beliefs of the church of christ

Dave:

A summary of my position would include the following:

1. The Old Testament spoke of a new and everlasting name to be bestowed upon the people of God in the gospel age (Isa. 56:5, 6; 62:2; 65:14, 15). If this was not the name “Christian,” then what was the new name?
2. Isaiah especially associated the reception of the new name with the call of the Gentiles (62:2); the name Christian was not given until the Gentiles were admitted into the church (cf. Acts 10; 11:26).
3. The term chrematizo (translated “were called” - Acts 11:26) is employed nine times in the New Testament. It is, without exception, used in contexts wherein the calling is of God. Some suggest that the grammatical construction of this passage indicates that the name was bestowed by Barnabas and Saul (Woods, p. 67).
4. It is inconceivable that Peter would have encouraged the early saints to “glorify God” (1 Pet. 4:16) by the use of a paganistically bestowed “slang” term. The early disciples did not adopt other pejorative titles (cf. Acts 24:5,14).
5. Paul rebuked the Corinthian brothers for wearing human names, e.g., Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, because, he said, these men were not crucified for you, nor were you immersed into their names (1 Cor. 1:12,13). The implication clearly is that since Christ was crucified for them, and as they had been baptized into His name, they had the right to wear His name. What would that have been if not “Christian?”
6. There is another indication that the Christian name was divinely bestowed. James wrote concerning that “honorable name” which the Christians had “called upon” (passive voice form) them (5:7). “This expression clearly reveals its OT background (Deut. 28:10; 2 Chron. 7:14; Amos 9:12). A man was dedicated to God by calling God’s name over him. The act indicated that he belonged to God. So Christians bear the worthy name of Christ as indication that they are his people” (Burdick, p. 179).

BaIz, Horst and Schneider, Gerhard (1990), Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), Vol. 1.

Burdick, Donald W. (1981), “James,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Ed., Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), Vol. 12.

Campbell, Alexander (1914), Campbell-Purcell Debate (Nashville: McQuiddy).

Free, Joseph & Vos, Howard (1992), Archaeology and Bible History (Grand Rapids: Baker).

Green, Samuel G. (1907), Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament (London: Religious Tract Society).

Kistemaker, Simon J. (1990), New Testament Commentary-Acts (Grand Rapids: Baker).

Moffatt, James (1906) in: A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, Ed. J. Hastings, (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark) Vol. I.

Russell, Bertrand (1975), “What Is an Agnostic?” Religions of America, Ed., Leo Rosten (New York: Simon & Schuster).

Russell, Bertrand (1967), Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Simon & Schuster).

Shelly, Rubel (1984), I Just Want to Be a Christian (Nashville: 20th Century Christian).

Turner, Nigel (1981), Christian Words (Nashville: Nelson).

Vine, W.E. (1940), Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Westwood, NJ: Fleming Revell),Vol. I.

Woods, Guy N. (1976), Questions and Answers (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman College), Vol. I

 

The following is a response to Frank's post dated 1-17-05; 9:55 AM

Frank:

Etc, etc

" Again, they LIED. vs.3,4. I would infer that the cause of their deceit was coveteousness or greed. However, That is simply my judgment."

[ Which is wrong, it violates God’s clear instructions on how to correctly handle His word (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15), not to mention that noble CoC motto of: “chapter & verse”. God does not slay His people without their knowingly violating a precept that He clearly established.

Example: Before the ark was brought to Abinadab’s house God’s judgment fell on those that knew better (1 Sam 6:18-19). Israel knew that God had sanctified only the tribe of Levi to handle that ark. Uzzah had 20 years (1 Sam 7:2) to think about that incident before his fatal day (2 Sam 6:6-7). While his action may have been a reflex, God made His point to Israel that they better obey His instructions.

Were your " judgment " correct about Ananias only lying, why wasn’t God killing Colossians (Col3:9)? As you well know, but won’t admit because it will thoroughly destroy the CoC motto that they are: “the church you can read about in Acts two“, Ananias lied by failing to do what was previously instructed.

So, again, read Acts 2:42 & note the word " doctrine. ." ” Where did the Apostles get that “doctrine” from, Frank? Have you ever seriously read the Gospels without the aid of your CoC eyeglasses? It’s an eye opener, Frank !]

Etc, etc

“Dave, who is to say your committee was correct?”

[ Frank: I don’t have a translation committee. However, the AV, RV, ASV, NASV, NIV, NKJ etc certainly did, & I’m not aware of ANY bible that renders Acts 11:26 the way you’re desperately trying to do, consequently those Bibles, as well as others, prove Thayer & Strong wrong, does it not? Are we not warned by God about private interpretation (2 Pet 1:20)?

The fact that Paul, the mouth of the Lord for half the N.T., didn’t see it Thayer & Strong’s way ought to convince you the CoC religion initially is biased. (Acts 20:17-25). Notice he kept “back nothing” from them, & @ 5 years later wrote them an Epistle wherein he again fails to mention that “Christian“ was the “new name“. Since the CoC insist that “Christian“ is important, then is not Paul guilty of holding back? When did God decide to let the CoC tell us what He meant?

Friend, due to your allegiance to the CoC religion, you are trying to force CoC dogma into the mouths of Luke, Paul & Peter. I know of no Bible that even implies that the disciples initially called themselves by that name. And it is obvious to this point, & by what follows, that you know of no scripture, in context as believers are instructed by God (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15), that supports your CoC religion.

How hard would it have been for Peter to have said:

“Yet if any man suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf;

(Is not what follows the CoC’s religious opinion?)

***for this is that which was spoken by Esaias the prophet; as it is written; this is the everlasting name, the new name that the mouth of the Lord has spoken.***

The fact that;

believers were first called such in Gentile territory, @ 12 years after Acts two;
Peter admonishes Hebrew readers (1 Pet 2:12), nearly 36 years after Acts two, who are in Gentile territory (1 Pet 1:1), teaches the unbiased that “Christian” was a name given to believers by lost Gentiles. That is further proven by the fact that Peter asks his Hebrew brethren not to be “ashamed.”

To believing Gentiles such a name would be considered a nickname that wouldn’t matter, but coming from unsaved Gentiles, who Hebrews considered dogs, because of their covenant relationship with God, their law etc, which scripture proves was from the only true God, that name would have been an insult.

"Who would that person be YOU? Your reasoning on this is biased."

[Not so, as I‘ve repeatedly demonstrated to here, & will in what follows! ]

"I bless God everyday. Hopefully, you will learn the the truth as you continue to study."

[I have learned the truth, as is & will be throughly demonstrated. Thank you.]

Cordially, Dave

 

The following is in response to Frank's 1-17-05; 10:41 AM post

Frank:

"A summary of my position would include the following:

“1. The Old Testament spoke of a new and everlasting name to be bestowed upon the people of God in the gospel age (Isa. 56:5, 6; 62:2; 65:14, 15). If this was not the name “Christian,” then what was the new name?”

[ Previously answered, please, to go back read & count the number of times the name “Hephzibah” is cited as being fulfilled. Thank you .]

“2. Isaiah especially associated the reception of the new name with the call of the Gentiles (62:2);…”

[Isa 62 clearly reads that; “.. the Gentiles shall SEE thy righteousness,..”

Is there not a HUGH difference between SEE & being called a “new name”, Frank? The Lord clearly identifies who & why those are qualified for the “everlasting” , the “new name” does He not (Isa 56:2-8; Gen 17:9-14; Isa 62:2-4)? ]

“ the name Christian was not given until the Gentiles were admitted into the church (cf. Acts 10; 11:26).”

[ It is clear from scripture that believers didn’t initially call themselves “Christian” in Acts 11:26 for were they then Luke would have told us so. Since that is presumption on your part you need to heed (Ps 19:13) .]

“3. The term chrematizo (translated “were called” - Acts 11:26) is employed nine times in the New Testament. It is, without exception, used in contexts wherein the calling is of God….”

[ I know of NO translation committee from 1609 to present time that agrees with such opinion. Again, how is it that the AV, RV, ASV, NASV, NKJ, NIV, etc committees ALL overlooked that?? Again, 3rd time , Frank, what Bible do you use ??? ]

“Some suggest that the grammatical construction of this passage indicates that the name was bestowed by Barnabas and Saul (Woods, p. 67).”

[ Paul said he held nothing back that was profitable to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:20). About 5 years later Paul wrote to the strongest church doctrinally in Gentile territory. Therefore, since according to your CoC religion the name “Christian” is important, doesn’t that make Paul a liar for he never mentions the word? ]

“4. It is inconceivable that Peter would have encouraged the early saints to “glorify God” (1 Pet. 4:16) by the use of a paganistically bestowed “slang” term. The early disciples did not adopt other pejorative titles (cf. Acts 24:5,14).”

[ How hard would it have been for Peter to have said:

“Yet if any man suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf; for this is that which was spoken by Esaias the prophet; as it is written; this is the everlasting name, the new name that the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” were your CoC religion true?

The fact that;

A) believers were first called “Christian” in Gentile territory, & not Hebrew territory, Israel proper, points to the name coming from unbelieving Gentiles because there is no record of believers initially calling themselves “Christian.”
B) Peter admonishes his Hebrew readers (1 Pet 2:12), @ 35 years after Acts 2, who are in Gentile territory (1 Pet 1:1) teaches, the unbiased, that the name “Christian” was a nickname given believers by lost Gentiles.
C) That is further proven by Peter, for he asks his Hebrew brethren not to be “ashamed” when called “Christian”.
D) To believing Gentiles “Christian” would not matter, just like northerners do not resent the name “Yankee”,
E) But “Christian”, coming from unsaved Gentiles, who Hebrews considered dogs since Gentiles were abandoned by God (Gen 12; Rom 1) & thus “aliens from the common wealth of Israel; & strangers from the covenants of promises, having no hope, & without God in the world (Eph 2:11-12) etc, that name would have been an insult, much like “Yankee“ is to many southerners yet today .]

“5. Paul rebuked the Corinthian brothers for wearing human names, e.g., Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, because, he said, these men were not crucified for you, nor were you immersed into their names (1 Cor. 1:12,13). The implication clearly is that since Christ was crucified for them, and as they had been baptized into His name, they had the right to wear His name. What would that have been if not “Christian?”

[ What would you have been called if you were not named “Frank”? Is your mail addressed to you as: “Christian” or as “Christian Frank”? Please , get serious!
In 1 Cor 1:12-13 the emphasis is on the fact the believers were baptized into the Lord Jesus Christ spiritually, there is NO reference to Apollos etc & you know it !]

“6. There is another indication that the Christian name was divinely bestowed. James wrote concerning that “honorable name” which the Christians had “called upon” (passive voice form) them (5:7)….”

[ Fourth time, Frank, what bible are you using ???? James 5:7 from the AV reads:
“Be patient therefore, brethern, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, & hath long patience for it, until he receives the early & latter rain.”

If you meant James 2:7 there is no mention of the word “Christian”, you presume such, consequently (Ps 19:13) applies. You will be far better off standing on “Thus saith the Lord”, just like Martin Luther did. By the way, Luther translated Acts 11:26 like every Bible I’ve read to date.

However , assuming your CoC dogma was correct, wouldn’t James remark about “blaspheme” reinforce my previous points ( A-E ) about Hebrews being insulted since James wrote to the 12 tribes scattered abroad (James 1:1) ?]

“This expression clearly reveals its OT background (Deut. 28:10; 2 Chron. 7:14; Amos 9:12)….”

[ Frank, have you ever seriously read 2 Pet 3:15-16? Now read Deut 4:6-8 & note it was what the nations would hear & say about the “great nation“. Doesn’t Num 6:27; Isa 63:19; Dan 9:18-19 & Amos 3:1-2 prove that you wrest 2 Chron 7:14; Amos 9:12 from context, since that “great nation“ is obviously Israel???? Were there nothing else, & there certainly is more, as I‘ve repeatedly demonstrated, such disproves your CoC religion regarding the word “Christian” .]

“A man was dedicated to God by calling God’s name over him. The act indicated that he belonged to God….”

[ Were that true, wouldn’t such logic(?) apply equally as well to a girl (2 Ki 21:1; Isa 62:2-4) ?]

So Christians bear the worthy name of Christ as indication that they are his people” (Burdick, p. 179).

BaIz, Horst and Schneider, Gerhard (1990), Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), Vol. 1.

Burdick, Donald W. (1981), “James,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Ed., Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), Vol. 12.

Campbell, Alexander (1914), Campbell-Purcell Debate (Nashville: McQuiddy).

******************************************
[Trust me, you do NOT want to quote any “Restoration giANT” or you’ll rue the day you did, as several in the CoC religion have discovered much to their horror. Proof of that is clearly shown in my following post which will be entitled:

“What “Christians” need to know about the “Restoration giANTs“.

