A Convicted Evangelical (Church of Christ)

[bwmnstar]

Hello all,

If I have not responded and/or have overlooked a post, please let me know (via private message) the posting number, and I’ll be more than happy to go back and respond on the forum.

Blessings

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;9396108:

Patience my brother, patience please. I have started going through and responding today. But everytime I go back to respond, someone has posted a new comment and wants attention. Or another early poster wants me to respond to him or her. Remember that I am in the minority here, and constructing responses to everyone takes time.

Some are easier to respond to than others. I’ve been responding to the simpler ones, and am working on constructing rebuttals to more difficult messages (at my leisure). I will get to you though brother, and that’s a promise.

God bless you,

bwmnstar

My brother in Christ, with all due respect,but if you would have focused on the main issue from the get-go, then you would not need to answer different unrelated topics.

 

[bwmnstar]

bwmnstar;9396140:

My brother in Christ, with all due respect,but if you would have focused on the main issue from the get-go, then you would not need to answer different unrelated topics.

Touche. I think I agree with you

 

[rinnie]

Hello all,

If I have not responded and/or have overlooked a post, please let me know (via private message) the posting number, and I’ll be more than happy to go back and respond on the forum.

Blessings

Take your time. I know how hard it is to answer everyone. Also welcome.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;9396186:

Touche. I think I agree with you

:tiphat:

 

[bwmnstar]

bwmnstar:

Well, hypothetically speaking, if the Church has erred, then who can we trust to say that it has not erred? Calvin? Then why not Luther? Whoever your answer is, how can we know that such person is the one to trust as “The One” that God gave the official interpretation to of the Scriptures? Why should I believe that your denomination’s founder is the one who alone the Holy Spirit guides in interpreting the Scriptures, and not a different denomination with contradictory doctrines to yours?

Contrary to Catholics, I believe that the bible is our only infallibe authority. Now that doesn’t mean that there aren’t any other authorities out there (Catholics often believe that this is the meaning of sola scriptura. But it is not). I simply hold that Scripture is our only infallible source. With that said, what place is there for the ECF’s??

They serves as witnesses in the courtroom of interpretation that need to be heard. They aid in elucidating and clarifying certain passages. But they are not the final court of appeals in terms of hermeneutics (obviously you will disagree). Listen to Everett Ferguson’s lecture entitled: Why Study Early Christian History, found here: wheaton.edu/Academics/Departments/Theology/WCECS/Lecture-Downloads

A major problem for Protestants is that they have divorced themselves from the early church writings. If we would pay more attention to early non-canonical literature, there wouldn’t be as many denominations as there are today.

Plus, isn’t one of the Protestant tenets that each individual should read Scripture for themselves and let the Holy Spirit guide them to interpret it for themselves? If that’s the case, then why when I read it did I read an interpretation that only fit the Catholic Church’s doctrines which you say are incorrect? Does that mean I erred in interpreting it? If so, doesn’t this then contradict the very principle of personal interpretation?

Yes, Protestantism does teach this. I believe that it is a flawed position, as my Catholic brothers have pointed out. I am an advocate of reading and discussing the bible as a community. I hope that more and more Evangelicals will see the benefits of discussing problematic passages within the larger context of the gathered body of beleivers.

Papal infallibility is problematic for several reasons. I list a critical one below.

1. Similar to scripture and tradition, papal pronouncements are geared toward certain contexts that must be interpreted. This doesn’t solve the problem of interepretation. It merely pushes it back a step. “The only way out of this infinite regression is for each individual to possess infallibiltiy so that each person can know that one has properly interpreted infallible papal pronouncements. But if each individual must possess infallibility to attain epistemic certainty, there is hardly a need for the pope to have a special charism of infallibility” (Mark Powell, 14-15).

Catholic theologians disagree among themselves (see Cardinals Manning and Newman, as well as Avery Dulles and Hans Kung) about how to interpret the doctrine of papal infallibility. This in and of itself lends credence that the doctrine of papal infallibilty cannot guarantee religious epistemic certainty (Powell, 17).

