations inspired, but their record of events suspect?
In religion, a prophet is an individual who believes they have been contacted by, or has encountered, the supernatural or the divine, and serves as an intermediary with humanity, delivering this new found knowledge from the supernatural entity to other humans
1Ti 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
The basic reason we will never agree is you believe Jesus is God, I believe Jesus is a mediator.
Perhaps in your religion. According to Scripture, a prophet is one who conveys the message of the One True God.
The idea that Jesus is divine is no more a hindrance to his role as mediator than is the idea that Jesus is part of "men."
You assert that part of the Godhead cannot mediate between God and men. If that is true, how can a man, even such a man as Jesus, mediate between himself and God?
I assert that the Godman is the perfect (indeed the only capable) being to mediate between the One True God and humanity – for he belongs to both.
Jesus is the Mediator between man and God, we can access God at anytime, there is no other mediator…there is no other means to God except through God Himself ~ Jesus the Christ.
"The idea that Jesus is divine is no more a hindrance to his role as mediator than is the idea that Jesus is part of “men.”"
men are not one being. god is one being. if then jesus is god how does he mediate with god when he is god? if by 'divine" you mean an angel and not god himself it is different. an angel can mediate between god and man. but god cannot mediate between god and man.
Nick "I assert that the Godman is the perfect (indeed the only capable) being to mediate between the One True God and humanity – for he belongs to both"
only capable being, I suppose God was not capable of talking to men, through Moses, and many others as the bible states. surely Moses could not talk directly to God, and man.
Anon, you are right, because that is the way God chose it to be. He could have chosen you, but —-
1. I love how you use Paul when he suits your fancy, and discard him when he doesn't.
2. Paul, by inspiration of God, wrote "mediator" not "gopher." Not "messenger." And if you notice, the Hebrews writer (among others) makes a pretty big deal out of the fact that there was something insufficient about the ministry of Moses. What do you think that might be?
HINT: It might have something to do with the fact that Moses couldn't say, "Before Abraham was, I AM." And, for the record, neither could ANON. God couldn't have chosen ANON, because ANON did not exist before the world began.
" ANON did not exist before the world began"
Neither did Jesus, the Word of God did. People conveniently forget, when Jesus spoke he spoke for God.
Jhn 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Jhn 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
NICK, CONTEXT, CONTEXT
John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."
So, according to your understanding, what Jesus means here is, "The Father and the Father are one."
SENSE, LAYMOND, SENSE
We worship one God in Trinity.
Genesis 1:26 “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Genesis 11:7 “Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”
Psalm 110:1 “The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”
Isaiah 6:3 “And one cried to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory!”
Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.”
Isaiah 9:6 “For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
Matthew 1:23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
John1:1-2 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.”
John 8:57-58 “Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
John 14:15-18 “If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.”
Romans 8:9-10 “But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.”
Romans 8:15 “For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.”
Romans 9:5 “Of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.”
Jhn 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
(in the same way we are one, no separation of thought or purpose, no disagreement)
Nick,do you think Matthew was John, and John was Peter, and Peter was Matthew etc. that there was only one apostle.
context, Nick, context. (but you are right, you do need to use common sence)
Laymond, please share with us the context clues that enable you to know that in the following sentence
Jesus says "I" but means "God", but in this sentence
Jesus says "I" and means himself.
No, Laymond, I do not. Neither, though, do I believe the oneness being described here is mere lack of disagreement. Rather, I strongly believe that this oneness is what Paul mentions when he instructs the Ephesian Christians to "endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." I do not believe that I am Christ, but I know that I belong to His body – many members, one body, knitted together by the Holy Spirit.
Since you bring up John 17, I'm curious: how do you understand John 17:24?
Exd 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
"Before Abraham was, I am" Nick, believe it or not context reaches back quite a way. As I explained before Jesus spoke for God "the word of God" Jesus was not referring to himself as I am.