If that post doesn’t convince you that I know CoC history & its potentates, then let us start by examining the works of a recent CoC potentate, Foy E. Wallace, Jr., “God’s Prophetic Word”.

The first thing that will become obvious, to the unbiased, is that he, like you, must wrest the O.T & N.T. scriptures consistently in order to prove CoC doctrine, for it is exactly like Peter said (2 Pet 3:15-16). Since the Bible states “.. after his kind” I’ve found that true in the spiritual realm also. You better stay with the Bible, sir.]
****************************************

etc, etc

Cordially, Dave

 

What Christians Need to Know About The "Restoration giANTs"

While “studying the Bible,” with some of the supposed “Church of Christ“ ( CC ), I came across "The Campbellism Special" by Bob Ross, who traced CC doctrine on water baptism back to the Campbells, Scott & Stone, often referred to as “founders, fathers, pioneers” (ffps) by writers in the “Disciples of Christ” ( DC ) from which the CC split in 1906. So I gave a “gospel preacher” & an “elder” the books asking they refute any or all of it. At our next session the elder said Ross was “prejudicial, wrong” etc, yet in 15 years has not offered proof that validates his charge.

[ Why not? Because the majority of Ross’ work are documented writings of past & present DC / CC potentates & Alex Campbell’s son-in-law. Since Ross quotes them in context & draws the obvious correct scriptural / logical conclusions, his work cannot be “prejudicial.“ And since Webster & other unbiased neutral reference works support his conclusions, about Campbell‘s creation & doctrinal influence in the DC, which doctrine was taken by the CC when the denomination (see Webster on “Campbellite”) split in 1906, it cannot honestly be labeled “wrong.” ]

So I asked the elder would he allow one who was dying, but never baptized “for the remission of sins” salvation by solely trusting the Lord Jesus Christ as his savior, & got an emphatic: "NO!" He then asked me:
“How many times did that person have a chance to obey the gospel?”
I said: “Fair enough & then asked him:

Why is there no record of the Campbell's, their families, Scott or Stone having been baptized "for the remission of sins," labeled “the ancient gospel” ( tag ) by Scott? Hadn’t they required converts be so baptized? How could they preach tag a necessity for salvation & fail to realize they never obeyed their dogma, especially since they supposedly examined themselves weekly before taking the Lord's supper (1 Cor 11:28; 2 Cor 13:5)? Is it logical or honest to think that they, including their DC elders, would overlook this were they truly obeying God?

He said; “They were groping & sorting it all out back then so allowances must be made,” which I will allow until Nov 18, 1827, for after that date, according to DC / CC writers, not Methodists, Baptists etc, those the ffps repeatedly debated the necessity of obeying tag with, they demanded that baptism, which they never obeyed. That is the issue! He dropped the subject, leading me to think he’s been shown this before . But to be certain that he completely understood their dilemma I reviewed Alex’s history on baptism.

On June 12, 1812, before Baptist preacher, Matthias Luce, baptized them, Thomas & Alex Campbell made a public retraction of their Presbyterian baptism & explained the reasons they & their families were doing such. Oct 1823, just before the second McCalla - Campbell debate, Alex Campbell & Scott finalized their baptismal doctrine & in that debate Alex offered it. But its practice remained dormant until Nov 18, 1827, when a man applied for such a baptism at the end of Scott’s speech. Soon thereafter the ffps began preaching tag was a requirement for salvation.


I then asked: "Since the ffps preached one must be tag baptized in order to obtain salvation, after Nov 1827, were they obligated to confess their failure of not having obeyed? And since their second immersion would be more important than their first, seeing the emphasis they put on tag , would that not demand another public explanation as to their reason for being re-immersed? Why is that baptism not recorded by either the DC or CC? He refused to answer any question.

[As I’ve yet to meet a CC member who knows or will admit this, that leads me to think the CC clergy are suppressing it. Are deception & collusion fruits of the Spirit? (Jn 4:23-24; 3:19-21; 14:17; Col 3:9; Ps 51:6; Ja 3:14)? If this is not being purposely kept from members & the public, in order to promote & propagate their religion, please explain why CC potentates demand their proselytes be tag baptized or be damned, & yet exempt their ffps from such judgment?

And, since a CC potentate claims that those not tag baptized remain "children of the devil,” & the ffps never were , how is it logical or scriptural for DC / CC writers to credit them with "restoring the church"? He also asserts: "... when that seed is received into honest & good hearts it is able to save the soul (James 1:21-25)." What honest & good heart insists all all must obey & yet excludes the ffps? Does such CC duplicity testify that they have honest & good hearts? Does the CC clergy's refusal to honestly address this subject prove they know the truth & yet refuse to admit it due to the obvious negative consequences ? ]

To confirm the above call 713-477- 4261 or write Pilgrim Publications, POB 66, Pasadena, Texas, 77501 & request: “The Campbellism Special,” which consist of “Acts 2:38 & Baptismal Remission” - “Campbellism - Its History & Heresies” - “The Restoration Movement.” Once you verify all the above regarding the "Restoration giANTs", please , distribute the books to a CC potentate & watch his reaction. Should he plead: “The second law of pardon” for the ffps, please respond, gentle but firm, with the CC’s favorite motto: “ chapter & verse ?“

Then, please , post that response.

Thanks, Dave

 

Dave:

Peter was inspired to write I Pet. 4:16. God used him as an instrument to use the Greek language to write each word. If you do not like the language and the way God had it worded, you should argue with him. I simply researched it and quoted it as it would be found in the original language. I used reliable sources. If you do not want to accept Thayer, Strong, and Arndt and Gingrich, that is your perrogative. You obviosuly believe Peter endorsed the use of a pagan name to describe those of Christ. I do not believe this is or was the case. Believe it or not, there are men who know more about the original language than you or possibly your committee. Again, just because you do not agree does not make Thayer, Strong or Arndt and Gingrich wrong. I believe that your committee is comprised of uninspired men as are Strong,Arndt, Gingrich and Thayer.

The Bible plainly states the couple of Acts 5 LIED. Again, your argument is with God. God hates the lying tongue and will punish those who do lie.( Proverbs 6, Rev. 20). It is still my personal judgment that they were motivated by greed. This may be INFERED by the text. Again, you can disagree. However, your disagreement does not constitute my inference being wrong.

I used many references in my post about this issue. If the contents of the reference is incorrect, please refute it.

Funny, you believe Bob Ross to be an expert about new testament doctrine. He is a self-avowed Calvinist. Do you actually believe he is accurate in his portrayal of the beliefs of others. His work is, for the most part, inaccurate as to what Christians believe. Case in point, Alexander and Thomas Campbell.

I am not a Canpbellite. Alexander and Thomas Campbell did not establish the church. You could not prove that if your life depended on it. By the way, just to set the record straight, the Campbell's came to America to preach in 1811. There were congregations of the church meeting in Celina, Tenn. and Northport Al. in the years 1807 and 09. It is most difficult to establish something that is already in being. For those who care, these dates are based on county records.

I have several books written about Campbell. If you are really interested in what Campbell taught, I sugggest you actually read a book by one who was his contemporary and who was converted by him.The book: The Preacher by Archibald Mcclean discusses what Campbell taught and practiced. Mcclean was converted by Campbell. By the way, my stance concerning baptism or any doctrine is based on the Bible, not what Bob Ross, Campbell or Stone have said. This is a misguided presumption on your part. If you want to know my position on salvation, you should ask. This will keep one from being misrepresented, if it matters to you at all.

As for the new name, I have posted book, chapter and verse. I provided the original language the Holy Spirit used in the passages in question. I provided a summary of my position from scripture and from other references with documentation. You responded by using human reasoning to dismiss the facts presented. This is the very thing you were so adamant about as being evil.

By your reasoning, you cannot prove Paul repented of his sins. The Bible does not one text of the Bible uses the words Paul repented of his sins. However, by IMPLICATION, I know he did because one cannot becomne a Christian without repentance. ( Luke 13: 3).

Language works three and only three ways. They are delarative statement, example, or implication from the totality of the harmonious evidence.

 

Frank:

Due to the length required to specifically fully answer your last post I will answer only segments. But anything you want to discuss I will be happy to do so. As it can be clearly seen, by the unbiased, from our past exchanges your, CoC, dogma has not stood the the test of Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15, & will not in this post .

" Peter was inspired to write I Pet. 4:16. God used him as an instrument to use the Greek language to write each word. If you do not like the language and the way God had it worded, you should argue with him ... [ "

[ I’ve no argument with God, but obviously you do, as you are proving, for like your religious predecessors you also were determined to make God, Luke, Paul & Peter say that the “everlasting”, “new name” was “Christian”. So I remind you of something you stated in an earlier post, which I answered yet you deliberately chose to ignore, thus I expand on it now least you claim my original reply was not through enough. Fair enough?

" The new name could not be Hephizibah. This name was of human origin, and one that was under the old covenant ... "

[ Hephzibah was given by God, thru Isaiah who was God’s mouth back then (Isa 6:7; 1:20), & not until after (Isa 62:2-4) does that name appear in scripture (2 Ki 21:1). Consequently those two points alone completely destroy your, CoC, dogma regarding “Christian“. Were that all, & there is a lot more as I’ve previously presented, that should be enough to convince any unbiased honest believer. ]

" I simply researched it and quoted it as it would be found in the original language. I used reliable sources. If you do not want to accept Thayer, Strong, and Arndt and Gingrich, that is your perrogative. You obviosuly believe Peter endorsed the use of a pagan name to describe those of Christ ... "

[ As you well know, the CoC always cite Acts 26:28 as a proof text for “Christian”. You were asked at the start of our exchange (1-5-05, 11:01 AM post) several questions to which #5) correctly summarizes the previous points made.

5) Any appeal to Acts 26:28 being “prophetic“, a lost king God’s mouth in saying “Christian,” is blasphemous! And yet the CoC deliberately does.

So for you to state ".. You obviosuly believe Peter endorsed the use of a pagan name to describe those of Christ " is inconsistent at best. Like someone said; “Consistency, thou art a jewel.” ]


" I do not believe this is or was the case. Believe it or not, there are men who know more about the original language than you or possibly your committee. Again, just because you do not agree does not make Thayer, Strong or Arndt and Gingrich wrong. I believe that your committee is comprised of uninspired men as are Strong, Arndt, Gingrich and Thayer ... "

[ Again, Frank, I do NOT have a committee! What part of that statement don’t you understand? The AV, RV, ASV, NASV, NKJ, NIV etc had translation committees. Not one of those committees agrees with the CoC dogma you are so desperately trying to make God, Luke, Paul & Peter say.

Go to http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/
then search for “THE LEARNED MEN”, article # A115. Buy it, then read it slowly, & try thinking for a change. There were two main opposing religious factions represented by those 47 men on the AV translation committee. Isn’t it ironic that neither group saw Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet 4:16 the way you think(?) they should? Isn’t it even more ironic that every translation committee for every Bible since 1609 AD has agreed with the AV committee & not you? E-mail me your address & I’ll send you a copy for free. Fair enough?]

“The Bible plainly states the couple of Acts 5 LIED. Again, your argument is with God. God hates the lying tongue and will punish those who do lie.( Proverbs 6, Rev. 20). It is still my personal judgment that they were motivated by greed. This may be INFERED by the text. Again, you can disagree. However, your disagreement does not constitute my inference being wrong.

[ Most certainly does, as you well know, thus the reason you refuse to tell this board where the Apostles got that doctrine from in Acts 2:42. You realize should you correctly (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15) do so that will destroy the CoC facade that; “We are the Church you can read about in Acts two.” Frank, how did Ananias lie, as he never said a word to Peter & there is no record of his verbally having lied? Please see my further remarks on Ananias near the end of this post. ]

“I used many references in my post about this issue. If the contents of the reference is incorrect, please refute it.

[Already have, everything that scripturally pertains to the CoC’s insistence that the “new name“, “everlasting name“ is “Christian”. How did you get this far & miss it all?

Example: My 1-18-05, 2:01 PM post, where I responded to typical CoC wresting of scripture, which you have abundantly proven to this board from the start, as to your blatant abuse of Deut 28:10; 2 Chron 7:14; Amos 9:12.

Had you heeded my frequent plea to Eph 2:12 you would have surely know that it is impossible (look the word up) for the Gentiles to have had a “new name” an “everlasting” name waiting on them once they became believers. Now what part of that statement don’t you understand? Paul said that Gentiles had “nothing”. Sir, what part of “nothing” don’t you understand?

PLEASE, carefully review my response to you, regarding Deut 28:10; 2 Chron 7:14; Amos 9:12, then either admit you wrested scripture from context, like Peter said you would (2 Pet 3:15-16) or correctly explain my failure to obey God’s instructions (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15). Sir, I await your thoughtful reply. Thank you.