On a much smaller scale, Catholics are not all that different from Protestants in terms of rivaling groups. von Dollinger split from the Catholics after Vatican 1; Richard Simon was one of the first to apply historical criticism to Scripture; and Modernism in Roman Catholicism is heavily similar to Liberal Protestantism.

 

[pablope]

If it was an ordinary meal…then why would the Bible/Scripture or the author or Acts even bother to mention it?

Breaking of the Bread is another name for the Mass…This is what is done at the Mass…that is why it is mentioned here…and in other sections of Acts, especially concerning St. Paul.

And it is precisely this understanding…that it is the the Mass…that the Catholic Church breaks bread everyday…ie…celebrates the Mass everyday…it is the Apostolic tradition…which the CC fulfills.

So let me ask again…does the CofC fulfill this tradition? If not, then how can the CofC be the true church?

Also look at Acts 6:1-2

"In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food

."

You may have a translation issue…this is translated in the Vulgate…as…1 And in those days, the number of the disciples increasing, there arose a murmuring of the Greeks against the Hebrews, for that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

This does not literallyu speak of food distribution…but distribution of the daily assignments…as the verse suggests…there probably was discrimination…*It is not certain in what the Greek widows were despised. Some imagine, that a preference was given to their rivals, in the distribution of offices, that they were appointed to the meaner charges, and oppressed with too much labour. But it is most natural to suppose, that the complaints regarded the alms that were distributed, and that the necessities of both parties were not supplied, without the appearance of partiality. Menochius.
*

veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Acts_of_the_Apostles_6

Obviously, this is not the Lord’s Supper we’re talking about. You simply can’t read back a daily mass into the biblical text. That’s eisegesis, not exegesis.

Are talking about Act 6:1-2? Then I agree it is not talking about the Lord’s supper, but about discrimination that was happening in the local community of new converts.

As for Acts 2,v46…it is definitely about the Lord’s Supper…as I explained above.

By the way, have you sold all of your possessions and goods? Have you given all away to those in need, as the passage stipulates? If so, I commend you. If not, then you are going “against the early Christian Tradition…and are therefore unbiblical,” at least according to your logic.

Have you done the same? Then you are unbiblical too…

You know…this is puzzling…I provided you a Biblical mark to determine which church follows the true church and apostolic tradition…and you now seem to be avoiding a Biblical basis for a mark of the true church?

 

[JRKH]

All of the apostles had unique and infallible authority in terms of what in inscripturated in the Bible. Paul, as an individual, could write to certain churches without appeal to any other church leader. And his writings were taken as infallible and inspired of God.

This is not entirely true…
Paul taught the Gentile converts in Antioch that circumcision was not necessary.
Later, Jewish converts came up from Jerusalem and took issue with this teaching. Even with Paul right there, the issue could not be resolved. Thus it was that Paul and some others headed to Jerusalem for a council with the Elders of the Church…It’s all recorded in Acts 15.
So it is obvious that not ALL people took Paul’s’ teachings, whether oral or in writing, as “infallible and inspired of God”. It was only after the council met and decided that the matter was put to rest.

Peace
James

 

[CopticChristian]

Contrary to Catholics, I believe that the bible is our only infallibe authority. Now that doesn’t mean that there aren’t any other authorities out there (Catholics often believe that this is the meaning of sola scriptura. But it is not). I simply hold that Scripture is our only infallible source. With that said, what place is there for the ECF’s??

They serves as witnesses in the courtroom of interpretation that need to be heard. They aid in elucidating and clarifying certain passages. But they are not the final court of appeals in terms of hermeneutics (obviously you will disagree). Listen to Everett Ferguson’s lecture entitled: Why Study Early Christian History, found here: wheaton.edu/Academics/Departments/Theology/WCECS/Lecture-Downloads

A major problem for Protestants is that they have divorced themselves from the early church writings. If we would pay more attention to early non-canonical literature, there wouldn’t be as many denominations as there are today.

