Church of Christ? What?

Are you just playing games, or are you that naive, that you cannot see his question:

"First time visit but I think Church of Christ is weak but sometime false doc. why?"

What do you think he means by "Church of Christ," in that original post?
DHK

 

How does having a creed violate the word of God? Provide scripture that expressly forbids the use of creeds and confessions as a tool for teaching the Scriptures? You obviously do not understand the concepts of creeds and confessions otherwise you would not have made the false assertion that I have rejected 2 Tim 3:16-17. I hold the inspired Word of God very dear. It is the final authority on all doctrine and teaching. The creeds and confessions as explainations of scripture are valuable for teaching the faith. The creeds and confessions do not hold the same authority as the inspired word of God. So you can not make the assertion that I am rejecting scripture. I never said anybody needed the creeds and confessions. I however believe in that they as a correct explaination of the inspired word of God are a valuable tool.

 

Ormond, DHK, and Dual,

From my experience with the denomination, Church of Christ, I would hazard a guess that he is a member of the denomination. He fits the pattern I observed while living in Abilene and working amongst a large number of their denomination. I have found them to be an overly legalistic group and heavly reliant on works righteousness. It is pretty bad they are legalistic to the point of being ludicrous. I once witnessed them ticketing a couple of ladies for wearing jogging outfits on campus of ACU will exercising.

 

< Besides, I find it rather funny one would consider man more reliable than God's word. >

Not as funny as these posts of yours which are your own words. If you actually used scripture and absolutely nothing else, the only thing you would post is copies of scripture. But the very large majority of your posts are your own words; therefore, the large majority of what you post is not scripture, and what is outside scripture is worthless as doctrine.

 

Hehe, that's funny: (note, the following is paraphrased) we believe a person is saved by the grace of God and eternal life is a free gift...
...ah forget all that stuff about grace and free gift, to be saved you gotta do this and that and this and that.....

As for their growing numbers go here:

http://www.rightcyberup.org/

and click on this:

March 9 -- Analysis of the just-discovered 1999-2001 complete ICC statistics, The Revolving Door: ICC by the Numbers.

I can't spell tonight, Edit = good

[ July 21, 2002, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Dualhunter ]

 

Adam:
It is simple. History you reference comes from the pen of men. It maybe right or wrong. God's word and record is always correct. One cannot search the mind of man for the church. He must go to the mind of God for that information.
Acts 2 establishes the origin of the church. It was in A. D. 33 in Jerusalem and on Pentecost.
I ask you to search your secular historical record to see if this is so stated by the authors. Once you have found it. Please let me know of the author and book, I would like to read it. Secular sources often times are biased because of theology.
My daughter was in her 11th grade history class. The teacher made the statement that all churches had there origin in Catholicism. My daughter contested her statement. She came home and asked for some guidance from myself. I simply listed for her the scriptures and dates of prophesy and fulfillment for the church. I also pointed out to her that Catholicism did not start until the second century and Roman Catholicism in A. D. 605 with Boneface being the first Pope. I provided the secular sources for these dates and times. It is impossible to give Biblical sources for Catholicism as it came after the church of Acts 2. Her teacher being embarassed tried to save face by saying we are all Christians anyway. Upon hearing this proclamation, my daughter asked for the evidence for such a statement. It was not provided. While on paper this teacher was qualified to teach the subject. She had made grave errors in what she was promulgating. Had the teacher consulted the Bible she would not have made such an embarassing mistake.
This is how secular history is often times biased depending on who writes the text and their theological position.
Frank

 

Originally posted by Frank
Adam:
It is simple. History you reference comes from the pen of men. It maybe right or wrong.

I assume you are speaking of the Handbook of Denominations I quoted? Very well. From this point forward we will no longer use any other source than the Bible. Now, under your burden of proof, show me exactly where the ICOC started and trace it, again using the Bible, to today.

I also noticed that your church has doctrinal statements. Did you just not tell me that "creeds" are unauthorized and prove someone doesn't believe in the Jesus of the New Testament? Does this apply to you to? Or just anyone you don't agree with?

God's word and record is always correct.

We at least can agree on this much. I hope you realize that your doctrine is not the Word of God.

One cannot search the mind of man for the church. He must go to the mind of God for that information.

I may be misunderstanding you here, but are you saying that you understand the mind of God?