You were informed at the start of this exchange that such would be according to God’s instructions (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15). You were reminded of that frequently & even given a “heads-up”, that the CoC noble motto; “chapter & verse”, would be deserted once you saw the motto couldn’t sustain CoC dogma, as I have continuously pointed out. That is exactly why you must go outside the Holy record, Frank! ]

“Funny, you believe Bob Ross to be an expert about new testament doctrine….”

[ Please, indicate where I posted that about Bob Ross? Sir, I do not put words in your mouth, & would appreciate the same treatment. Fair enough? ]

“He is a self-avowed Calvinist. Do you actually believe he is accurate in his portrayal of the beliefs of others. His work is, for the most part, inaccurate as to what Christians believe. Case in point, Alexander and Thomas Campbell….”

[Can’t speak to what Ross belief is. Apparently you know, so what is your point?
What does Ross’ belief have to do with his gathering documented DC / CC material in order to put together the facts regarding the founders of the Disciples of Christ (DoC), their history, dogma & its relationship to CoC history & its dogma?

That CoC potentate (elder), quoted in “What Christians should know about the Restoration giANTs’, commended me at the start of our “Bible study“. He thanked me for directly asking him what he believed. He said he appreciated such consideration & the opportunity to be allowed to speak for himself. Sir, I haven’t been taught to put words in peoples mouths, much less God’s. I think that is fair policy, don’t you? ]

“I am not a Canpbellite….

[ Please, where did I say you were such? However, that elder I quoted in my last post claimed he wasn’t a “Campbellite”, in fact he begged me or anyone to else to prove that he was. I must have, because though he refused to admit it he wouldn’t discuss it on an FM station when invited, even though it was to be at my expense. ]

“Alexander and Thomas Campbell did not establish the church….”

[ Again, PLEASE, where did I say they did? Do not put words in my mouth! Don’t you find it ironic that is exactly what your trying to do to God, Luke, Paul & Peter also? Who taught you to do such, Frank? ]

“You could not prove that if your life depended on it….”

[ Strange, that is almost verbatim what that CoC “elder” said?!? I gave him two points, & if you will stay the course on this board I will give them to you also. Apparently those two points were enough to convince him that he would do well not to take advantage of free radio time. Stay the course, Frank, just stay the course.]

“By the way, just to set the record straight, the Campbell's came to America to preach in 1811. There were congregations of the church meeting in Celina, Tenn. and Northport Al. in the years 1807 and 09. It is most difficult to establish something that is already in being. For those who care, these dates are based on county records.”

[Frank, send me a mailing address & I’ll send you the “Campbellism Special” for free. Once you & peers have thoroughly reviewed the contents I will be happy to see / hear you “set the record straight”. Fair enough? To date there is only one error I found in the material, he missed a date by 100 years, which is clearly a typo error since the 100 year correction makes the date accurate. ]

“I have several books written about Campbell. If you are really interested in what Campbell taught, I sugggest you actually read a book by one who was his contemporary and who was converted by him. The book: The Preacher by Archibald Mcclean discusses what Campbell taught and practiced. Mcclean was converted by Campbell….“

[ Excellent, but two questions, least you waste money on unnecessary postage.
In that book does; 1) Does Campbell confess to being re-immersed “for the remission of sins”? 2) Did he baptize Mcclean “for the remission of sins”?
If the answer is yes to both questions I’d be delighted to read that book. Any expense incured in your mailing it to me will be reimbursed.
If the answer is no, save your postage money. Campbell makes Sen. John Kerry’s flip-flopping look like a rank amateur, & I can back that up on or off board anytime you want to pursue it!!
That is why I asked you to contact me by e-mail if you wanted to discuss the, supposed, Restoration beliefs which the “Restoration” potentates refused to obey!
This board was set up initially to learn CoC dogma, not the antics of its “Restoration giANTs”. Fair enough? ]

“By the way, my stance concerning baptism or any doctrine is based on the Bible, not what Bob Ross, Campbell or Stone have said. This is a misguided presumption on your part. If you want to know my position on salvation, you should ask. This will keep one from being misrepresented, if it matters to you at all.”

[ Again you put words in my mouth. Relax, we‘ll get to such in due time, if you stay the course. ]

“As for the new name, I have posted book, chapter and verse….”

[ Not in accordance with Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15 as has been repeatedly shown, & as your recent wresting of Deut 28:10; 2 Chron 7:14; Amos 9:12 thoroughly proves! You knew perfectly well those verses applied to ISRAEL, but your CoC dogma wouldn’t let you tell the truth, which is precisely your problem.

“I provided the original language the Holy Spirit used in the passages in question. I provided a summary of my position from scripture… “

[ Your “summary” is not in accordance with God’s instructions to you (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15). Frank, what part of that don’t you understand?]

“Language works three and only three ways. They are delarative statement, example, or implication from the totality of the harmonious evidence.

[ Wrong, sir, there are two more. There is sign language &, as Ananias proved, body language. When is the last time someone shot you the bird for telling them the truth?]

Now before you let your temper get to you stop, & think over the following. Before you respond.

I’m told there are over 500 denominations in “Christianity”. That being true, would it not be a fair indictment, to all but one, that they have failed to obey God’s clear instructions for correctly handling His word? Obviously you think / believe the CoC is the one true Church! Therefore, does it not stand to reason that if the CoC’s dogma cannot stand the test of Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15 that it too must be wrong? Frank, cool down & think about that. Take a week off before responding. I thank you for your time, sir.

 

Dave:

You are not serious are you?. You actually believe LANGUAGE works more than three ways. How? We are talking about what is written in the word of God, not what someone might do in a road rage on an interstate highway. By the way, what does it mean when someone holds up their finger in the first century? Enquiring minds want to know. How do you know this to be true?

Do you have any idea about hermeneutics? If you do understand the science of interpretation( hermeneutics), your retort about body,and sign languge is an obvious joke. However, God never reveals any MESSSAGE IN HIS WORD WITH BODY OR SIGN LANGUAGRE, NOT ONE TIME.

Written communuication does not work this way. The last time I checked the Bible was written in words. I would like a book, chapter and verse on this. Oh, I forgot, give me the body language, sign.

God uses language to reveal his will to us. Language always works three and only three ways, your unsubstantiated claims notwithstanding.

I think you are the one who needs to take a week off. While you take time out, enroll in a hermeneutics or a basic language usage class. If you have already taken these classes, you should ask for your money back.

You completely ignore the original language God used to pen the words of the scriptures. Your claim I am wrong because you say, some disagree, is in error. I posted the most respected language scholars of the day who agree with what I posted. You seem to believe your committee. I believe in men who are the most respected in this field.( Thayer, Strong, Arndt and Gingrich). Furthermore, the totality of the evidence in this matter supports my position. I provided book, chapter, and verse. I provided immediate, remote context, as well as the original language for the passages in question. You simply dismissed them by saying some committee disagreed without any substantiation. Or, I was wrong because you disagreed.


I have already pointed out a major error of Bob Ross. He believes Campbell was the founder of the Church. The county records in Celina ,Tenn. and Northport Al. have the church meeting 2 and 4 years prior to Campbell's arrival on the shores of America. I asked you to study a contemporary of Campbell's. Instead, you spend your energy believing a man who obviously has not done his homework. This says a lot about your subjective bias and poor scholarship. Once again, the book is entitled: Alexander Campbell as a Preacher by Archibald Mcclean;The Christian Publishing Co. It was republished by Reed and Company, Nashville Tenn. 1973. Do your own homework. I did mine on Ross. As you like to say, fair enough?

Campbell baptized scripturally. He baptized Jeremiah Sullivan Black the Chief Justice of Pennsylvania.( page 7). I suggest you read it for yourself. It is not revealed as to who or when Campbell was baptized. The real question is what does the Bible teach? Again, I follow the new testament of Christ, not Calvin, Luther or Campbell.

Furthermore, Campbell was vehemently opposed to using men's names by which to identify themselves spiritually. He rejected human names and creeds. Again, another fact, neither you or Bob Ross seem to understand. Campbell was no John Kerry spiritually. You show your ignorance in this statement. It is pretty easy to cast stones at a deadman.

Dave, you brought up Campbell, not me. You should spend more time studying the Bible and less reading an uninformed website ( Bob Ross). I simply set the record straight.

Two can play the question game. Can you prove Campbell was not immersed for the remission of sins? Can you prove Mcclean and Black were not baptized scripturally? If you know the answers, just provide the evidence. You do not have to mail it. Just post it!!

Furthermore, to make an assertion does not prove it. Dave, you have not substantiated any of your claims. The things you have proven is you do not know the difference between the old and new testament, hermeneuitcs or the original language used by God to communicate to man. You seem to believe the prophecies of the Old testament were for Israel exclusively. I posted book, chapter and verse as to why Isaiah 62:2 is applicable to Jews and Gentiles. My interpretation is harmonious with the word of God.

My summary is correct according to the scriptures, your unsubstantiated assertions not withstanding.

I never said the passages in Amos, Chronicles, and Duet. did not apply to Israel. Again, this must be some of your clairvoyant body language interpretations.

Furthermore, how do you know Ananias did not tell Peter a lie? If Ananias lied to God through the spirit, you still would not know it unless God revealed it by WRITTEN means. Unless, you are going to claim inspiration for yourself. Your argument is foolish.

Ephesians 2:12 says nothing about your claim. It teaches that gentiles were( past tense excluded from the promises). However, Paul says now presently they were as a result of the blood of Christ. Therefore, the new name would be everlasting for both Jew and Gentile as God is no respector of persons . ( Romans 2:11, Galatians 3:26-29, I Cor. 12:12-14). Isaiah's prophecy was for all who would become the children of God. This is consistent and in harmony with the new testament of Christ. ( Hebrews 9:15-17).

Acts 26:28 is inspired of God. Luke was inspired to write it. Did he lie? The statement of Agrippa is not blasphemous. Pilate wrote the inscription Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews. Is this statement blasphemous? If not, why not?( John 19:19). The centurion at the cross said truly this was a righteous man.( Luke 23:47). Is this statement blasphemous? If not, why not? I believe Ihave answered the Acts 26:28 question.

In reference to I Peter 4:16, did Peter command us to glorify God with the pagan name Christian?

By the way, the emotion of anger is not what I am feeling. Of course, you believe it is because of my body language, and signs in my post.

Dave, I would be more than happy to debate salvation issues. In fact, our congregation has a television program on every Sunday at 4:30 out of LaGrange Ga. Perhaps, a televised forum would be a good way to get out the truth.

 

Frank:

"You are not serious are you?. You actually believe LANGUAGE works more than three ways. How?..."

[ Already stated! Obviously you're not capable of understanding English, so get one of those 5 English teachers & give them your undivided attention. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 2nd edition, 1951, the word "Language", "2). Any means, vocal or other , of expressing or communicating feeling or thought."

Frank, what part of that statement don’t you understand?

Sir, you need to study Webster thoroughly! ]

".. We are talking about what is written in the word of God.."

[ Exactly what I'm doing, & precisely what you're not, as you have repeatedly demonstrated by going outside "the word of God", like any Roman Catholic priest does when cornered doctrinally with a Catholic Douay-Rheims bible scripturally

Your diversion from scripture is the only way you can even begin to find support for the CoC's blatantly biased dogma, which forces God, Luke, Paul & Peter to say that the "everlasting name, the "new name" was "Christian".

Were there but one verse, & there are a whole lot more as I've repeatedly shown, that thoroughly destroys such interpretation it is Eph 2:12. Try reading that verse without your CoC eyeglasses. Better yet, get those five English teachers & have them carefully read my rebuttals to you on this subject, & then try thinking for a change, or admit there is no scripture in any Bible, up to the present time that supports your, CoC, dogma.

And, since you claim to be talking ".. about what is written in the word of God ..", how about identifying what bible you use. That is the fourth time you have been asked. Why is it you deliberately refuse to answer that simple request? Is it not because once you do the PROOF, of what I‘ve repeatedly stated, will be apparent to all that your perverted CoC dogma does not stand the test of Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15?]

", not what someone might do in a road rage on an interstate highway..."

[The clear context was Ananias, as you conveniently forgot! You knew Ananias was the subject because you were told at the start of my post to look for it at the end. Since you deliberately refuse to expound (adequately) on how Ananias lied since, as Webster states, "2. Any means, vocal or other , of expressing or communicating feeling or thought", he never said a word to Peter & there is nothing in the Divine record that he orally lied.