Yes, Protestantism does teach this. I believe that it is a flawed position, as my Catholic brothers have pointed out. I am an advocate of reading and discussing the bible as a community. I hope that more and more Evangelicals will see the benefits of discussing problematic passages within the larger context of the gathered body of beleivers.

Papal infallibility is problematic for several reasons. I list a critical one below.

1. Similar to scripture and tradition, papal pronouncements are geared toward certain contexts that must be interpreted. This doesn’t solve the problem of interepretation. It merely pushes it back a step. “The only way out of this infinite regression is for each individual to possess infallibiltiy so that each person can know that one has properly interpreted infallible papal pronouncements. But if each individual must possess infallibility to attain epistemic certainty, there is hardly a need for the pope to have a special charism of infallibility” (Mark Powell, 14-15).

Catholic theologians disagree among themselves (see Cardinals Manning and Newman, as well as Avery Dulles and Hans Kung) about how to interpret the doctrine of papal infallibility. This in and of itself lends credence that the doctrine of papal infallibilty cannot guarantee religious epistemic certainty (Powell, 17).

On a much smaller scale, Catholics are not all that different from Protestants in terms of rivaling groups. von Dollinger split from the Catholics after Vatican 1; Richard Simon was one of the first to apply historical criticism to Scripture; and Modernism in Roman Catholicism is heavily similar to Liberal Protestantism.

BM,

You have the same problems as Mormons. Mormons cannot turn to any historical writings to reference their existence. If I were entertaining Protestant thought I would have to ask, where are the early Protestant writings…certainly there must be some. Why turn to the ECF?

 

[sdegutis]

Contrary to Catholics, I believe that the bible is our only infallibe authority. Now that doesn’t mean that there aren’t any other authorities out there (Catholics often believe that this is the meaning of sola scriptura. But it is not). I simply hold that Scripture is our only infallible source. With that said, what place is there for the ECF’s??

They serves as witnesses in the courtroom of interpretation that need to be heard. They aid in elucidating and clarifying certain passages. But they are not the final court of appeals in terms of hermeneutics (obviously you will disagree). Listen to Everett Ferguson’s lecture entitled: Why Study Early Christian History, found here: wheaton.edu/Academics/Departments/Theology/WCECS/Lecture-Downloads

A major problem for Protestants is that they have divorced themselves from the early church writings. If we would pay more attention to early non-canonical literature, there wouldn’t be as many denominations as there are today.

Yes, Protestantism does teach this. I believe that it is a flawed position, as my Catholic brothers have pointed out. I am an advocate of reading and discussing the bible as a community. I hope that more and more Evangelicals will see the benefits of discussing problematic passages within the larger context of the gathered body of beleivers.

Papal infallibility is problematic for several reasons. I list a critical one below.

1. Similar to scripture and tradition, papal pronouncements are geared toward certain contexts that must be interpreted. This doesn’t solve the problem of interepretation. It merely pushes it back a step. “The only way out of this infinite regression is for each individual to possess infallibiltiy so that each person can know that one has properly interpreted infallible papal pronouncements. But if each individual must possess infallibility to attain epistemic certainty, there is hardly a need for the pope to have a special charism of infallibility” (Mark Powell, 14-15).

Catholic theologians disagree among themselves (see Cardinals Manning and Newman, as well as Avery Dulles and Hans Kung) about how to interpret the doctrine of papal infallibility. This in and of itself lends credence that the doctrine of papal infallibilty cannot guarantee religious epistemic certainty (Powell, 17).

On a much smaller scale, Catholics are not all that different from Protestants in terms of rivaling groups. von Dollinger split from the Catholics after Vatican 1; Richard Simon was one of the first to apply historical criticism to Scripture; and Modernism in Roman Catholicism is heavily similar to Liberal Protestantism.