"Before Abraham was, I AM" is Jesus' conclusion to a series of questions:
Jesus: if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.
Jews: Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?
Jesus: "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.”
Jews: “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”
Jesus: "Before Abraham was, I AM."
Laymond, your interpretation does not answer the question posed to Jesus. It does not fit the close context. The Jews were no longer asking him who sent him – he answered that back in v.42. Now, they're challenging him because he is saying that he is greater than Abraham and the prophets – and he doesn't deny that he is saying it.
The question in 7:57-58 is about Jesus' own identity. The answer, likewise.
Nick, I think its clear you and Laymond have lost each other in the theological differences between John and the Synoptics.
John has Jesus pray "My soul is trouble, and What shall I now say? Father save me from this hour? But for this hour came I into this world!" (John 12:27) thus denying that He fears the cross and affirming that He is resolute to go through with it and that He will not ask to be saved from it.
While the Synoptics (Mat 26:42, Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42) have him pray "Father, let this cup pass from me" with such intensity and fear that he sweats great drops of blood as he begs to be saved from the cross.
We have unity in diversity here. Three evangelist have a human Jesus, and one a divine Jesus, yet all three made it into Scripture.
Nick, when Jesus speaks of himself, seems to me (I could be wrong) that he compares himself more closely to the apostles than God.
Jhn 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Jhn 17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
Jhn 17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
Laymond,
if I ignored all the times when Jesus compares himself to or acts like God, it would certainly leave the impression that he compared himself more closely to the apostles than to God. But when you allow both kinds of texts to speak, you get the same implicit idea that you find explicitly stated in John 1.
The Word was with God.
The Word was God.
The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
Jesus is Immanuel – God-With-Us. Jesus is the Word-Become-Flesh. Two different apostles, inspired prophets of the One True God, say the same thing in different ways. I don't comprehend it fully, but that wouldn't be the first or last biblical idea I don't comprehend fully – my comprehension is hardly a measure of the veracity of something. I trust Scripture more than I trust myself.
Nick, of course Jesus acted/performed like God, because he was filled with the Holy Ghost/spirit. So did the apostles, I am positive you have read my argument, that if we were filled with the Holy Ghost , as you argue Christians are, we also would act/perform like God.
Nick can you point to, the place in time, when Jesus became "the word of God" ?
The apostles didn't act like God. The apostles faithfully conveyed (through word and deed) the gospel that Jesus Christ is Lord.
The apostles did not say that the whole story was about them. They did not say that they themselves were the source of forgiveness (utter blasphemy for one who is not God). They did not say that they themselves were the source of life ("I am the resurrection and the life").
When did Jesus become the Word of God? I think you have it backwards. The Word became Jesus of Nazareth in the Incarnation, when Mary "became with child by the Holy Spirit."
Nick, why does the book of Matthew start like this?
Mat 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Israel learned over the centuries following David and Solomon that disobedience in her king always brought the nation to ruin. But the godly among them knew one thing for sure: God had promised that the throne of David would be established for ever (2 Sam. 7:4). So they came to see that a son of David must be coming who would fulfill the conditions of the covenant, sit on David's throne and rule forever. A succession of imperfect kings could never fulfill the promise. If God were true to his word, if he stuck by his job description in 2 Samuel 7, he would have to raise up a righteous, obedient son of David to take the throne (see Psalm 89:29-37).
John Piper
which He could only guarantee the righteousness and obedience of by choosing His Unique Son.
Belief in the pre-existence of Jesus has inevitable effects on one's understanding and appreciation of the Saviour's redemptive work. Consider the following:
If Jesus was conscious of having existed in heaven as the glorious Creator, how could he in any sense be tempted the same way as are his brethren? (Heb. 4:15).
If Jesus pre-existed his earthly birth, the force of the argument in 1 Cor. 15:46 is lost. Paul says, "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." But if Jesus pre-existed, then for him, this divinely appointed order is reversed – first spiritual, then natural. How then is he the firstborn among many brethren (Rom. 8:29), if indeed his experience is the very reverse of theirs?