You know that to scripturally answer my question destroys the CoC’s claim that: “We are the church you can read about in the Bible”. The scriptural answer, as you been repeatedly shown, to Ananias death is found in Acts 2:42, the key words "apostle's doctrine". ]

" By the way, what does it mean when someone holds up their finger in the first century? Enquiring minds want to know. How do you know this to be true?.. "

[ lol Wait until someone pulls a gun on you, Frank. Trust me, getting a "finger" is little in comparison. And yes, that happened to me at a truck terminal in B-ham, Ala in the late `70's after I interrupted a Pentecostal wannabee potentate mesmerizing sleep deprived truckers, waiting load assignments, with tales of signs & wonders.

He claimed some yahoo had raised the dead in S. Car. I gave him “chapter & verse” regarding signs being a sign to Israel near & afar off were only only in the 1st century. Seeing his dogma being shredded, & the truckers now realizing they been lied to, he was agitated. I asked him were was his evidence about the yahoo healer / bring em back from the dead whatever. He said out in his truck, so I walked out there with him, as I then had a brother-in-law dying of M.S.

He jumped up into the driver seat & I hit the pull handle & was standing above him when he reached under the seat for “ his evidence”. I was introduced to a snub nose revolver. No, I'm not embellishing this, just ask the Lord, if you make this judgment seat (1 Cor 3:8-15). If not, that will be the least of your concerns. But before I’m through with CoC dogma, Lord willing, you’re going to wish he had pulled the trigger. As to the modus operandi in expressing oneself back in the 1st century, can’t say. I may be retired but I’m not that old. lol ]

"Do you have any idea about hermeneutics? If you do understand the science of interpretation( hermeneutics), your retort about body,and sign languge is an obvious joke…”

[Frank, you need to get out into the real world. It’s an eye opener. When is the last time just you, & the Holy Spirit, handed out tracts at a bar, a large truck stop, had a car full of JW whatevers, with a 6-6 250 bodyguard visit you, because you prevented one of their potentates from getting back into his car, when he couldn’t explain the Kuwait war after claiming Isa 2:4 was history etc?

I wasn’t debasing or threatening, I was making him see, like you, the truth of his lying dogma for the first time in his religious life. Isaiah 2:4 couldn’t be history for Kuwait had just been fought over. That man wouldn‘t admit there had been a war over there. Just like a “Campbellite” cannot face reality when shown their dogma is a lie that fails Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15. Yes, Frank, you really need to get out in the world. lol]

However, God never reveals any MESSSAGE IN HIS WORD WITH BODY OR SIGN LANGUAGRE, NOT ONE TIME…”

[ If Ananias could talk he would thoroughly correct you, with vigor. Unfortunately he can‘t, thus I will examine your CoC dogma (1 Thes 5:21). So switch to de-caff asap, then explain how Ananias lied, since its obvious, to the unbiased, that your CoC dogma fails the “everlasting, the “new name” being “Christian” test of Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15, sir. ]

“Written communuication does not work this way. The last time I checked the Bible was written in words. I would like a book, chapter and verse on this. Oh, I forgot, give me the body language, sign… “

[ Wrong, as God proved in Acts 5, thereby teaching the Church & Israel. Frank, what part of that statement don‘t you understand?]

“God uses language to reveal his will to us. Language always works three and only three ways, your unsubstantiated claims notwithstanding….”

[ Read again the above. Thank you.]

“I think you are the one who needs to take a week off. While you take time out, enroll in a hermeneutics or a basic language usage class. If you have already taken these classes, you should ask for your money back.

[ Would love to, but my time is booked for this & next week. No, I don’t need a hermeneutics or basic language class, for after watching your CoC explanation on “Christian” it is something I can live without, thank you.]

“You completely ignore the original language …”

[ The last potentate, a JW, that ranted on like you about “the originals” , because I was shredding his dogma, was handed “The Greek New Testament” interliner by Zondervan, 1976 printing. I gently but firmly told him to read 2 Tim 1:12, The guy couldn’t find the Epistle much less the verse. Needless to say, he was embarrassed.

This board was initially set up to discuss CoC dogma. Since you can’t find such in your hereto now unidentified bible, are we to believe that noble creed of the CoC, “chapter & verse”, has been replaced with “the originals”?!? You need help!

If all the translating committees since 1609 to present haven’t produced a Bible that you can stand on & boldly declare; “Thus saith the Lord!” just what is their use? Book ends, door stops etc?

AGAIN, my question you refuse to answer. Are you telling this board that all those translation committees are wrong & that the various men you cite are right? That being true, which it isn’t, as you well know, why didn’t they give us the benefit of their intellects by translating a Bible for the uneducated believers? Try thinking for a change, Frank. I know it will be hard, but please try, you just might learn something.]

“.. God used to pen the words of the scriptures. Your claim I am wrong because you say, some disagree,..”

[ Not some, Frank, ALL translation committees in respect to your perverted, look the word up, attempt to make The Lord God Almighty, Luke, Paul & Peter agree with the CoC’s claim that “Christian” was the “everlasting”, the “new name” God meant in Isa 62:2, when the answer is clearly in Isa 62:4. How many times have you been told that, Frank? Sir, you are a classic example of religious indoctrination! ]

“.. is in error. I posted the most respected language scholars of the day who agree with what I posted…”

[ Are you saying they’re infallible? That they couldn’t make a mistake? Why didn’t they print a Bible, Frank? Could it be that they afraid their bias would be exposed by their peers & they were not about to be ridiculed for such? It is my experience that the greater the degree in education, the more inflated the ego. ]

“.. You seem to believe your committee.

[ Frank, either post where I stated such or apologize! I have warned you repeatedly about your putting words in my mouth. Such continuous defamation is unworthy of a lost person, much less one that claims to be “Christian.“ Is that what your god & or depraved religion teaches you to do? ]


“.. I believe in men who are the most respected in this field.( Thayer, Strong, Arndt and Gingrich). Furthermore, the totality of the evidence in this matter supports my position. I provided book, chapter, and verse…”

[When such references were to “chapter & verse” in the Bible, such were repeatedly refuted, as the board clearly shows. Better get those English teachers, Frank. ]

“.. I provided immediate, remote context, as well as the original language for the passages in question. You simply dismissed them by saying some committee ..”

[ That’s committees, Frank, not “committee“. I never said “committee”, as you well know. Again, you defame me but such is to be expected from one that would make Almighty God say what He never said. What did the Lord call people that did such, Frank. Reckon your English teachers can find it for you, because its obvious you won’t read it if I post it!! ]


“.. disagreed without any substantiation. Or, I was wrong because you disagreed.”

[Wrong because I’ve proven the CoC dogma regarding “Christian” cannot be found in any Bible since 1611 AD. What part of that statement don’t you understand?]

“I have already pointed out a major error of Bob Ross. He believes Campbell was the founder of the Church…”

[ Frank, no more of your CoC dung ! Either give this board immediately where Ross stated such, in context, or apologize! Your antics are typical of every CoC potentate I’ve ever encountered when faced with the facts regarding their perverted religion & their wresting scriptures. Give us your evidence immediately or apologize (Rom 13:9; Col 3:9)! ]

“.. The county records in Celina ,Tenn. and Northport Al. have the church meeting 2 and 4 years prior to Campbell's arrival on the shores of America. I asked you to study a contemporary of Campbell's…”

[ That’s a lie Frank, & you know it! Here was my response to your offer which was posted 1-20-05, 2:16 PM

[ Excellent, but two questions, least you waste money on unnecessary postage.
In that book does;
1) Campbell confess to being re-immersed “for the remission of sins”?
2) Did he baptize Mcclean “for the remission of sins”?
If the answer is yes to both questions I’d be delighted to read that book. Any expense incurred in your mailing it to me will be reimbursed.
If the answer is no, save your postage money. Campbell makes Sen. John Kerry’s flip-flopping look like a rank amateur, & I can back that up on or off board anytime you want to pursue it!!
That is why I asked you to contact me by e-mail if you wanted to discuss the, supposed, Restoration beliefs which the “Restoration” potentates refused to obey!
This board was set up initially to learn CoC dogma, not the antics of its “Restoration giANTs”. Fair enough?

When are you going to learn to read, Frank?]

“.. Instead, you spend your energy believing a man who obviously has not done his homework. This says a lot about your subjective bias and poor scholarship. Once again, the book is entitled: Alexander Campbell as a Preacher by Archibald Mcclean;The Christian Publishing Co. It was republished by Reed and Company, Nashville Tenn. 1973. Do your own homework. I did mine on Ross. As you like to say, fair enough? “Campbell baptized scripturally…”

[ Anything but address the issue, typical CoC antics! Read it again, Frank.

In that book does;
1) Campbell confess to being re-immersed “for the remission of sins”?
2) Did he baptize Mcclean “for the remission of sins”?
If the answer is yes to both questions I’d be delighted to read that book. Any expense incurred in your mailing it to me will be reimbursed.
If the answer is no, save your postage money. Campbell makes Sen. John Kerry’s flip-flopping look like a rank amateur, & I can back that up on or off board anytime you want to pursue it!!
That is why I asked you to contact me by e-mail if you wanted to discuss the, supposed, Restoration beliefs which the “Restoration” potentates refused to obey!
This board was set up initially to learn CoC dogma, not the antics of its “Restoration giANTs”. Fair enough?

Now help me out, noble Frank. Where did I say Campbell didn’t baptize scripturally?
Doesn’t the question read: In that book does; 1) Campbell confess to being re-immersed “for the remission of sins”? ]

“.. He baptized Jeremiah Sullivan Black the Chief Justice of Pennsylvania.( page 7). I suggest you read it for yourself…”

[ Sir, I don’t care if he baptized everyone on planet earth in his time. My question to you is: In that book does; 1) Campbell confess to being re-immersed “for the remission of sins”? And noble Frank’s answer is: “It is not revealed as to who or when Campbell was baptized…”

Therefore, he deliberately refused, like the rest of the “Restoration GIantS” to “obey the gospel”, i.e., be baptized “for the remission of sins“, which is the real issue, & you know it!!

“ The real question is what does the Bible teach? Again, I follow the new testament of Christ, not Calvin, Luther or Campbell…”

[ Frank, Ps 51:6 & Jn 4:23 are the real issue, which you display your rejection of by what you post. Show me where Luther or Calvin professed physically practiced doctrine they deliberately refused to obey, sir? The sooner you realize truth is what God desires the sooner your salvation.

Example: In an exchange with a “gospel preacher” I said CoC dogma reminded me of the Roman Catholic church in their respective views as to water regeneration, except the RC reserve “limbo“ for children not baptized.
He retorted the Catholicism mode of baptism was wrong etc & then claimed the CoC don’t teach water regeneration. I let it ride & we went on for @ an hour when the Lord gave me wisdom. I asked what he would do, as a wounded lost soldier dying alone on a deserted island with no hope of rescue, knowing he was lost. He said: “I’d baptize myself!” The man was so indoctrinated he couldn’t see his obvious conflict.

1) He has no authority to baptize.
2) He definitely believes in water regeneration.]

“Furthermore, Campbell was vehemently opposed to using men's names by which to identify themselves spiritually. He rejected human names and creeds. Again, another fact, neither you or Bob Ross seem to understand…”

[Frank, don’t play that CoC game with God (Ps 51:6)! Whether you admit it or not down here you will definitely tell the truth to Him. So see Webster & @ 30 other unbiased publicly accepted neutral reference works regarding “Campbellite, DoC, CoC etc before your meeting. Now is the time for repentance, not then. ]

“.. Campbell was no John Kerry spiritually. You show your ignorance in this statement. It is pretty easy to cast stones at a deadman.”

[ Frank, PLEASE , set up a board on what Campbell believed & taught & I’ll let the unbiased decide for themselves if Campbell was doctrinally consistent. Fair enough?
Meantime, lets have your scriptural answer for the death of Ananias in the light of “ apostles doctrine” which is found in Acts 2:42, sir.

“Dave, you brought up Campbell, not me…”

[ Again you display your inability to tell the truth. You were instructed to e-mail me if you wished to discuss what the “Restorationists” really taught. When you quoted him you opened the door. So open up a board for the discussion of Campbell & get ready to prove your absurd statements regarding the “Restoration giANTs” . ]

“ You should spend more time studying the Bible…”

[As the board can clearly see, it is you that need to study the Bible. Has it never occurred to you that every one of the folks you quote are damned, according to CoC dogma? Don’t you find that ironic? Why doesn’t that alert you to the spirit you follow, since you use the damned to establish CoC dogma, Frank? ]

“ .. and less reading an uninformed website ( Bob Ross)…”

[Frank, I got the “Campbellism Special” in `89, my computer was a Tandy TRS 80. You ever try to get on-line with a TRS 80? ]

“ I simply set the record straight…”

[Only in your mind, friend, only in your mind, which your posts attest to. ]

“Two can play the question game. Can you prove Campbell was not immersed for the remission of sins?…”

[It is not a “game”, this is serious! The DoC & CoC were so proud of their “fathers“, “founders”, “pioneers” (ffps), at least back then, that had they been baptized “for the remission of sins” it would have been very well documented, & you know it! Go back & carefully read that post regarding the “Restoration giANTs“ & my questions to that “elder“ which he refuses to answer for he to knows the truth of the matter! ]

“ Can you prove Mcclean and Black were not baptized scripturally?…”

[ When did I say they weren’t? Can’t you honestly see what your blind faith to the CoC dogma has done to your ability to objectively read & analyze? ]

“If you know the answers, just provide the evidence. You do not have to mail it. Just post it!!”