You claim that only Scripture is infallible, but yet humanity has no official God-given way to interpret Scripture infallibly? Then what good is the infallibility of Scripture, if the only medium through which we can interpret and understand it is fallible?

Your solution is re-inventing the wheel. God already provided for this need, His solution was called the Magisterium, and it’s been working fine for 2,000 years. Not to mention, it’s infallible, thus allowing us access to the infallibility of Scripture.

 

[bwmnstar]

BM,

You have the same problems as Mormons. Mormons cannot turn to any historical writings to reference their existence. If I were entertaining Protestant thought I would have to ask, where are the early Protestant writings…certainly there must be some. Why turn to the ECF?

1. The earliest non canonical writings suggest that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, administered primarily by immersion to believing and consenting individuals. The Church of Christ is in harmony.
2. The earliest non-canonical sources indicate a plurality of elders in each church and not a bishop presiding over the rest of the presbytery. The church of Christ still maintains this type of church polity.
3. The ECF’s mandate singing with acapella worship. The Churches of Christ sing Acapella style.

I can list more. Would you like me to provide sources as well.

The Church of Christ is in many ways the Catholic Church prior to doctrinal development. In many ways, but not all. Please not the previous sentence before responding.

 

[bwmnstar]

You claim that only Scripture is infallible, but yet humanity has no official God-given way to interpret Scripture infallibly? Then what good is the infallibility of Scripture, if the only medium through which we can interpret and understand it is fallible?

Your solution is re-inventing the wheel. God already provided for this need, His solution was called the Magisterium, and it’s been working fine for 2,000 years. Not to mention, it’s infallible, thus allowing us access to the infallibility of Scripture.

Please see point 1, in which I discussed the variety of thought among Catholic theologians concerning the doctrine of papal infallibilty and the various ways in which they’ve interpreted it. What do you think about it?

 

[contritespirit]

Bwmstar,

The way I understand it, authority does not rest in the theologians but in the Bishops and he councils. Have you had a look at this site? churchfathers.org/

 

[solarguy17]

This is not entirely true…
Paul taught the Gentile converts in Antioch that circumcision was not necessary.
Later, Jewish converts came up from Jerusalem and took issue with this teaching. Even with Paul right there, the issue could not be resolved. Thus it was that Paul and some others headed to Jerusalem for a council with the Elders of the Church…It’s all recorded in Acts 15.
So it is obvious that not ALL people took Paul’s’ teachings, whether oral or in writing, as “infallible and inspired of God”. It was only after the council met and decided that the matter was put to rest.

Peace
James

I recently asked one of the bishops at my church this question. (church of Christ)

And upon discussion, reading, and study this is what I think.

Paul directed tha Gentile didn’t need to become Jews first (circumsicion), the some Christians that came from Jewish background disagreed. So a group of church leaders came together to discuss the problem. After much discussion and argueing and Paul listening he finally got to the point where he realized that the proponents and opponents were never goin to come to the correct conclusion. So he stood up, and laid down the law and rightly proclaimed the truth. Rereas the passage if you disagree and you will see that a decision wasn’t made by the group but rather Paul telling the truth and them being obedient. That can’t and doesn’t happen any more. Now council are brought together and a democratic decision is made.

 

[Nicea325]

bwmnstar:

1. The earliest non canonical writings suggest that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, administered primarily by immersion to believing and consenting individuals. The Church of Christ is in harmony.

This is a merely a half-truth statement. I already mentioned to you that the first converts were consenting and believing adults because there wasn’t any cradle Christians. Second, please show me in the NT where it explicitly states the only acceptable method of baptism is immersion and all others are unacceptable? Third, please show me in the NT where the only norm or standard to baptize is based on “believing” and consenting people? Can you present a case of any “believing” and “consenting” 13-21 year old is baptized?