Acts 2 establishes the origin of the church. It was in A. D. 33 in Jerusalem and on Pentecost.
I ask you to search your secular historical record to see if this is so stated by the authors.

What historical record? The only source besides the Bible I have used so far is the Handbook on Denominations. Again please show me using only the Bible how your ICOC church ties into the Apostolic Church.

Once you have found it. Please let me know of the author and book, I would like to read it. Secular sources often times are biased because of theology.

Definition time: In order for something to be a secular souce it must be penned by secularist. I haven't used anything yet penned by non-Christians. What I am pointing out to you is that your church (the ICOC) did not start with the pentacost. The Christian church did. If you are going to say that your denomination is the Apostles church, you need to prove it.

My daughter was in her 11th grade history class. The teacher made the statement that all churches had there origin in Catholicism. My daughter contested her statement. She came home and asked for some guidance from myself. I simply listed for her the scriptures and dates of prophesy and fulfillment for the church. I also pointed out to her that Catholicism did not start until the second century and Roman Catholicism in A. D. 605 with Boneface being the first Pope. I provided the secular sources for these dates and times. It is impossible to give Biblical sources for Catholicism as it came after the church of Acts 2. Her teacher being embarassed tried to save face by saying we are all Christians anyway. Upon hearing this proclamation, my daughter asked for the evidence for such a statement. It was not provided. While on paper this teacher was qualified to teach the subject. She had made grave errors in what she was promulgating. Had the teacher consulted the Bible she would not have made such an embarassing mistake.
This is how secular history is often times biased depending on who writes the text and their theological position.
Frank

If you are going to tell a Catholic they are not a Christian I suggest you start with the Catholics here on this board. I believe that they will inform you otherwise as they already have shown many of us here.

I'm glad your daughter stood up for what she believes in. I don't know what your trying to prove here though, because what ever it is your not using the Bible, you are using a story from your own personal life (Remember your burden of proof).

Bro. Adam

 

Cynic:
Every position I have taken is based on the evidence. I have posted the evidence. If you choose not to read it so be it. The apostle Paul used vocabulary to teach others. He reasoned,and persuaded with vocabulary. Acts 18:4. Paul also disputed with people. Acts 17:17. He did so using words. Maybe you can express spiritual thought without words. I am not so blessed. I am glad the Bible uses words. I understand the thoughts of God with words. This is the source of faith. Romans 10:17.
Frank

 

Adam:
I have not claimed to be a member of the Icc. I have stated many times I am a part of the church of Christ as found in Acts 2.
Furthermore, I did not say Catholics were not Christians. I stated my daughter asked for the evidence and it was not provided.
The Bible teaches the following;
1. The church would be established in Jerusalem. Isaiah 2:1-4, Micah 4:2. She was. Acts 2:5,14.
2. the church would be established during the days of the roman kings while the apostles were still living. Mk.9:1, Daniel 2:44, Lk. 3:1-3 , Mat. 2:1. Shew was. They were. Acts 2:37.
3. The law of the Lord would go forth from Jerusalem. Is. 2:3. It did. Acts 2:38-47.
4. The power by which the word would be proclaimed would be the Holy Spirit. Joel 2:28,29.He did as prophesied. Acts 2:1-4.
5. Jesus prophesied he would build his church. He did, Acts 2:47.
6. All nations would flow into it. Is. 2: 2. They did. Acts 2:5.
7.Jesus told the apostles to wait for the power in Jerusalem. Luke 24:49, They did. Acts 2:1,5,14.
8, Jesus foretold of the message to be proclaimed. Luke 24:47. It was. Acts 2:38.
9 The church would be of divine prophesy, power,proclamation, possession. She is. Isaiah 2:1-4, Micah 4:2, Joel 2:28,29, Mat. 16:18, Acts 2:1-4.
Frank

 

Chem:
I have stated many times that I am a member of the church as it is found in Acts 2. The ICC has it's roots in the old Boston discipling movement. I am not a part of this group as I do not follow their teachings. I have made this abundantly clear from the scriptures.
If you compared them to the Icc or any other denomination, you will see they are not the same. Have you done this?
I do not pretend to speak for all who claim they are of the church of Christ. I can only answer for myself. I Pet. 3:15.
Frank

 

dhk:
As I previously stated ormond did not specify the Icc. He made seven statements about the church. I have no intention of contending for denominationalsim no matter how it is masked. So, if you are looking for someone to defend that denomination you have the wrong person.
Frank

 

< Every position I have taken is based on the evidence. I have posted the evidence. >

This may shock the snot right out of your head, bud, but the fact that YOU posted a bunch of words has not the slightest standing with me, or I am sure with most readers here.