[Please see all the above. Thank you. ]

“Furthermore, to make an assertion does not prove it. Dave, you have not substantiated any of your claims…”

[ Not in your mind, or those likewise indoctrinated, but the rest see it & will no doubt use it on those like you who reject God‘s clear instructions (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15) when your indoctrinated come a knocking. ]

“The things you have proven is you do not know the difference between the old and new testament, hermeneuitcs or the original language used by God to communicate to man. You seem to believe the prophecies of the Old testament were for Israel exclusively…”

[ When God says something you best pay close attention to who it is said to, that is common, but obviously not in your case, sense. Whenever doctrine is taught it must, as God said thru His mouth piece back then, stand the test of Isa 28:10. In the NT such is reinforced by the Apostle Paul, to a young preacher (2 Tim 2:15), & the rest of believers (1 Thes 5:21).
Every verse you, deliberately, quoted out of context was shown to be to Israel. If that offends you, deal with it! I’m not indoctrinated, been there, seen how its done but, thank God, was delivered (Ps 119:130). It is your desperation to prove that your CoC religion is right, when you know your wrong, that makes you blind to what God clearly said. ]

“I posted book, chapter and verse as to why Isaiah 62:2 is applicable to Jews and Gentiles. My interpretation is harmonious with the word of God….”

[ Not in your wildest dreams, for Isa 62:4 is GOD’s answer! And, PLEASE, show this board where you refuted my rebuttal of the verses you have deliberately taken out of context in your desperate attempt to prove CoC dogma. ]

“My summary is correct according to the scriptures, your unsubstantiated assertions not withstanding… “

[See the above answer & try thinking for a change, Frank. Thank you.]

“I never said the passages in Amos, Chronicles, and Duet. did not apply to Israel.”

[That’s pathetic, & you know it! Why cite the verses if such were not your intent to substantiate your CoC dogma that “Christian” was the new name”? That is typical of CoC potentates.

Example: In a running discussion with a CoC “elder“, when he began to see the CoC dogma couldn’t stand God’s test (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15), he started sending me CoC tracts, which I promptly refuted with “chapter & verse”. In desperation he asked if I really expected him to review everything prior to its distribution.
I asked; “Isn’t it the noble motto of the CoC to “speak where the Bible speaks & to be silent where the Bible is silent?” (It is & he knew it!) “Why did you send such erroneous material to me when you knew that I had come to you to learn the dogma the CoC taught?”
“After all, don’t you teach CoC dogma, what am I to think when you personally send me such material?“ I’m still waiting his answer, @ 15 years latter.

When a another CoC potentate was shown the errors in V.E.Howard, “are you listening”, foology I was quickly introduced to Foy E. Wallace, Jr. When I showed them his errors I was ignored. That is why I state that CoC dogma is perverted & its potentates indoctrinated. I don’t say that to be cruel, it is a fact! Therefore, it is obvious, to the unindoctrinated, those potentates follow the same elusive spirit Campbell followed, in refusing to be baptized “for the remission of sins”, even though he taught, preached & debated such after Nov 1827.
“Consistency, thou art a jewel!” ]

“Again, this must be some of your clairvoyant body language interpretations….”

[Anything but face reality, right, Frank?]

“Furthermore, how do you know Ananias did not tell Peter a lie? ..“

[ 1) Because it isn’t in the Divine record! (You ever read Deut 29:29; 2 Tim 3:15-16, Frank?)
2) It is clear from Acts 2-4 what was happening back then.
3) The reason for what was happening is found in Acts 2:42. Frank, what part of “And they continued steadfastly in the Apostles doctrine…” don’t you understand? ]

“If Ananias lied to God through the spirit, you still would not know it unless God revealed it by WRITTEN means. Unless, you are going to claim inspiration for yourself. Your argument is foolish…”

[ Ever read Deut 29:29; 2 Tim 3:15-16, & then tried thinking for a change, Frank? Trust me, it’s an eye opener. ]

“Ephesians 2:12 says nothing about your claim. It teaches that gentiles were( past tense excluded from the promises). However, Paul says now presently they were as a result of the blood of Christ. Therefore, the new name would be everlasting for both Jew and Gentile as God is no respector of persons ..”

[ Didn’t God warn all about tampering with His word (Deut 12:32; Prov 30:6)? Isn’t that exactly what the devil, the Pharisees & the CoC have done? Your perverted dogma would have us believe that Paul, the mouth of God for half the NT, lied when he told the Ephesian elders that he held nothing back that was profitable to them (Acts 20:20), & then forget about the name “Christian” when he wrote Ephesians. Such is presumptuous (Ps 19:13)!
You prove my point about your indoctrination, for Eph 2:12 is clear to all but the indoctrinated, Gentiles had nothing. Again, what part of “nothing” don’t you understand? ]

“( Romans 2:11,Galatians 3:26-29, I Cor. 12:12-14)…”

[Excellent example of CoC wresting of scripture & presumption. Please explain how Rom 2:11 relates to the name “Christian”.]

“Isaiah's prophecy was for all who would become the children of God. This is consistent and in harmony with the new testament of Christ. ( Hebrews 9:15-17)…”

[ Again you wrest scripture (2 Pet 3:15-16) & presume (Ps 19:13) for Isaiah stated the name was Hephzibah (Isa 62:2-4), which was given to Hebrews & proselytes that had taken hold of His covenant (Gen 17:9-14) were keeping His Sabbaths (Isa 56:2-8-6). Since the the devil & Pharisees did such are you going to also? Trust me, Frank that’s not good company to keep, your blatant arrogance in handling God’s word is apparent. ]

“Acts 26:28 is inspired of God. Luke was inspired to write it. Did he lie? The statement of Agrippa is not blasphemous…”

[ 1) I never said Acts 26:28 was not inspired!

2) I never said Luke lied!

3) Your appeal to a lost king being God’s mouth is BLASPHEMOUS! For just once in your miserable indoctrinated CoC life try to engage your brain & think for yourself.

A) No faithful lost or saved Hebrew would have given Agrippa any credence for being “the mouth of the Lord” & you BLESSED well know it!

B) The Lord Jesus Christ specifically chose 12 Apostles (Jn 6:70). Upon the death of Judas Peter stated the qualifications for his replacement, & God proved Matthias (Acts 1:15-26; Prov 16:33) Since nobody but the Apostles were empowered to set doctrine for the Church it is BLASPHEMOUS to claim Agrippa’s mouth is a fulfillment of Isa 62:2 “.. mouth of the Lord shall name.” when he said “Christian”. According to The Lord, if your are His, the Spirit of truth will show you your error, & if you can’t see that your CoC dogma is wrong what does that tell you (Jn 14:17; 15:2616:13-14; I Jn 4:6)?

4) That was the last time, Frank (1 Cor 14:38; Titus 3:10-11) You can go ahead & play your CoC game, but your blood is not on me. ]

“Pilate wrote the inscription Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews. Is this statement blasphemous? If not, why not?( John 19:19)...”

[ No, & you BLESSED well know it! WHERE in the O.T. is it prophesied that: “… which the mouth of the Lord shall name” in respect to Pilot’s statement “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews”, Frank?

“The centurion at the cross said truly this was a righteous man.( Luke 23:47). Is this statement blasphemous? If not, why not? I believe Ihave answered the Acts 26:28 question….”

[ No, & you BLESSED well know it! WHERE in the O.T. is it prophesied that: “… which the mouth of the Lord shall name” in respect to that centurion’s statement, Frank?

“In reference to I Peter 4:16, did Peter command us to glorify God with the pagan name Christian?…”

[ Go get those 5 English teachers, Frank. Now have each read the verse & emphasize the word “ashamed”. Then have them read you Webster’s definition of that word. Have each teacher do that 70 times 7 then get back to me & I’ll again, as I have in the past, explain it to you, but it will be the last time! ]

“By the way, the emotion of anger is not what I am feeling. Of course, you believe it is because of my body language, and signs in my post. “

[ lol ]

“Dave, I would be more than happy to debate salvation issues. In fact, our congregation has a television program on every Sunday at 4:30 out of LaGrange Ga. Perhaps, a televised forum would be a good way to get out the truth. “

[ All CoC potentates parrot one another. Nobody every wins a debate with a parrot. I have presented scripture as instructed by God (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15). It is now left up to those who have the Spirit of truth in them to learn. The indoctrinated? (1 Cor 14:38)! You have proven your CoC dogma has NO respect for God’s instructions on correctly handing His word. The same elusive spirit that makes you wrest & deny scripture is the same as the “Restoration GIantS” exhibited. They deliberately refused to “obey the gospel” & yet demanded such from their proselytes after Nov, 1827, & you know it! Sir, you desperately need help, & I‘ve done the best I can to help you. ]

Cordially, Dave

 

Dave:
I have not gone outside the word of God. In all matters of faith, I have provided book, chapter and verse. I have used declarative statements from the scriptures, examples from the scriptures, and implications from what is written. Again, an implication is a rational conclusion made from what is written. Example, Paul was a Christian. One of the conditions required to be a Christian is repentance. The bible never says Paul repented of his sins. However, I know Paul repented because Jesus said one must repent or perish. ( Luke 13:3). This is implication from what is written. In Genesis 12: 14- 13:1 the Bible says,Genesis 12:14  ¶And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair.
15  The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house.
16  And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.
17  And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife.
18  And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife?
19  Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.
20  And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had.

Genesis 13:1  ¶And Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the south.
Note the Bible does not say Lot was with them in Egpyt. However, it is implied by what is written.

The Bible declares in Acts 5:3 that Ananias lied. I know this by what is written, not by any other method. The Bible does not use body language to communicate. It uses words. Also, in verse 8, Sapphira verbally admits to selling the property for a false price. Again, language tells me she lied like her husband as both received the death sentence for telling a falsehood. This is from what is written, no more no less.The Bible says in Acts 5:8-10,Acts 5:8  And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
9  Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
10  Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

She lied as did her husband. By the way, all sins emanate from the mind.

Moreover, you questioned the veracity of the The county records in Celina ,Tenn. and Northport Al. which have the church meeting 5 and 7 years prior to Campbell's arrival on the shores of America. My source is " Churches of Christ in America" by Mac Lynn. The material is found on page 22. Mac Lynn is a past chairman of the Bible department at David Lipscomb University. If you think Mac is wrong, you may contact him at the University. I am sure the good folks at the school would be more than happy to let you talk to him about his lie. If you would like the book, you may order it from Morrison and Phillips Associates 7105 Crosswoods Blvd. Brentwood Tenn. 37027. By the way, the years were 1805 and 07. Campbell began preaching in America in 1812.

In regards to the prophesy of the new name, God inspired men to use the Greek langauge to pen I Pet. 4:16, Acts 26:28, 11:26. I use several Bible versions. ( K.J. A.S.V., N.A.S.). Since I do not speak Greek, as I am sure you do not, I used lexicons that contain the original language to find the original and meaning of the words in the english versions. You seem to have a problem with this because the phrase that the mouth of the Lord shall name is not used in the texts. it is not unusual for God to use other words that carry the same meaning in a text. Peter said the same name as Agrippa. Is it your understanding that Peter was endorsing the use of a pagan name to glorify God?
Furthermore, I know the Centurion and Pilate were not telling a lie, eventhough they ere uninspired. The same could be said of Agrippa. Is it your understanding that parts of the scriptures are more inspired and true than others?

As for Campbell, I will stand with him based on the scriptures. if I cannnot defend a position as a matter of faith, I would not take it even if Campbell, Stone, or Smith took an opposite view. For you to claim otherwise, is unsubstantiated assertion on your part.

As for the issue of Campbell on baptism, it is apparent from his contemporaries that he baptized for the remission of sins ( see pg 25. and 35, Alexander Campbell the Preacher). I have no reason to doubt the conversion of Campbell. I believe that will be judged by Christ. ( John 12:48). I have not seen any evidence to indicate he was not baptized scripturally. To argue the point of his baptism is to do so based on heresay.

What Campbell did or did not do has no bearing on my salvation. My salvation os dependent upon the Gospel of Christ and the blood of his Son. ( Romans 1:16, I Pet. 1:18,19, John 1:29).

My offer to debate the salvation issue still stands. Funny, you seem to think you know more about what I believe than I do myself.

