Every Doctrine Could Cost You....!

Give me a break. The groups I have described may not "announce" it or keep a written "record" but they have their assumptions. They would never dare air them publicly.

I bet that if a person is `faithfully attending' and `sound in doctrine' = `agree with what those allowed in the pulpit say you should believe,' then you assume that s/he is a Christian. Otherwise, I bet your group at least does not assume that s/he is.

If I am wrong, I would love to hear by description about someone who
a) is not a member of your group, but
b) is nonetheless a Christian.
No vagueness: I want specifics.

Now: imagine that I decide I want to join your group. I:
1) believe on Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior, and Son of the living God, and accordingly have repented my prior sinful life,
2) confessed Him before men and women,
3) been baptized = immersed
4) live as best I can for Him.

However, I believe
-- that unimmersed = unbaptized Christians exist,
-- that it is okay for a congregation to use musical instruments,
-- that a Christian will continue to live for the Lord and never be unsaved,
-- that people can try to speak in tongues and be Christians,
-- I should try to be in as much fellowship and cooperation with Christians of outside groups as I can,
-- that people can be Christians even if they disagree with me on Bible inerrancy,
-- that there are Christians outside the Churches of Christ
-- that there was no ordained New Testament-era congregation pattern for assemblies,
-- the Lord's Supper should be taken often, but not necessarily weekly, even though I do take it that often.

Would your congregation accept me? I predict no. I predict that your leadership would not even announce my interest to the congregation. Why? `He is not a Christian, so is not eligible.'

Would you assume that I am a Christian? I predict no -- or at least `not yes.'

The Church of Christ congregation I am a regular visitor at would not have accepted me now as a Christian just 18 years ago. 17 years after no longer going there, I was a 14-year Christian, and I got a lot of surprises as I kept visiting. Although much is the same, things have changed.

If your portion of the Churches of Christ is not like what I described, I can assure you from first-hand experience that there are. One of them is just 35 minutes south of me.

 

Just thought I'd comment on a couple of things some others have brought up, here.

Just out of curiosity, what would you think of "churches of the saints"? Would you consider "church of God"? Maybe the "church of the firstborn"? How about "the church of the living God"? Would you consider "the church which is His body"? Or "the church (fill in location) in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ"? What would you think of that one??

How do you really 'feel' about Biblical designations, considering one cannot find the designation of any "church of Christ" in Scripture (although one can find one instance of the plural usage, and one saying the churches of Judea were in Christ), at least in the King James, New King James, or any of the other 18 English Versions on Bible Gateway? Not one instance of that phrase and/or designation occurring. Obviously I cannot speak for any of the other 200 or so English versions one could check, since I don't have a concordance for any of them or a computer program to do all of this 'heavy lifting' for me.

Uh- You did say something about a "man-made name", I believe??

Does that not include breaking bread as one visits from house to house, daily? What about when Paul & Co. did this a second time, in a few hours, after he had been preaching half the night? Or when he was shipwrecked? What about when Jesus broke bread with the two disciples the day of his resurrection? There are specific commands about the Lord's Supper, I believe to be found in I Cor. 10 and 11, where I seem to recall something about "as often" but didn't read any command as to "how often". Might wanna' look at that just a little closer.

And you know all this how? I'm really curious, here.

With all respect, and without seeming to sound like a smart-aleck, or be any braggart, and while I certainly could be wrong here, I'm going to suggest that I likely have studied Revelation more than you probably have, simply because I have heard a few varied messages from that book, heard messages on the radio, been through the book mostly verse by verse, in Bible Study, under five different pastors (in two different churches), not all of whom held the same views, have been through the book twice in Sunday School Bible Study classes, where we now use a Bible book curriculum, which repeats every so many years, with a different study-guide (Rev. takes 6 mos, alone), had a three hour Bible College course in Daniel & Revelation, and was a graduate assistant for the same course, where I was required to not only outline the Professor's lectures, for the benefit of students who may have missed the class, and need to study the notes, but produce my own course outlines of the books, plus be available for two to three hours a day, just to cover missed course work by students, give make-up exams, and answer questions from the undergraduate students who had them - all the more than 700 students, in that lecture class, while I was holding down a full time job, at that, with most of the students also working.

Ya' wanna' get serious about studying any book real quick? Try that, and have a defensible answer ready for anything 700 students can come up with. I assure you, it was a challenge (and I can also assure you I did not always have, nor was I close to being able come up with any very good answer, even so), that today I would take nothing for, and one could not possibly pay me enough to ever do it again.

I have been asked how I know what I do happen to know about the Book of Revelation, by some who have bemoaned the fact that they do not understand anywhere near what I appear to, to them. My answer is always the same, exactly what I have told you, here. Do what I have done, in this (and I very roughly estimate I have spent 500-700 hours total time in Revelation over the 45+years), and you likely will understand far more than I ever have. I honestly do not think one will get even what little I believe I do know in merely a handful of assorted messages, on this subject.