The description of the birth of Jesus precludes the possibility of his having a prior existence. Note the following:
The words used to describe his birth indicate the beginning of existence, (e.g. "birth", "conceive", Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:31, 35; 2:21). If a change from one form of existence to another were intended, such words as "transform" or "incarnate" would have been used.
The divine action involved in the coming of God's Son into the world is not kept secret or made mysterious. Instead, it is plainly explained in Luke 1:34, 35; Matt. 1:18, 20. The description of these passages indicate the creation of a new person by means of The Holy Ghost/ God's power acting on Mary, and thereby rules out any possibility that Jesus personally existed in some manner prior to his birth.
Laymond, Nick, I'm sure since I'm on moderation you probably missed my comment on the unity in diversity between the evangelists<a>: Basically, see and compare John 12:27 to Mat 26:42, Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42 and surrounding context. The belief that either view is necessary to salvation goes against the very principle on which the Bible is organized, for if we must agree on this, why does the Bible present both views?
whoa, what happened to the format of the link there?
Laymond, you'll have to explain this question a bit more. In what way do you believe knowledge of pre-existence hinders temptation? Philippians 2 teaches us that the Son willingly surrendered all the prerogatives of Deity, including what James might describe as God's imperviousness to temptation (James 1:13).
Hardly! Paul himself predicts that someone will make your argument, and preempts it by saying, "The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven." (1Co 15:47-49 ESV) He is the firstborn among many brethren in precisely the sense that the "many brethren" will be "conformed to His image" by resurrection.
Laymond, please re-read what I am asserting. I'll quote it here for you again. "When did Jesus become the Word of God? I think you have it backwards. The Word became Jesus of Nazareth in the Incarnation, when Mary 'became with child by the Holy Spirit.'"
I do not believe Jesus of Nazareth existed before the Incarnation (which is precisely the word John uses in John 1:14 to describe the coming of the Word, despite your protestations to the contrary). If Matthew and Luke provided the only descriptions in Scripture, your argument would be much stronger – but the descriptions from John in John 1 and Paul in Php 2 deserve to be in the discussion as well. Their words are not "ruled out" simply because the Court of Laymond doesn't want to credit them as valid.
Amen Nick!
Many passages clearly identify God's spirit with His power. In order to create the universe, "the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light" (Gen. 1:2,3).
God's spirit was the power by which all things, e.g. light, were made. "By His spirit He hath garnished the heavens; His hand hath formed the crooked serpent" (Job 26:13). "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth" (Ps. 33:6). God's spirit is therefore described as,His breath, His word, His hand.
Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (therefore) (shall be called)
Jhn 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
(if Jesus became the word, at the age of 30, when he was baptized, just how would that affect what John said?)
Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
(If Jesus became the word in the womb ' why did he wait until after the anointing, at baptism to become Christ, he seemed to think he was ready at twelve, evidently God didn't think so.)
Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
(Jesus is clearly a created being, The Word is not.
Nick said; "I do not believe Jesus of Nazareth existed before the Incarnation" I do I believe he existed for thirty years before the incarnation.
Laymond, I'm not sure why you spent so much time proving that "many Scriptures identify God's spirit with His power." I wouldn't begin to deny that. I would affirm far more than you would about the nature of that power, but certainly not less.
That's an interesting argument, Laymond, that I've never read from you before. If Jesus became the word, at ANY time, how can you continue to deny the divinity of Jesus? Can you show me where Scripture asserts that the Word STOPPED being God? What does when the Incarnation happened have to do with whether the Word is divine?
Christ = Anointed One. It would definitely be a challenge to become the Anointed One without the anointing – although *many* men tried in the period 100BC-100AD. Ask Simon Bar-Kochba how hard it was to become the Anointed One without the anointing.
Nick, lets take a close look at just what John said.
Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jhn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Nick, I believe we may have agreed that "The word" was the power of God by which all things were created.
Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
In order to keep this statement in context to the rest of the bible, we need to understand just what it was that John wanted us to know.
"And the Word was made flesh" In other words, the powers of God was given to a flesh and blood man. As we see this happened at Jesus baptism.
Yes I know I said Jesus was made the word, really that is not so, and it is misleading to say it that way. Jesus was not made anything except the possessor of the word/ godly powers/spirits of power/ . And the word was not changed in any way, it was still the power of God enacted by his Son, what made this so amazing? The fact that Jesus was a human being, with godly powers. What makes a Christian different than a non-Christian? we have access to those powers, through Jesus Christ. Not through any powers given to us by Holy Spirit endwellment.
What made Jesus different from all others that had acted through the power of God, was the fact that he decided when and where to do so.
No, sir. No. That is precisely not what John says. As far as I can tell, John never uses the device of recapitulation in his Gospel. Unless this is the only time, he doesn't tell the same story one way, and then tell it again later. And what does he say?
Word Flesh Became And He Tented Among Us And We Watched The Glory Of Him
The Word became flesh. Let's look at how John uses this word, just in this passage:
John 1:3 All things 'came into being' egeneto through him, and without him not any thing 'came into being' egeneto that has come to be.
Did they *actually* 'come to be'? Was something new made, or was there just a power transfer from God to something that already existed?
John 1:6 There 'came to be' egeneto a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Did John actually 'come to be' or did just a transfer of power occur?
John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world 'came to be' egeneto through him, yet the world did not know him.
Did the world actually come to be, or did it exist before, and the Word transferred power to it?
John 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right 'to come to be' genesthai children of God
Do those who "receive him" actually become something new – children of God – or is there just a transfer of power without a new creation actually occuring (cf. 2 Cor 5:17)?
John 1:14 And the Word 'came to be' egeneto flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 1:15 John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he 'was' before me.'
Luke makes it painfully obvious that John 'came to be' before Jesus. Is John just confused here, or did the one he's testifying about (not the power of the person, but the actual PERSON) exist before him?
John 1:17 For the law 'was given' edothe through Moses; grace and truth 'came to be' egeneto through Jesus Christ.
John says that something new happened because of Jesus – grace and truth came to be through Jesus Christ in exactly the same way that the world came to be through the Word. Same verb, same tense, same everything from 1:3 to 1:14 to 1:17. But what's more – John points out a HUGE difference between Moses and Jesus Christ.
The law "was given through" Moses – he didn't make it, he delivered it from someone else to Israel.
Grace and truth "came to be through" Jesus Christ – He Himself made it, just like He made the world.
egeneto cannot mean "given" – that's what edothe means, and John makes a point to show you that they're very different. Egeneto happens when God Himself acts (Gen 1:1, John 1:3). Edothe happens when a man goes up onto a mountain and God gives him a package to deliver.
I plead with you, let your heart be softened and worship our Lord and our God!
in HIS love,
nick
PS – rey, I believe that Laymond would confirm from our many previous exchanges that I recognize him as a brother-in-Christ despite our deep disagreement on this matter. While I do not believe it is a salvation issue, I do believe that denying it goes against the grain of the truth, against the grain of the mission of God, and against the grain of God's healing ministry to his saints. It is a bit like someone who receives a heart transplant, but refuses to take the anti-rejection drugs. The surgery will be successful, but they will not return to full health.
To believe that Jesus was of our nature, but was sinless in his character, always overcoming his temptations, is not easy. It takes much reflection upon the Gospel records of his perfect life, coupled with the many Biblical passages which deny that he was God, to come to a firm understanding and faith in the real Christ. It is far easier to suppose that he was God Himself, and therefore automatically perfect. Yet this view demeans the greatness of the victory which Jesus won against sin and human nature.