[ February 01, 2005, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Frank ]

 

Frank, your claim is that:

" I have not gone outside the word of God ."

[ So the board is to understand that someone else is posting the following under your alias? ]

"3. The term chrematizo (translated “were called” - Acts 11:26) is employed nine times in the New Testament. It is, without exception, used in contexts wherein the calling is of God. Some suggest that the grammatical construction of this passage indicates that the name was bestowed by Barnabas and Saul (Woods, p. 67).

BaIz, Horst and Schneider, Gerhard (1990), Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), Vol. 1.

Burdick, Donald W. (1981), “James,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Ed., Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), Vol. 12.

Campbell, Alexander (1914), Campbell-Purcell Debate (Nashville: McQuiddy).

Free, Joseph & Vos, Howard (1992), Archaeology and Bible History (Grand Rapids: Baker).

Green, Samuel G. (1907), Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament (London: Religious Tract Society).

Kistemaker, Simon J. (1990), New Testament Commentary-Acts (Grand Rapids: Baker).

Moffatt, James (1906) in: A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, Ed. J. Hastings, (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark) Vol. I.

Russell, Bertrand (1975), “What Is an Agnostic?” Religions of America, Ed., Leo Rosten (New York: Simon & Schuster).

Russell, Bertrand (1967), Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Simon & Schuster).

Shelly, Rubel (1984), I Just Want to Be a Christian (Nashville: 20th Century Christian).

Turner, Nigel (1981), Christian Words (Nashville: Nelson).

Vine, W.E. (1940), Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Westwood, NJ: Fleming Revell),Vol. I.

Woods, Guy N. (1976), Questions and Answers (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman College), Vol. I "

[ Frank, who put the above on this board? ]

" In all matters of faith, I have provided book chapter and verse.”

[ Then, PLEASE, give this board immediately the date & time of your post(s) in which "chapter & verse", from your “K.J. A.S.V., N.A.S.” Bibles, were used to refute my following points. Since I can't find your, supposed, scriptural rebuttal I've included your mental wanderings which were answered from former posts. ]

The Christian Name

See God’s instructions for handling His word (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15), before thoughtfully reading Eph 2:11-12; Isa 56:2-8; Gen 17:9-14; Isa 62:1-4 because:

1) God officially gave the Gentiles up when He called out Abram (Gen 12; Rom 1) so they never had a covenant (Eph 2:12), consequently they never observed Sabbaths & circumcision.

2) Nowhere in the New Testament is: “the mouth of the Lord shall name” (Isa 62:2) quoted as fulfilled by an Apostle.

3) Peter writes last about the name “Christian,” yet does not cite Isa 62:2 as fulfillment.
Since Peter admonishes his Hebrew readers (1 Pet 2:12), @ 35 years after Acts two, who are in Gentile territory (1 Pet 1:1) teaches, the unbiased, that the name “Christian” was a nickname given believers by lost Gentiles. That is further proven since he asks his Hebrew brethren not to be “ashamed” when called “Christian”. To believing Gentiles “Christian” would not matter, just like northerners do not resent the name “Yankee”. But “Christian”, coming from unsaved Gentiles, who Hebrews considered dogs since Gentiles were abandoned by God (Gen 12; Rom 1) & thus “aliens from the common wealth of Israel; & strangers from the covenants of promises, having no hope, & without God in the world (Eph 2:11-12) etc, that name would have been an insult, much like “Yankee“ is to many southerners yet today .

4) That Luke (Acts 11:26) mentions believers were called such without identifying the source proves the name “Christian” was not from God. Since believers were first called “Christian” in Gentile territory @ 12 years after Acts two, & not Hebrew territory, Israel proper, points to the name coming from unbelieving Gentiles because there is no record of believers initially calling themselves “Christian.”

5) Any appeal to Acts 26:28 being “prophetic“, a lost king God’s mouth in saying “Christian,” is blasphemous!

Scripture, correctly applied (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15), proves the “everlasting name” was a promise exclusively to Hebrews & proselytes keeping God’s Sabbaths (Isa 56:2-8), that had taken hold of God’s covenant (Gen 17:9-14) &, according to God, the everlasting name is “Hephzibah” (Isa 62:4). So it violates God‘s instruction & context to claim the “everlasting name“ is “Christian.”

A) God officially gave the Gentiles up, when He called out Abram (Gen 12; Rom 1) so its obvious they had nothing to look forward to (Eph 2:12) . Since God made a promise in Isa 56:2-8 then later (Isa 62:2-4) identifies the name, isn’t it presumptuous (Ps 19:13) to claim that “Christian” was a name from God reserved for New Testament believers? And since part of the creed of the Restoration movement, from a Disciple of Christ potentate, is that: “we speak where the Bible speaks”, is the present CoC misuse of the word “Christian” not a violation of that noble creed?

B) Nowhere in the New Testament is: “the mouth of the Lord shall name” (Isa 62:2) quoted as being fulfilled by an Apostle, who were God‘s mouth regarding the doctrine for the Church after the Lord ascended (Jn 12:49; Mt 28:19-20; Acts 20:16-20; 22:14-15; 1 Cor 14:37 etc), like the prophets & Levites were in the Old Testament (Ex 4:10-15; Jer 1:6-9, etc). The obvious reason the Apostles never quote “Christian” as the “new name” was that God pre-emptied them, @ 750 years earlier (Isa 62:2-4). The fact that Israel knew about the fulfillment (2 Ki 21:1) of “the new name” is obvious, “Hephzibah” is clearly not a common Hebrew name.

C) When Peter (1 Pet 4:16) mentions “Christian” note he does not cite Isa 62:2 as a fulfillment of the “new name.”

" I simply researched it and quoted it as it would be found in the original language. I used reliable sources. If you do not want to accept Thayer, Strong, and Arndt and Gingrich, that is your perrogative. You obviosuly believe Peter endorsed the use of a pagan name to describe those of Christ ... "

[ As you well know, the CoC always cite Acts 26:28 as a proof text for “Christian”. You were asked at the start of our exchange (1-5-05, 11:01 AM post) several questions to which #5 correctly summarizes the previous points made. So for you to state ".. You obviosuly believe Peter endorsed the use of a pagan name to describe those of Christ " is inconsistent at best. Like someone said; “Consistency, thou art a jewel.” ]

D) That Luke (Acts 11:26) mentions believers were called such without identifying the source proves the name “Christian” was not from God!

" The phrase denotes two things. One, the disciples called themselves Christians ."

[ Please, “chapter & verse” that it was initially “the disciples that called themselves Christians“ Frank, as of this post I'm still waiting for you to do that. ]

E) So an appeal to Acts 26:28 being “prophetic pronouncement“, a lost king God’s mouth in saying “Christian,” is blasphemous!

" Acts 26:28 is inspired of God. Luke was inspired to write it. Did he lie? The statement of Agrippa is not blasphemous ..."

[ I) I never said Acts 26:28 was not inspired! II) I never said Luke lied! III) Your appeal to a lost king being God’s mouth is BLASPHEMOUS! For just once in your miserable indoctrinated CoC life try to engage your brain & think for yourself. No faithful lost or saved Hebrew would have given Agrippa any credence for being “the mouth of the Lord” & you BLESSED well know it!

F) AGAIN, scripture, correctly applied (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15), proves the “everlasting name” was a promise made only to Hebrews & proselytes keeping God’s Sabbaths (Isa 56:2-8), who had faithfully taken hold of God’s covenant (Gen 17:9-14) &, according to God , the “everlasting name” is “Hephzibah” (Isa 62:4).

" Ephesians 2:12 says nothing about your claim. It teaches that gentiles were( past tense excluded from the promises). However, Paul says now presently they were as a result of the blood of Christ. Therefore, the new name would be everlasting for both Jew and Gentile as God is no respector of persons ..."

[ Didn’t God warn all about tampering with His word (Deut 12:32; Prov 30:6)? Isn’t that exactly what the devil, the Pharisees & the CoC have done? Your perverted dogma would have us believe that Paul, the mouth of God for half the NT, lied when he told the Ephesian elders that he held nothing back that was profitable to them (Acts 20:20), & then forget about the name “Christian” when he wrote Ephesians. Such is presumptuous (Ps 19:13)! You prove my point about your indoctrination, for Eph 2:12 is clear to all but the indoctrinated, Gentiles had nothing. Again, what part of “nothing” don’t you understand? Had you heeded my frequent plea to Eph 2:12 you would have surely known that it was impossible (look the word up) for the Gentiles to have had a “new name” an “everlasting” name waiting on them once they became believers. Now what part of that statement don’t you understand? ]

" I posted book, chapter and verse as to why Isaiah 62:2 is applicable to Jews and Gentiles. My interpretation is harmonious with the word of God ..."

[ Not in your wildest dreams, for Isa 62:4 is GOD’s answer! And, PLEASE, show this board where you refuted my rebuttal of the verses you have deliberately taken out of context in your desperate attempt to prove CoC dogma. Frank, as of this post I'm still waiting. ]


" The new name could not be Hephizibah. This name was of human origin, and one that was under the old covenant ..."

[ Hephzibah was given by God, thru Isaiah who was God’s mouth back then (Isa 6:7; 1:20), & not until after (Isa 62:2-4) does that name appear in scripture (2 Ki 21:1). Consequently those two points alone completely destroy your, CoC, dogma regarding “Christian“. Were that all, & there is a lot more as I’ve previously presented, that should be enough to convince any unbiased honest believer. ]

Thank you for proving the CoC dogma as to the name “Christian” is not supported scripturally.

Sir, it would behoove you, & whoever is posting those non-biblical entries under your alias, to read 2 Pet 1:20 & try thinking for a change; since your “K.J. A.S.V., N.A.S.” Bibles agree with what I have REPEATEDLY stated, as you BLESSED well know!

Therefore, Lord willing, I would be delighted to debate the CoC dogma, that the “everlasting name”, the “new name” is “Christian” (sic) from one of those three Bibles. Since you are the guest, please post date(s) & conditions of such a debate immediately.

Cordially, Dave

 

Dave:

My post provided book, chapter and verse for my position of faith. It also included a reference list for Greek and Hebrew scholars who happen to, unlike you , know the Greek and Hebrew meanings of words. Unfortunately for you, the Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew, not English. Therefore, understanding word meanings inspired of God must look to these languages. The Greek word Chrematizo means a divine command or calling. You criticize scholarship on one hand, then in the next breath, make a claim that a group of seventy men disagree. A claim you have not substantiated. Talk about inconsistent. Your assertion is intellectually dishonest.

II Kings 22:1 says,  ¶Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign, and reigned fifty and five years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Hephzibah.
There is no declarative statement, example or implication that teaches God named Manasseh's mother, not one. Jewish families named their children. In rare circumstances, God changed or named someone. However, in every case, God was credited with providing the name. You cannot find this in the case of Hephzibah.
Furthermore, names have meaning. However, this does not mean they are of divine designation. Joshua means Jehovah is salvation. Who gave him this name? How do you know? Mary Magdalelene went to the tomb of Christ. Who named her? My name if Frank. It means honest. However, just as in the cases of Joshua and Mary their parents of grandparents named them. It was not divinely ordained of God. Therefore, your argument in this case is not substantiated by the expressed word of God.

Furthermore, the language of Isaiah 62 is one of prophetic futuristic sense. This would preclude Hephizibah from being the new name.

Here are the passages that you claim teach God named Hephzibah. Isaiah 6:7 says,  And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged. The context is God looking for someone to preach on his behalf. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the name Hephzibah. If so, where? Isaiah 1:20 says,  But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. The context of the verse is about being forgiven of ones sins by being willing and obedient and the consequences if one does not. Again, absolutely NOTHING to do with the name Hephzibah. Your claim is not declared, implied or approved by example in the passages you post as proof. Isaiah 62:2 has already been addressed.
Your claim is false.

Epheisans 2:12-16 says,  That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13  But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14  ¶For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15  Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16  And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Again, your claims are unsubstantiated by the scriptures you post. You obviously have problems with verb tenses.
In short,the Gentiles were ( past tense) without hope and strangers from the covenants of Israel.vs. 12. However, But, Now, ( present tense), you ( gentiles, antecedent of strangers) are made nigh by the blood of Christ. This was accomplished by the Christ on the cross. vs. 14-16. He removed the of the old law that seperated Jew and Gentile.
Furthermore, you stated," AGAIN, scripture, correctly applied (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15), proves the “everlasting name” was a promise made only to Hebrews & proselytes keeping God’s Sabbaths (Isa 56:2-8), who had faithfully taken hold of God’s covenant (Gen 17:9-14) &, according to God , the “everlasting name” is “Hephzibah” (Isa 62:4).