BTW, Revelation is the only book in the Bible that specifically promises a three fold blessing for those who read it, hear it, and heed it. I claimed that promise, long ago, and was certainly glad I had claimed it before I had to face those 700 Bible College Freshmen and Sophomores. :BangHead: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

A few years ago one of the members of BB visited a C of C and picked up one of their brochures defining their statement of faith. Here is what it stated:

 

Does the word "legalistic" come to mind?

 

Of course this is what you want to think; but now your reading peoples hearts for them and judging their thoughts - is this right? You want to make them look bad so you say they have their "secrets lists of who they privately condemn to hell" or whatever.

Allowed? You continue to imply that we are some type of dictatorship with evil hearts and hate anyone 'not in our group'.
First of all, any male christian may walk up to our preacher and request to give a sermon and that would never be denied of him - EVER. I've seen it in my own church; and as our bulletin announces = EVERY Member is a Minister.

The church of Christ is no earthly organization with a list of 'members' and whoever is not attending to a church on the name 'church of Christ' is going to hell. We fellowship with and interact with many churches that going under simple descriptions such as 'Christians meet here' or 'The Church' but they all teach the same thing - Christ's doctrine.
Anyone who has followed the plan of Salvation and lives faithfully and strives to immitate Christ is a christian.

When you were baptized you must be correctly baptized; as the Apostles did. Many now baptize you so you can join a denomination - but the Apostles baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)

'Accept' you? As a christian? No. But we definitely would announce your interest and ask you to stick around and fellowship and we'd also provide you with a bible study course if you were interested - I've seen this happened a hundred times as many traveling people come to our church because of our nice location.

Why are you, or claim to be, a 'regular visitor' to a church you very much show dislike for?

Again, a true church founded by christ doesn't have to go under the name 'church of Christ' to be a congregation of christians.

You amaze me at how you have such little understanding of the churches of Christ and what we teach.

 

What, no raising of hands??? Does that mean you can't do that one finger thing when you walk out of service? Who thought of that anyway?

 

First of all, I doubt that you would accept the Church of Christ I regularly visit to be a legitimate Church of Christ. They have an organ, a piano, and a guitar -- and they use them. Also, they believe that you can be a Christian without being a member of a Church of Christ congregation.

Second, criticism of real faults is not hatred. The Churches of Christ are plagued with real problems. More radical places, such as where you seem to be affiliated, are plagued with the most serious problems.

You seem to think that to `not hate' a church group, I would have to `bury my head in the sand' and refuse to accept that it has faults. That is not reality. Real love is shown by being willing to invest in someone or something even after you are aware s/he or it has faults.

I would say I have pretty good understanding.

I predicted your responses. It was not hard for me; I was able to identify what type of Church of Christ person you were by how you posted.

I predicted that you would not acknowledge that I am a Christian because I do not agree `enough' with your group's non-explicit party lines. I also predicted that you would not want to be specific about any cases of someone being a Christian outside your group.

Oh, and as for the indoctrination which you called a "bible study course," I faced that too. It was not necessary -- I already knew the Bible abnormally well. There was just a lot of pressure to `understand it anew.'

I would say that after
1) 9 months in a radical "Church of Christ,"
2) over two years' exposure to radicals via other Internet boards,
3) several hundred pages of Restoration history from `across the board'
4) hundreds of pages of current belief/practice from `across the board'
5) 3 years regular involvement with other Churches of Christ
I know what I am talking about.

Certainly well enough to predict your responses quite accurately.

 

I reject and deny this acclaimed brochure that you say was apparently picked up by a friend who was 'visiting' a church of Christ and I reject that this in any way represents or 'defines' our 'statement of faith'.

Again, all churches of Christ are not organized together to be a multiple congregations under one single leadership or earthly 'headquarters'.

This so-called 'brochure' cannot; in any way; represent the beliefs of every church of Christ or like-churches.

 

As Darron pointed out Church of Christ churches vary a little from one to another. He also pointed out that from his own experience you belong to one of the more fanatical ones, just like the one described in the brochure. If you don't agree with it, what don't you agree with?

BTW, I am still awaiting an answer on the Instruments thread, that if you are consistent in what you say about "making melody in your heart then you would never be vocal at all. You admitted that your instrument was your heart. Consistently you must admit that all melody must be in the heart. If instruments are disallowed then vocal chords must be disallowed also. All must be "in the heart."

 

I don't agree with the fact that they have "rules" and/or "pattern" outside the Bible, even though most of the listed rules/pattern are found in the Bible.

Of course Darron wants to claim "experience" in the church of Christ and then claim that he "knows" I belong to "one of the more fanatical ones"; but all this is his opinion and from his posts he continues to show he has very little actual unbias experience in the church.

And to be completely honest with you DHK, I don't believe you or your friend actually picked this up at a church of Christ or if you did I don't believe this is an exact copy of what was picked up or if it is then I'm sure this 'church of Christ' is a very liberal one.

 

I have a question for you defender of faith, do you or do you not believe that you can lose your salvation by sinning. YES or NO and explain.