He had human nature; he shared every one of our sinful tendencies
(Heb. 4:15), yet he overcame them by his commitment to God's ways and seeking His help to overcome sin. This God willingly gave, to the extent that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself" through His very own Son (2 Cor. 5:19).
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:3 And God said ——-
Gen 1:6 And God said ———
Gen 1:9 And God said ——–
Gen 1:11 And God said ——
Gen 1:14 And God said ——
Gen 1:20 And God said ——
Gen 1:24 And God said —-
Gen 1:26 And God said —– (you see Nick, we are talking about the spoken word, God's power, not a separate being)
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
(Nick we see here that God created man in (his own image) not our image, because there was no one with him)
Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else.
Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
(there is no one but God that John could be speaking of here.) be as emphatic as you must, it won't change the truth.
Philippians 2 says that he gave up all the prerogatives of Deity – I've already mentioned that earlier in this discussion – which includes being impervious to temptation.
Laymond, I love how you just skip right over the very words that absolutely contradict your assertion. You wrote: "Gen 1:26 And God said — " but you omit WHAT He said, because you'd have to in order to be able to say what is blockquoted above. Maybe you have a version of the Jeffersonian Bible, where all Godhead references are clipped out. If so, here's your beloved KJV of Gen 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:" If that was the "royal we" as many assert, it would be used consistently. It isn't, because this is the record of a particular conversation among the Godhead.
Finally:
And yet, we have:
yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1Co 8:6 ESV)
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Col 1:15-20 ESV – last phrase emphasized to show that the writer has been speaking of the Son of God all along)
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. (Heb 1:1-2 ESV)
That's three different NT writers saying the exact same thing – that's powerful testimony to the role of the Son in creation.
"That’s three different NT writers saying the exact same thing – that’s powerful testimony to the role of the Son in creation."
Nick, if as you say Jesus played this important role in the original creation, and at the time he was known as "the word" how can the following be true?
The phrase "the word of the Lord" appears 255 times in the KJV.
Gen 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I [am] thy shield, [and] thy exceeding great reward.
This is not only the first time this phrase appears, it is the first time the word, "word" appears, in scripture.
The phrase "the word of the Lord" never appears in either John or first John, or Revelation.
And the only time the word, "word" is capitalized , is in John, 1st John, and Revelation.
As far as I can tell this is correct. The word is never connected to the creation, by the book of Genesis, in any way except the spoken word. (God said)
Nick, if Jesus played such an important role in the original creation, how come he is overlooked until the new testament.? And the word "word" in never spoken until 15 chapters into the book of creation?
How come the prophets foretold his coming, if he already exists?
Jesus played an important role in creation, but not the original creation. You seemed to just ignore Isaih 45 where God said I did it, there are none else.
1. Progressive revelation explains a great deal of the scarcity (I would not call it overlooking by a long shot, but compared to the New Testament, a definite scarcity) of references to the Son.
2. Logos is a central concept in Greek thought – the Hebrews thought of God in several different terms – Torah, Word, Wisdom, Spirit, Shekinah are all ways that the Israelites wrestled with the manifold self-revelation of God. John pulls an Acts 17 on his readers by saying, "The logos your wise men think about? Let me tell you about Him."
3. The Son makes most of his appearances in the Hebrew Scriptures under the name "Angel of the LORD."
4. The prophets foretold his coming because He had not yet appeared as Messiah to save Israel, and the world. Do the NT prophecies of his coming negate his existence? Did the OT prophecies that YHWH would "come" to judge and rescue Israel negate His pre-prophecy existence?
5. I do not ignore Isaiah 45. *You* ignore all the NT passages which expand the meaning of the words Isaiah wrote. There ARE no other gods but YHWH – but YHWH is Father-Son-Spirit.
"The Son makes most of his appearances in the Hebrew Scriptures under the name “Angel of the LORD.”"
Nick, how do you know this ?
Luk 1:19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.