Isaiah 28:10 says,  For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
2 Timothy 2:15 says,  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Isaiah 56:2 says, Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.
3  ¶Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.
4  For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
5  Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
6  Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
7  Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.
8  The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

Genesis 17:9  And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
10  This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11  And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12  And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
13  He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14  And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

These passages do not affirm your claims.

Now, the rest of the story. The Bible says in Galatians 3:26,  For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27  For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29  And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The Bible plainly teaches that all men are Abraham's seed when they are Christ's or Christians. Unfortunately for you, he who proves too little; proves too much!











While it is true God worked through Israel, it is also true God planned, before the world began, to include all men in the family of God. ( Gal. 3:26-29. I Cor. 12:12-14, I Pet. 1:2, Eph.1:4, 2:11-14).

I have answered the questions asked. You just do not like the answers.

 

Frank:

" I have no reason to doubt the conversion of Campbell. "

[ Have you fully engaged brain & then read Gen 3:1, & Rev 21:8 or the following? ]

What Christians Need to Know About The "Restoration giANTs"

While “studying the Bible,” with some of the supposed “Church of Christ“ ( CC ), I came across "The Campbellism Special" by Bob Ross, who traced CC doctrine on water baptism back to the Campbells, Scott & Stone, often referred to as “founders, fathers, pioneers” (ffps) by writers in the “Disciples of Christ” ( DC ) from which the CC split in 1906. So I gave a “gospel preacher” & an “elder” the books asking they refute any or all of it. At our next session the elder said Ross was “prejudicial, wrong” etc, yet in 15 years has not offered proof that validates his charge.

[ Why not? Because the majority of Ross’ work are documented writings of past & present DC / CC potentates & Alex Campbell’s son-in-law. Since Ross quotes them in context & draws the obvious correct scriptural / logical conclusions, his work cannot be “prejudicial.“ And since Webster & other unbiased neutral reference works support his conclusions, about Campbell‘s creation & doctrinal influence in the DC, which doctrine was taken by the CC when the denomination (see Webster on “Campbellite”) split in 1906, it cannot honestly be labeled “wrong.” ]

So I asked the elder would he allow one who was dying, but never baptized “for the remission of sins” salvation by solely trusting the Lord Jesus Christ as his savior, & got an emphatic: "NO!" He then asked me:
“How many times did that person have a chance to obey the gospel?”
I said: “Fair enough & then asked him:

Why is there no record of the Campbell's, their families, Scott or Stone having been baptized "for the remission of sins," labeled “the ancient gospel” ( tag ) by Scott? Hadn’t they required converts be so baptized? How could they preach tag a necessity for salvation & fail to realize they never obeyed their dogma, especially since they supposedly examined themselves weekly before taking the Lord's supper (1 Cor 11:28; 2 Cor 13:5)? Is it logical or honest to think that they, including their DC elders, would overlook this were they truly obeying God?

He said; “They were groping & sorting it all out back then so allowances must be made,” which I will allow until Nov 18, 1827, for after that date, according to DC / CC writers, not Methodists, Baptists etc, those the ffps repeatedly debated the necessity of obeying tag with, they demanded that baptism, which they never obeyed. That is the issue! He dropped the subject, leading me to think he’s been shown this before . But to be certain that he completely understood their dilemma I reviewed Alex’s history on baptism.

On June 12, 1812, before Baptist preacher, Matthias Luce, baptized them, Thomas & Alex Campbell made a public retraction of their Presbyterian baptism & explained the reasons they & their families were doing such. Oct 1823, just before the second McCalla - Campbell debate, Alex Campbell & Scott finalized their baptismal doctrine & in that debate Alex offered it. But its practice remained dormant until Nov 18, 1827, when a man applied for such a baptism at the end of Scott’s speech. Soon thereafter the ffps began preaching tag was a requirement for salvation.


I then asked: "Since the ffps preached one must be tag baptized in order to obtain salvation, after Nov 1827, were they obligated to confess their failure of not having obeyed? And since their second immersion would be more important than their first, seeing the emphasis they put on tag , would that not demand another public explanation as to their reason for being re-immersed? Why is that baptism not recorded by either the DC or CC? He refused to answer any question.

[ As I’ve yet to meet a CC member who knows or will admit this, that leads me to think the CC clergy are suppressing it. Are deception & collusion fruits of the Spirit? (Jn 4:23-24; 3:19-21; 14:17; Col 3:9; Ps 51:6; Ja 3:14)? If this is not being purposely kept from members & the public, in order to promote & propagate their religion, please explain why CC potentates demand their proselytes be tag baptized or be damned, & yet exempt their ffps from such judgment?

And, since a CC potentate claims that those not tag baptized remain "children of the devil,” & the ffps never were , how is it logical or scriptural for DC / CC writers to credit them with "restoring the church"? He also asserts: "... when that seed is received into honest & good hearts it is able to save the soul (James 1:21-25)." What honest & good heart insists all all must obey & yet excludes the ffps? Does such CC duplicity testify that they have honest & good hearts? Does the CC clergy's refusal to honestly address this subject prove they know the truth & yet refuse to admit it due to the obvious negative consequences ? ]

To confirm the above call 713-477- 4261 or write Pilgrim Publications, POB 66, Pasadena, Texas, 77501 & request: “The Campbellism Special,” which consist of “Acts 2:38 & Baptismal Remission” - “Campbellism - Its History & Heresies” - “The Restoration Movement.” Once you verify all the above regarding the "Restoration giANTs", please , distribute the books to a CC potentate & watch his reaction. Should he plead: “The second law of pardon” for the ffps, please respond, gentle but firm, with the CC’s favorite motto: “ chapter & verse ?“

Then, please, post that response.

Yet noble Frank says: " To argue the point of his baptism is to do so based on heresay. "

However, noble Frank, conveniently, forgets that:

1) Since DoC / CoC writers & even Campbell’s son-in-law did NOT document the ffps tag baptism, what is an honest un-indoctrinated person going to rightfully conclude from the lack of such documentation from those obviously partisan groups?

2) Because the Campbells were certainly not shy about announcing to on lookers their Presbyterian baptism was not scriptural, & thus the reason why they asked Baptist Matthias Luce to immerse them & their families in June of 1812.

3) Nor were they, Scott & Stone shy about proclaiming that tag was necessary for salvation after Nov 1827, as DoC & CoC document. The fact is they DEMANDED such a baptism from their proselytes.

3) The ironic fact is that noble Frank would no more accept the ffps as members of the CoC then he would Matthias Luce, & he BLESSED well knows it!!

4) Still noble Frank came to the ffps defense, like every CoC potentate I’ve engaged UNTIL they realize I know the truth, at which point they take evasive action, as Frank demonstrates. Anything but admit the truth, yet truth is exactly what God desires of those that would worship Him (Ps 51:6; Jn 4:23-24). Few CULT members ever submit themselves to truth, but when they do they flee the religion that held them in bondage. (Jn 8:32). Isn’t it ironic, Frank, since you cited that verse earlier in our correspondence, that you rather believe a lie than the truth?

Frank, I’m looking forward to our debate on the CoC dogma that “the everlasting name”, the “new name” is “Christian” (sic).

Thanks, Dave

 

Frank:

" My post provided book, chapter and verse for my position of faith ."

[ No sir as of this date you have NEVER done such ! What part of that statement don’t you understand?

PLEASE give this board IMMEDIATELY your “chapter & verse”, from one or all of those three Bibles you claim to use, & the date & time you posted such ! What part of that statement don‘t you understand? ]

 

Frank:

" It also included a reference list for Greek and Hebrew scholars who happen to, unlike you , know the Greek and Hebrew meanings of words. Unfortunately for you, the Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew, not English. Therefore, understanding word meanings inspired of God must look to these languages. The Greek word Chrematizo means a divine command or calling ."

[ Remember this?

[ “divine command”?? Sir, what Bible are you using? Were that true, how is it that the translators of the AV, RV, ASV, NASV, NKJ, & the Douay-Rheims Version over-looked it? Where is Luke’s emphasis to that effect, for its apparent all the above translators missed this since: “… the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” clearly negates any “force of a divine command”, does it not? ]

And didn't I reply to this?

" 3. The term chrematizo (translated “were called” - Acts 11:26) is employed nine times in the New Testament. It is, without exception, used in contexts wherein the calling is of God ..."

[ I know of NO translation committee from 1609 to present time that agrees with such opinion. Again, how is it that the AV, RV, ASV, NASV, NKJ, NIV, etc committees ALL overlooked that?? Again, 3rd time , Frank, what Bible do you use ???

Paul said he held nothing back that was profitable to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:20). About 5 years later Paul wrote to the strongest church doctrinally in Gentile territory. Therefore, since according to your CoC religion the name “Christian” is important, doesn’t that make Paul a liar for he never mentions the word? ]

How hard would it have been for Peter to have said:

“Yet if any man suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf; for this is that which was spoken by Esaias the prophet; as it is written; this is the everlasting name, the new name that the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” were your CoC religion true?

And didn't I warn you?

Friend, due to your allegiance to the CoC religion, you are trying to force CoC dogma into the mouths of Luke, Paul & Peter. I know of no Bible that even implies that the disciples initially called themselves by that name. And it is obvious to this point, & by what follows, that you know of no scripture, in context as believers are instructed by God (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15), that supports your CoC religion.

Doesn’t such destroy the presumption of your, CoC, religion that the “everlasting name“, the “new name“ is “Christian“ (sic)? Where in the three Bibles, you finally identified, do you find "chapter & verse" that supports your religious view, Frank?

Frank, I'm looking forward to our debate on this subject, as it will be an eye opener for those not yet indoctrinated in the supposed CoC.

Cordially, Dave

 

Frank states:

" You criticize scholarship on one hand, then in the next breath, make a claim that a group of seventy men disagree. A claim you have not substantiated. Talk about inconsistent. Your assertion is intellectually dishonest ."

[ PLEASE , cut paste & post the date & time I stated such, IMMEDIATELY. ]

 

Dave:

I posted all source material for the inspired word Chermatizo. In Acts 11:26 were called in the original language is Chermatizo. According to Greek scholars, it means calling of God or divine calling. Now, if Thayer, Arndt and Gingrich, Strong, Mccord and Wood are wrong. Post the contradictory evidence. You claim some committee disagrees. I say, post it. I will research it.

God could have Peter say or write I Peter 4:16 any way he chose. However, he chose the inspired Greek chermatizo to reflect the new name. Are you saying an inspired writer has to quote, or say a verse like you want him to for you to believe him, or quote it exactly from it's original source. Let me remind you that the Lord himself often times referenced scripture without it being an exact quote.

In Mat. 19:9, Jesus, discussing marriage and divorce, referenced Genesis 2:24. The text of Mat. 19 is not an exact quote of Genesis 2:24. Are you saying because it was not an exact quote it is uninspired? Your reasoning is irrational, your scholarship reckless, and the ramifications in this case, would be devastating to the home and family. By the way, I used the K.J.V. A.S.V., N.K.J.V. and the N.A.S.V.

Furthermore, all English versions of the Bible are translations. Every single one of them. You will not find the original language in any translation. This is why they are called translations or versions. I have a Greek Linear Bible. However, if I asked you to tell me what it meant, you could not do it, as you cannot speak or read the Greek language God inspired men to use. You still have not figured out how English works.(I.E declarative statement, approved example or implication). You should stop this incessant drivel about what Bible one uses. It makes you look inane.

I believe the committee you are speaking of consisted of seventy men. However, You did say,[ I know of NO translation committee from 1609 to present time that agrees with such opinion. Again, how is it that the AV, RV, ASV, NASV, NKJ, NIV, etc committees ALL overlooked that?? Again, 3rd time , Frank, what Bible do you use ??? I posted many names of individuals who dcided for themselves based on scholarship what the words of the original text mean.

He who proves too little proves too much.

Again,I say post the documented evidence and I will study it. It is most difficult to study a group of men.

You said, Paul said he held nothing back that was profitable to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:20). About 5 years later Paul wrote to the strongest church doctrinally in Gentile territory. Therefore, since according to your CoC religion the name “Christian” is important, doesn’t that make Paul a liar for he never mentions the word? ]

NO. If Paul were a liar in his writings, he would not have been inspired. Furthermore, my religion does NOT teach as you claim.
You should audition for the Wizard of Oz. You would make a perfect Strawman.

Paul must have used the term as Agrippa understood the conversation they had at his hearing, and he said, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. Paul did not correct Agrippa after he used the name. He endorsed it. Note the following: In Acts 28: 29,  And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds. If Chrisitan was the wrong name to be used, why did not Paul correct him?

Are you saying the church at Ephesus never read the book of Acts or Peter? Paul may have used the term and it not been recorded. If God said it one time, it is enough for me. If you do not like the way Paul preached or wrote to Ephesus, take it up with God. He inspired Paul, Luke and Peter to write his words of choice in the Greek language. He who proves too little; proves too much.