1. The earliest non-canonical sources indicate a plurality of elders in each church and not a bishop presiding over the rest of the presbytery. The church of Christ still maintains this type of church polity.

Not entirely true. Again,show me were the NT forbids a single bishop presiding over a community? How about any ECF claiming the only method of governing is through a pluarity of elders?

1. The ECF’s mandate singing with acapella worship. The Churches of Christ sing Acapella style

.

Really? Please show this mandate by Ignatius or Ambrose or Jerome?

I can list more. Would you like me to provide sources as well.

The Church of Christ is in many ways the Catholic Church prior to doctrinal development. In many ways, but not all. Please not the previous sentence before responding.

I am starting to notice a bit of confusion on your part of what truly constitutes an Apostolic Church. The problem I acknowledge is how you formulate your arguments. You basically believe because your church practices certain rites or methods;thus it is proves without a shred of evidence it goes back to the NT church. Just because your church utilizes certain practices and customs does not prove it goes back to the NT church. Sorry,but you are in error and to throw in the ECF’s into the mix in order to support your misundestanding is actually not helping you at all. And why? Because I already told you are merely “quote mining” the ECF’s and do not take into consideration the entirety of their works.

 

[pablope]

I recently asked one of the bishops at my church this question. (church of Christ)

And upon discussion, reading, and study this is what I think.

Paul directed tha Gentile didn’t need to become Jews first (circumsicion), the some Christians that came from Jewish background disagreed. So a group of church leaders came together to discuss the problem. After much discussion and argueing and Paul listening he finally got to the point where he realized that the proponents and opponents were never goin to come to the correct conclusion. So he stood up, and laid down the law and rightly proclaimed the truth. Rereas the passage if you disagree and you will see that a decision wasn’t made by the group but rather Paul telling the truth and them being obedient. That can’t and doesn’t happen any more. Now council are brought together and a democratic decision is made.

Hmmmm…here is Acts 15. Can you cite in this passage where Paul makes the dogmatic decision to not require circumcision?

So…hmmm…which verse is it that states where Paul stood up?

Acts 15:

Acts 15

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

15 And some coming down from Judea, taught the brethren: That except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved.

2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of the other side, should go up to the apostles and priests to Jerusalem about this question.

3 They therefore being brought on their way by the church, passed through Phenice, and Samaria, relating the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren.

4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church, and by the apostles and ancients, declaring how great things God had done with them.

5 But there arose some of the sect of the Pharisees that believed, saying: They must be circumcised, and be commanded to observe the law of Moses.

6 And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter.

7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

8 And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us;

9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

10 Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

11 But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also.

12 And all the multitude held their peace; and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me.

 

[JRKH]

I recently asked one of the bishops at my church this question. (church of Christ)

And upon discussion, reading, and study this is what I think.

Paul directed tha Gentile didn’t need to become Jews first (circumsicion), the some Christians that came from Jewish background disagreed. So a group of church leaders came together to discuss the problem. After much discussion and argueing and Paul listening he finally got to the point where he realized that the proponents and opponents were never goin to come to the correct conclusion. So he stood up, and laid down the law and rightly proclaimed the truth. Rereas the passage if you disagree and you will see that a decision wasn’t made by the group but rather Paul telling the truth and them being obedient. That can’t and doesn’t happen any more. Now council are brought together and a democratic decision is made.

First of all - Please provide chapter and verse where Paul, “stood up, and laid down the law and rightly proclaimed the truth”. When and where did he do this and where is it proclaimed in the Bible - certainly not in Acts 15.
I am truly interested in where you find this.