Luk 1:26 ¶ And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
Gabriel = "warrior of God" or "man of God"
1) an archangel; the angel God used to send messages of great importance to man; sent to Daniel, to Zacharias, and to Mary
Dan 8:16 And I heard a man's voice between [the banks of] Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this [man] to understand the vision.
Seems this angel already had a name, it was Gabriel, not "the word" . Not even the Son.
Gabriel doesn't accept worship. He pronounces good news.
The Angel of the Lord does accept worship. Did Jacob wrestle with Gabriel?
" He pronounces good news" That discription could fit someone else.
" Did Jacob wrestle with Gabriel?" If he had I have my doubt that he could have won.
I don't beleave he held his own with God either. I have accepted this as one of those Old Testament parables.
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].
Nick, I wrestle with Satan all the time, and God a lot, not that I don't believe, It's just that I don't understand.
Laymond, I've been looking over some of our old discussions over at Tentpegs (we've been at this off and on for at least two years), where you once wrote that you believe that the Trinity doctrine is a matter of one's salvation. I've already affirmed that I believe we are brothers in Christ, despite our disagreement on this. I wonder how you view me, though.
Do you believe my affirmation of the divinity of Jesus jeopardizes my salvation?
"If" Jesus is really "the Christ" as the Bible affirms He is, and if He really accomplished what the Bible says He did, it blows the idea of salvation by works right out of the water.
Either Jesus was "Emanuel", (God with us) and the "Christ" (the anointed one who would save people from their sins) or he is only another man as Laymond asserts and he could no more do anything about sins than any other man.
Every cult and false religion has "man" brokering a deal with deity, either doing things or not doing other things, to gain favor with God. Only Christianity has God himself loving his creatures "so" that he comes in flesh, meets every one of his own demands, suffers the penalty he himself imposed on sin, and graciously offers forgiveness, son-ship, and immortality to anyone who will turn from their own way and take Him at his word.
To those "few" who accept the offer grace affords His promise is to be with them and in them, to give them a new heart that wants to please him, a supernatural love that will allow them to love even their enemies, and experience joy unspeakable for suffering for him at the hands of unbelievers.
Jesus is the light of the world. A few come to the light. The majority do not come to the light because their deeds are evil and they are of their father the devil.
It is very simple. Choose life or choose death.
Royce
Mat 7:28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
Jhn 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
2Jo 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
[The Trinity Doctrine basically says that there is one God.
The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
Hence God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
Three, but they make up one God. Each is co-equal and co-eternal.
God is described as a class or family made up of these three personalities.]
Nick if you can find where Jesus taught this doctrine, I am sure you will be safe. I can't find it within Jesus teachings, so I believe it is a transgression of the doctrine of Christ. And without God it is impossible to gain salvation.
I find it to be a doctrine of man. That does not mean I reject you as a brother, you are my brother in Christ, we see this differently. and we always have the opportunity to change.
PS and when I am convinced Jesus taught this, I will,change that is. repent.
Wiser men than either of us have disagreed on this issue.
I don't know how I could convince you, when we cannot agree on which parts of the Bible are dependable for doctrine.
And I never asserted that Jesus specifically taught the Trinity Doctrine, any more than I have ever asserted that Jesus specifically taught that the earth orbits the sun, that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, or that the sky is blue (except when it is red or grey or yellow or black).
What I have consistently asserted, I think, is that Jesus did what only God can do and said what only God, a madman, or a liar can say. Where the Trinity Doctrine is concerned, Jesus' life is an enacted parable that – like all parables – was not fully understood or revealed immediately, but was increasingly understood in the time following his persecution, crucifixion, and resurrection.
I believe the Trinity Doctrine passes the Ockham's Razor test far better than any other explanation I've read for the passages and narratives that I believe support the Trinity doctrine.
Wiser men than either of us have disagreed on this issue.
I don't know about that, I have talked to you long enough to say, for your age, wisdom is no stranger to you. Maybe it has alluded me for some time but personal wisdom is not required to understand God.
1Cr 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;