 

Frank states that:

" I posted all source material for the inspired word Chermatizo. In Acts 11:26 were called in the original language is Chermatizo. According to Greek scholars, it means calling of God or divine calling. Now, if Thayer, Arndt and Gingrich, Strong, Mccord and Wood are wrong. Post the contradictory evidence. You claim some committee disagrees. I say, post it. I will research it ."

[ LOL Already have, REPEATEDLY!! Every Bible since the 1611 &, as I found yesterday, including the New Testament

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/acts/ACTS.HTM

of that Pharisee hypocrite (Mt 23:3), whose dogma you parrot, & you BLESSED well know, but won’t admit the truth, because to do so destroys the CoC noble mottos of “chapter & verse” & “we speak where the Bible speaks…” !!!!

Thanks for showing this board what the CoC religion does to a rational mind.

Since you claim that you have scripturally given “chapter & verse” then debate me on this subject, using ONLY the verses that can be found in the three bibles you claim prove the “everlasting name“, the “new name“ is “Christian“, that the disciples first called themselves such & that God’s mouth was Agrippa (sic).

The rules of engagement

1) You use ONLY the three bibles you claim prove the above assertion & a Webster dictionary.

2) I get half of the time to present my opposing view, un-interrupted by your supporters.

How about it, Frank? Will you be the first CoC potentate to ever do such publicly, or slink away shoveling it with vigor like all the rest have?

 

Noble Frank says: " God could have Peter say or write I Peter 4:16 any way he chose. However, he chose the inspired Greek chermatizo to reflect the new name ..."

[ LOL Frank knows such has been answered in several posts, my initial response to his inquiry was 1-10-05, 08:06 PM, check it out.

Noble Frank says: " In Acts 11:26, the phrase " were called" is from the greek chrematisai and has the force of a divine command. "

[ “divine command”?? Sir, what Bible are you using? Were that true, how is it that the translators of the AV, RV, ASV, NASV, NKJ, & the Douay-Rheims Version over-looked it? Where is Luke’s emphasis to that effect, for its apparent all the above translators missed this since: Quote … the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. " clearly negates any force of a divine command, does it not? ]

Frank says: " The phrase denotes two things. One, the disciples called themselves Christians ."

[ Please, “chapter & verse” that it was initially “the disciples {who} called themselves Christians“. ]

To date the board is still waiting for Frank's response, which he can never give, as he BLESSED well knows!

Frank says: " Are you saying an inspired writer has to quote, or say a verse like you want him to for you to believe him, or quote it exactly from it's original source. Let me remind you that the Lord himself often times referenced scripture without it being an exact quote ."

[ LOL Frank knows such was answered in post 1-8-05 01:14 PM, check it out.

[ If memory serves me right, the author of a book is free to quote their work. Is God not free to do likewise? If so, what’s your point? If not, you don't have a point! My point is; the Apostles, to whom the CoC appeal for their church dogma, never cited Isa 62:2 as being fulfilled because God pre-empted them @ 750 years earlier (Isa 62:1-4)! The fact that no NT prophet or Apostle takes your, CoC, position is apparent & therefore destroys your conclusion that: quote Your argument requiring an apostle quote directly a scripture for it to be true is invalid ." whether you admit it or not .]

But has Frank scripturally answered the following points from his “K.J. A.S.V., N.A.S” bibles?

Please post date & time that you did, sir.

The Christian Name

See God’s instructions for handling His word (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15), before thoughtfully reading Eph 2:11-12; Isa 56:2-8; Gen 17:9-14; Isa 62:1-4 because:

1) God officially gave the Gentiles up when He called out Abram (Gen 12; Rom 1) so they never had a covenant (Eph 2:12), consequently they never observed Sabbaths & circumcision.

2) Nowhere in the New Testament is: “the mouth of the Lord shall name” (Isa 62:2) quoted as fulfilled by an Apostle.

3) Peter writes last about the name “Christian,” yet does not cite Isa 62:2 as fulfillment.
Since Peter admonishes his Hebrew readers (1 Pet 2:12), @ 35 years after Acts two, who are in Gentile territory (1 Pet 1:1) teaches, the unbiased, that the name “Christian” was a nickname given believers by lost Gentiles. That is further proven since he asks his Hebrew brethren not to be “ashamed” when called “Christian”. To believing Gentiles “Christian” would not matter, just like northerners do not resent the name “Yankee”. But “Christian”, coming from unsaved Gentiles, who Hebrews considered dogs since Gentiles were abandoned by God (Gen 12; Rom 1) & thus “aliens from the common wealth of Israel; & strangers from the covenants of promises, having no hope, & without God in the world (Eph 2:11-12) etc, that name would have been an insult, much like “Yankee“ is to many southerners yet today .

4) That Luke (Acts 11:26) mentions believers were called such without identifying the source proves the name “Christian” was not from God. Since believers were first called “Christian” in Gentile territory @ 12 years after Acts two, & not Hebrew territory, Israel proper, points to the name coming from unbelieving Gentiles because there is no record of believers initially calling themselves “Christian.”

5) Any appeal to Acts 26:28 being “prophetic“, a lost king God’s mouth in saying “Christian,” is blasphemous!

Scripture, correctly applied (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15), proves the “everlasting name” was a promise exclusively to Hebrews & proselytes keeping God’s Sabbaths (Isa 56:2-8), that had taken hold of God’s covenant (Gen 17:9-14) &, according to God, the everlasting name is “Hephzibah” (Isa 62:4). So it violates God‘s instruction & context to claim the “everlasting name“ is “Christian.”

A) God officially gave the Gentiles up, when He called out Abram (Gen 12; Rom 1) so its obvious they had nothing to look forward to (Eph 2:12) . Since God made a promise in Isa 56:2-8 then later (Isa 62:2-4) identifies the name, isn’t it presumptuous (Ps 19:13) to claim that “Christian” was a name from God reserved for New Testament believers? And since part of the creed of the Restoration movement, from a Disciple of Christ potentate, is that: “we speak where the Bible speaks”, is the present CoC misuse of the word “Christian” not a violation of that noble creed?

B) Nowhere in the New Testament is: “the mouth of the Lord shall name” (Isa 62:2) quoted as being fulfilled by an Apostle, who were God‘s mouth regarding the doctrine for the Church after the Lord ascended (Jn 12:49; Mt 28:19-20; Acts 20:16-20; 22:14-15; 1 Cor 14:37 etc), like the prophets & Levites were in the Old Testament (Ex 4:10-15; Jer 1:6-9, etc). The obvious reason the Apostles never quote “Christian” as the “new name” was that God pre-emptied them, @ 750 years earlier (Isa 62:2-4). The fact that Israel knew about the fulfillment (2 Ki 21:1) of “the new name” is obvious, “Hephzibah” is clearly not a common Hebrew name.

C) When Peter (1 Pet 4:16) mentions “Christian” note he does not cite Isa 62:2 as a fulfillment of the “new name.”

Frank says: " I simply researched it and quoted it as it would be found in the original language. I used reliable sources. If you do not want to accept Thayer, Strong, and Arndt and Gingrich, that is your perrogative. You obviosuly believe Peter endorsed the use of a pagan name to describe those of Christ ... "

[ [ As you well know, the CoC always cite Acts 26:28 as a proof text for “Christian”. You were asked at the start of our exchange (1-5-05, 11:01 AM post) several questions to which #5 correctly summarizes the previous points made. So for you to state ".. You obviosuly believe Peter endorsed the use of a pagan name to describe those of Christ " is inconsistent at best. Like someone said; “Consistency, thou art a jewel.” ]

D) That Luke (Acts 11:26) mentions believers were called such without identifying the source proves the name “Christian” was not from God!

Frank says: " The phrase denotes two things. One, the disciples called themselves Christians ."

[ PLEASE , “chapter & verse” that it was initially “the disciples that called themselves Christians“ Frank, as of this post I'm still waiting for you to do that. ]

E) So an appeal to Acts 26:28 being “prophetic pronouncement“, a lost king God’s mouth in saying “Christian,” is blasphemous!

Frank says: " Acts 26:28 is inspired of God. Luke was inspired to write it. Did he lie? The statement of Agrippa is not blasphemous ... "

[ I) I never said Acts 26:28 was not inspired! II) I never said Luke lied! III) Your appeal to a lost king being God’s mouth is BLASPHEMOUS! For just once in your miserable indoctrinated CoC life try to engage your brain & think for yourself. No faithful lost or saved Hebrew would have given Agrippa any credence for being “the mouth of the Lord” & you BLESSED well know it!

F) AGAIN, scripture, correctly applied (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15), proves the “everlasting name” was a promise made only to Hebrews & proselytes keeping God’s Sabbaths (Isa 56:2-8), who had faithfully taken hold of God’s covenant (Gen 17:9-14) &, according to God , the “everlasting name” is “Hephzibah” (Isa 62:4).

Frank says: " Ephesians 2:12 says nothing about your claim. It teaches that gentiles were( past tense excluded from the promises). However, Paul says now presently they were as a result of the blood of Christ. Therefore, the new name would be everlasting for both Jew and Gentile as God is no respector of persons ... "

[ Didn’t God warn all about tampering with His word (Deut 12:32; Prov 30:6)? Isn’t that exactly what the devil, the Pharisees & the CoC have done? Your perverted dogma would have us believe that Paul, the mouth of God for half the NT, lied when he told the Ephesian elders that he held nothing back that was profitable to them (Acts 20:20), & then forget about the name “Christian” when he wrote Ephesians. Such is presumptuous (Ps 19:13)! You prove my point about your indoctrination, for Eph 2:12 is clear to all but the indoctrinated, Gentiles had nothing. Again, what part of “nothing” don’t you understand? Had you heeded my frequent plea to Eph 2:12 you would have surely known that it was impossible (look the word up) for the Gentiles to have had a “new name” an “everlasting” name waiting on them once they became believers. Now what part of that statement don’t you understand? ]

Frank says: " I posted book, chapter and verse as to why Isaiah 62:2 is applicable to Jews and Gentiles. My interpretation is harmonious with the word of God ... "

[ Not in your wildest dreams, for Isa 62:4 is GOD’s answer! And, PLEASE, show this board where you refuted my rebuttal of the verses you have deliberately taken out of context in your desperate attempt to prove CoC dogma. Frank, as of this post I'm still waiting. ]


Frank says: " The new name could not be Hephizibah. This name was of human origin, and one that was under the old covenant ..."

[ Hephzibah was given by God, thru Isaiah who was God’s mouth back then (Isa 6:7; 1:20), & not until after (Isa 62:2-4) does that name appear in scripture (2 Ki 21:1). Consequently those two points alone completely destroy your, CoC, dogma regarding “Christian“. Were that all, & there is a lot more as I’ve previously presented, that should be enough to convince any unbiased honest believer. ]

Thank you for proving the CoC dogma as to the name “Christian” is not supported scripturally.

Sir, it would behoove you, & whoever is posting those non-biblical entries under your alias, to read 2 Pet 1:20 & try thinking for a change; since your “K.J. A.S.V., N.A.S.” Bibles agree with what I have REPEATEDLY stated, as you BLESSED well know!

Therefore, Lord willing, I would be delighted to debate the CoC dogma, that the “everlasting name”, the “new name” is “Christian” (sic) from one of those three Bibles. Since you are the guest, please post date(s) & conditions of such a debate immediately .

Cordially, Dave

 

Noble Frank states: " I have answered the questions asked. You just do not like the answers. "

[ [ 1) No Frank, you have not! Where is “chapter & verse“ from any of those 3 bibles you claim to use that substantiates your, CoC dogma, belief, that “Christian” is the “everlasting name” the “new Name” (sic)?!?

2) Correct! The answers are not in accordance with that noble CoC motto “chapter & verse” & violate that noble Restoration GIant ’s motto: “We speak where the Bible speaks & are silent …”.

And, please, open up a board, least Leesw accuse me of talking about the CoC behind their back, & let this board decide if I can prove my point about those "restoration GIantS" being hypocrites. Thanks, & I'm looking forward to our debate over the "Christian" name.
Cordially, Dave ]

 

Frank, et al

Anyone know when or why this link

http://www.gracecentered.com/cgibin/ikonboard.cgi?s=41c2ffc82ebfffff;act=ST;f=30;t=8708

is down other than the official comment?

“Sorry, the boards are offline at the moment

1-31-2005 -- Grace-Centered is currently working on this message board. It will be back online very soon with changes that make it bigger, better, faster and more!

And don't worry, we've saved your identity as well as your posts.

Please check back in 24 hours.

Grace-Centered Forum Team”

Been trying to log on & see if anyone wants to discuss this subject since I left two posts about such.