< Paul also disputed with people. >

A good example. So do I.

< He did so using words. >

Oh, come now. Surely he used smoke signals or semaphore.

< I am glad the Bible uses words. >

You know, me too. And I'm glad birds use feathers. That's only defining the makeup of a particular entity, but's it's there to be glad about.

< I understand the thoughts of God with words. This is the source of faith. >

Now we have come full circle. You said you have posted "evidence." Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen-- Hebrews 11:1. If the 'evidence' you think you have posted is of something to be seen, then it has nothing to do with faith, which is the "evidence of things not seen." And then on the other hand, if one cannot possibly see what your 'evidence' is of, this discussion is about the most useless endeavor we could be wasting our time on.

 

Hmmmmmm......church means me....of...means belonging to...Christ..means who I belong to.

Don't we all fit that description.Would someone please tell me where Jesus ever revealed the fact he named his church.Church of Christ simply means ownership not a proper name.

The behaviour of the CoC of which I am a member hangs on the principal of trying to reenact the new testament church.The way it does this is by the science of interpretatiom(hermeneutics).These hermeneutics are derived from their use of (1)commands of the bible
(2)examples of the bible
(3)necessary inferences of the bible.

This CENI interpretation method is simply the bible talking to us.I call it a creed others don't.

Frank pretty well is speaking for the mainline CoC and doing an excellent job of it.If he wasn't you would ignore him as you do me.However,I disagree with him and the CoC in many ways,that's the way us church of Christers are.

I don't fit in entirely in either the CoC or Baptist.I have no objections to instrumental music and I see baptism as having no power to save(but necessary as a response to faith).But neither do I see OSAS as a bible fact and not giving baptism the proper respect as a command.

Yet,I'm proud of both denominations and believe both are churches of Christ.I'm making use of the word I in order to show that we in the CoC are free to think for ourselves as individuals,and thought it might explain more about us in the CoC.

God bless you all,Charles

 

Thank you for your "frank admission" Charles. Both you and Sola have no hesitation in identifying yourself with at least the mainline CoC. As you say Frank is probably a member in that "denomination" as well, but so detests the word "denomination," and the history of the "CoC," that he denies any connection to it. He claims only to be a member of the church in Acts 2.
DHK

 

Do you actually read my posts? I have to wonder because I never said you were a member of the ICC. I said you fit the bill for the denomination CoC Church of Christ not the ICC. Tell me how can you be a member of the Church founded in Acts 2 if you do not break bread everyday? Or live in a communal style?

 

Non-denom's hate it when I say this but non-denominationals are a denomination unto themselves.

I too belong to the church that was formed in Acts 2, because I am a Christian. However, I have enough integrity and honesty to say that I physically belong to a denomination. I also believe that true believers no matter their denomination also belong to the church formed in Acts 2. My fiancee who doesn't care overly much for denominations and prefers to be called Christian openly admits belonging to the LCMS. Now if only Frank had that kind of honesty, instead of being boastful in false pride.

[ July 21, 2002, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]

 

Frank,

You caught me off guard there. I suppose we should have kept our ears open a little more. I was long under the impression that all those persons in the Bible had long since passed away, but since you belong to this church, please say hi to Paul for me. What church do you go to and what city/state is it in? I would love to meet and talk to Timothy, Barnabas, Peter, and so many others. Since a chuch is a body of believers and you belong to the church of Acts 2 I'm sure you have met all of them.

Bro. Adam

 

Brother Adam,
I went over to Frank's church and met Peter.I asked him a few things and he said:"well,my age is beginning to get to me,I have a storeroom full of facts but the trouble is I've lost the keys to the storeroom." Just kidding,liked the humor.

God bless,Charles

 

Chem:
It is obvious that communal living was not a requirement of the church. Jesus commanded us to go into ALL the world and make disciples. Mat. 28:18-20. It would be most difficult to go into all the world and then live in one exclusive place with one group of people in one city Jerusalem. I guess you expect those who become Christians in other parts of the world to move to Jerusalem. Where does it teach communal living? Where in Acts does it teach us that Christians are to live in a commune.
Furthermore, verse 46 is a reference to a common meal. Yes, I eat everyday.
Frank