Secondly - the context in which I wrote my reply was in response to bwmnstar who claimed that, “* Paul, as an individual, could write to certain churches without appeal to any other church leader. And his writings were taken as infallible and inspired of God.*”
Yet when the issue of circumcision came up at Antioch - and Paul was apparently present in the city at the time - the disputing parties did not come to Paul and accept his “infallible teaching” on the matter. In fact they argued with him and “dissented” from what he was saying. Here is what it states in Acts 15:2
And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
Now tell me - if bwmnstar’s assertion is true, that Paul did not need to appeal to “any other church leaders” and that His writings - and most certainly his oral teaching as well - was taken as, “infallible and inspired of God”, why is it we do not find the circumcision issue resolved in Antioch with Paul “laying down the law” as you put it in your post?
Why is it that Paul and Barnabas and some others needed to go to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question?
The obvious answer is that bwmnstar’s assertion is not true. Paul’s writings and teachings were not immediately seen as infallible and that is what led to the need for the Council at Jerusalem where speeches by Peter and by James are recorded but what Paul said is not…

Peace
James

 

[sdegutis]

The OP isn’t really reading and responding to our reasonable, logical responses. The OP does not seem to have the grace from God or is not cooperating with the grace from God to face the facts as they are, just yet. It is not my place to judge why. It’s also not my place to try and convince someone of the full Gospel message who is not open to hearing it just yet. So I won’t waste anyone’s time anymore about this. Peace and grace and truth to you all.

 

[Nicea325]

The OP isn’t really reading and responding to our reasonable, logical responses. The OP does not seem to have the grace from God or is not cooperating with the grace from God to face the facts as they are, just yet. It is not my place to judge why. It’s also not my place to try and convince someone of the full Gospel message who is not open to hearing it just yet. So I won’t waste anyone’s time anymore about this. Peace and grace and truth to you all.

I can understand your frustration. I told the OP to stick to the main argument: The Churches of Christ also have a right to being the true church? I have asked the OP to present me historical evidence and as of today…nothing. I was told to have some patience? After how many pages?

 

[kwortham]

Evangelicals do believe that Scripture as the apostles wrote it is infallible.

What about what was written by Luke and Mark? They were not apostles. According to your logic, these were not inspired writers. What about Hebrews? According to your logic, it should be counted as non-inspired.

Ignatius notes a difference between his authority and that of the apostles, when he writes:

"I do not issue orders like an apostle.” Epistle to the Trallians, 3)

You have taken that quote entirely out of context. Here is the fullness of the section:

I know that you possess an unblameable and sincere mind in patience, and that not only in present practice, but according to inherent nature, as Polybius your bishop (Singular) has shown me, who has come to Smyrna by the will of God and Jesus Christ, and so sympathized in the joy which I, who am bound in Christ Jesus, possess, that I beheld your whole multitude in him. Having therefore received through him the testimony of your good-will, according to God, I gloried to find you, as I knew you were, the followers of God.

For, since you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, you may escape from death. It is therefore necessary that, as you indeed do, so without the bishop you should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found. It is fitting also that the deacons, as being [the ministers] of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, should in every respect be pleasing to all. For they are not ministers of meat and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They are bound, therefore, to avoid all grounds of accusation [against them], as they would do fire.

In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. Concerning all this, I am persuaded that you are of the same opinion. For I have received the manifestation of your love, and still have it with me, in your bishop, whose very appearance is highly instructive, and his meekness of itself a power; whom I imagine even the ungodly must reverence, seeing they are also pleased that I do not spare myself. **But shall I, when permitted to write on this point, reach such a height of self-esteem, that though being a condemned man, I should issue commands to you as if I were an apostle? I have great knowledge in God, but I restrain myself, lest, I should perish through boasting. **For now it is needful for me to be the more fearful; and not give heed to those that puff me up. “For might not I write to you things more full of mystery?..thought I am acquainted with these things, yet am I not therefore by any means perfect; nor am I such a disciple as Paul or Peter. For many things are yet wanting in me, that I may not fall short of God.” Epistle to the Trallians, 5)

St. Ignatius was saying that he was not writing commands as an apostles so as not to perish through boasting. It does not mean that he couldn’t have done so.

If you are going to quote the ECF, then be advised that we are not going to let you pull things out of context.