 

Good tactic. When you have nothing else, imply that your opponents are lying. Nicely done.

 

Yes.
The 'once saved, always saved' doctrine or 'eternal security' is in now way supported by the Bible.
Explained....

1 Corinthians 10:12 {KJV}
“Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.”

(Why would Paul command this to the Church of Corinth (those saved) if it was impossible to fall?)

Hebrews 3:12 {KJV}
“Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.”

(Firstly, Paul calls them brethren and this implies that they are brothers in Christ (saved). Secondly, how could this heart of unbelief depart from God if it was never with God? Obviously the person was with God (saved) and then had a heart of unbelief and departed from the living God (lost).)

2 Peter 2:20-22 {KVJ}
“For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
- For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
- But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.”

(Perfect verse to prove that someone can “escape the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” and they are saved but then they are “again entangled therein, and overcome” by the pollutions of the world and the “latter end is worse with them than the beginning” – Peter is saying that it’d be better for someone to not even know the way to righteousness than for him to become saved and then “turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them” and become “again entangled therein and overcome”!!)
1.) They had escaped the defilements of the world, 2.) They were again entangled therein and overcome, 3.) The last state is worse than the first.
How could the last state (AFTER they were saved) be worse than the first (BEFORE they were saved)? Obviously a once saved Christian can so sin to be in a worse state than before they were saved.

John 15:2-6 {KJV}
“Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
- Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
- Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
- I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
- If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.”

(“Every branch in me” and “ye are the branches” – this shows that saved Christians are the branches because it says “in me” so your IN Christ. So those branches that are in Christ (saved) and “beareth not fruit” “he taketh away” but what happens then? “Men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned”!! But if every branch (Christian) that is in Christ is “once saved always saved” why does he take the branches that do not bear fruit and cast them into the fire and burn them??)

Matthew 13:41-42 {KJV}
“The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

(The Son of man (Jesus Christ) will send forth his angels and gather “them which do iniquity” “out of his kingdom” – how do you get into Christ’s kingdom? You are saved by his blood! But not only will these saved Christians that do iniquity be gathered out of his kingdom but he will also “cast them into a furnace of fire” where “there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth” – does that sound like heaven to you?)

1 Timothy 4:1 {KJV}
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;”

(This verse contradicts the belief that you can’t leave the faith and the argument that once you are saved, you no longer want to sin. It clearly says that “some shall depart from the faith” but to be in the faith you must be saved! So you depart from the faith because they were “giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils” – but wait! I thought once you were saved you no longer would give heed to sins and temptations?)

1 Timothy 5:12-13 {KJV}
“Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.”

(Having DAMNATION, because they have cast off their first faith! What a statement!! But again, they cast of their faith – but according to “once saved, always saved” you still have salvation even if you cast off your faith, but Paul says they have damnation for casting off their first faith!”)

Galatians 5:4 {KJV}
“Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.”

("Ye are fallen from grace" implies that they once were IN grace (saved) and to argue against that is to say that they fell from something they were never in (which is impossible). So they were in grace (saved), tried to justify themselves by the law and by doing this they fell from grace (lost).)

Revelation 22:19 {KJV}
“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book”
(Revelation 20:15: And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.)

(Rev. 20:15 says that if you were not found written in the book of life you are cast into the lake of fire (hell) so in order not to be cast into hell you must be written in the book of life and to be written into the book of life you must be saved - BUT if you "take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall away his part out of the book of life" therefore you are lost and no longer found written in the book. It's all simple logic and the verses explain themselves.)

Luke 8:13 {KJV}
“They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away”

("Recieve the word (the gospel) with joy" (saved) and "for a while believe" but then "in time of temptation fall away" (lost).)


Clearly, the Bible supports that one can lose his Salvation by sinning.

 

There's a difference between using Scripture and misusing Scripture, or using Scripture out of context. The Mormons also "use Scripture," but when you go the context, it's easy to see how they are misusing it. Same for the KKK to support their views, and same for the Episcopal clergy. All these false views can be refuted.

 

Not only unbelief,
But unbelievable! If this church is liberal, then what is a conservative one like??

 

DoF, Have you ever done a word study of the Greek word translated as "for" here?

It can mean "because of." Be baptized because you have remission of sins. Since we know Scripture does not contradict itself, and other Scripture is clear that we can be saved before baptism, we know this is not saying that one must be baptized in order to have remission of sins.

Source
http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Acts-2-38.html

I think you would find this article of interest.

 

But that's the whole point of this thread... Someone can say scripture supports no instruments in Church. However, when I read the 150 PS I don't see how one can't be encouraged to praise the Lord using any instrument or method the Spirit places on your heart... This includes dance or waving your hands in the air of that's what you feel lead to do... Now someone will come along and interpret this scripture to say I'm wrong (refute). So refuted or not, it is still someone's biblical view...

Ps 150:1 Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.
2 Praise him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness.
3 Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp.
4 Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.
5 Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.
6 Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.

 

I had almost word for word, the exact same thought, earlier.

I just hadn't gotten around to posting it, yet.

Ed