Calling all Churches of Christ! Where'd you get your bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NotWorthy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
NotWorthy:
ReflectHim,
How can I defend the loss of Apostolic Tradition (that’s the first time I’ve heard the term used “against” the Catholic Church) if I’m not aware of which Traditions we’ve abandoned? It would be better for you, Le Cat, to open up the thread.

With that said, back to the thread.

Whose Bible did you use prior to the KJV or any other Protestant guided Bible (yes, I know you’re not Protestant). The only Bibles that included the New Testament prior to the Reformation (that I’m aware of) were lovingly created and preserved by our dear Mother Church!

Notworthy
Click to expand...
As far as the Bible goes…the Early church had no bible as I understand it. They had the Apostles, who were taught at the feet of Jesus and were later given the Holy Spirit to help establish the church. The apostles guided the church in the 1st century. After the Apostles passed from this world, they left behind the letters they and other inspired men had written to the various congregations. These letters eventually were assembled into the bible. I think this happened at the council of Nicea. ( I’ll have to check that.)

A few hundred years after the time of the Apostles, history tells us that disputes began to arise in the church. Some heresy that developed was the thought that Jesus never really came in the flesh, and then some Elders/Bishops went against the teaching of the Apostles about the autonomy of local congregations, and began to “shepherd” more than one congregation at a time. These men were eventually given titles like “archbishop” which are not mentioned in the NT.

*I am not a Bible scholar, and will be honest and say that in order to be fair and consise I have asked others who are more knowledgable in this area than I. I would really like to get a response from my dad, a minister, on his response. But he’s pushing 61 and I don’t know if he is apt to e-mail me the answer. But I will e-mail him, hopefully my mother will type it for him. Sending him an e-maill now. I’m just not the best one to answer the question. But I will do my best to get that answer, from one who can better explain than I. Will keep you posted.

God Bless.*
 
First - Hi, boppysbud! I don’t know if you remember me, but I believe we exchanged posts frequently on Beliefnet boards a few years back.

At the risk of being criticized, I’ll go out on a limb here with what I hope will be a somewhat fair assessment of the Churches of Christ. First the good news - the Churches of Christ are some of the most sincere, well-meaning, zealous Christians you will find. In fact, they probably have more in common with the Catholic Church than most members would think. For example, Sunday attendance at services is considered indispensable, because of the belief that all Christians must partake in the Lord’s Supper (not Eucharist in their understanding) on the first day of the week. Also, it is not unusual to see head coverings worn on Sundays, although it is typically only seen in more “conservative” congregations. Although they may look to an outsider somewhat like a Baptist church, they are most definitely not, if for no other reason than they do not believe in “once saved, always saved.” I could list more, but I digress…

The Churches of Christ are a sect that began with a call to return to New Testament Christianity and unity among Christians, which was led primarily by the Campbell brothers and Barton Stone. The movement that led to their development is sometimes referred to as the Restoration Movement or the American Reformation. In a nutshell, it was kind of a protest against the Protestants! An excellent book on the history of these churches is Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in America by Richard T. Hughes. He is a CofC author, so lacks the potential bias of an outsider.

Now back to the original question - the members of the CofC believe that the Bible they have is in existence because God made sure it was preserved the way it was supposed to be (i.e., they have God’s word preserved “in spite of”, not “because of,” the Catholic Church). Although some members use KJV exclusively, other translations are accepted (in varying degrees) by the members. They do believe the Catholic Church to be apostate, and that Christians that believe and behave in the same manner as they do have been in existence all along. The prevailing school of thought when it comes to most practices and beliefs of the CofC is “Where the Bible speaks, we speak. Where the Bible is silent, we are silent.”

Now for my opinion specifically (which cannot be refuted, because it is only my opinion!) - the CofC is, as I said before, a zealous and devout group. They want nothing more than to serve God. The downside of such zeal is that it has lead to exclusivity, legalism, and a belief that they’ve “cornered the market” on God’s favor.

If the original OP would like to hear more on my take of the CofC (which I can assure you is based on both personal experience and extensive study), I’ll be glad to share. I’d prefer not to go any further at this time, however, because I don’t want to be stirring the pot too much.

Peace and joy!
Andi
 
40.png
NotWorthy:
what Bible did this Church of Christ Religion use prior to the King James Bible? Are there any of these Pre-KJV’s that they used still in existence?
Click to expand...
Forgot to answer this question - the answer is that the CofC didn’t exist pre-KJV, so the question is moot.
 
Hi ReflectHim!! 👋

If I might just interject a little something here…
40.png
ReflectHim:
A few hundred years after the time of the Apostles, history tells us that disputes began to arise in the church. Some heresy that developed was the thought that Jesus never really came in the flesh, and then some Elders/Bishops went against the teaching of the Apostles about the autonomy of local congregations, and began to “shepherd” more than one congregation at a time. These men were eventually given titles like “archbishop” which are not mentioned in the NT.
Click to expand...
It’s bishops who shepherd more than one congregation.

Can you help me understand how you came to your understanding that “the autonomy of local congregations” was a teaching of the Apostles? I ask that question in all sincerity becuase Acts 15 seems to paint quite a different picture.

When the Christians in Antioch disagreed about whether or not circumcision was necessary for salvation they didn’t keep it local, they took it to Jerusalem. The Apostles didn’t tell them to look it up in scripture or to pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their local congrgation. Rather, the Apostles decided the issue themselves by their own authority in the Spirit. That decision wasn’t just binding on the Antiochans but other congregations as well.

This example of the Apostles doesn’t seem to support the idea of the autonomy of local congregations.

Thanks for your answer!

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
Hi Alsli, I remember your name, but not a whole lot about you.

I had a stroke back in Auguust last, and my memory was badly affected.

Do you also post on ExChurchof Christ.com there is someone there who also mentions the Hughes History of “churchfChrist”, I find myself intrigied and I intend to get and read that book when I can get a ride to the library.
 
I pretty much agree with you about the so called “churchofChrist”, they are sincere and zealous. And of course I was well educated about Campbell and Stone and the “Restoration Movement” when I was a cofCer myself.

There are a lot of things in common between the Catholic Church and the “churchofChrist” besides having Holy Communion every Sunday, they also are about the only Protestant denomination that believes that Baptism is reqiured for forgiveness of sins, other Protestants like the Baptists think that baptism is optional and is only symbolic of forgiveness of sins.

And of course they think they are the only true church, but I just can’t get past the fact that only existed since 1906, I think
God had a church since 33 ad, one that continued and did not go into apostacy.

That thing about “apostacy” and the church ceasing to exist is what makes me think “cofCers” hate the Catholic church.
 
And now, back to the thread. Has anyone found what New Testament Bible the members of the Church of Christ used prior to the King James Version?

Notworthy
 
sorry haven’t had chance to post (college)…dad is slow. period, but he is responding, but he is a professor, didn’t tell him the urgency…
 
40.png
ReflectHim:
sorry haven’t had chance to post (college)…dad is slow. period, but he is responding, but he is a professor, didn’t tell him the urgency…
Click to expand...
What? You’re neglecting your postings with college work?!?! Maybe we need to start a thread on priorities, eh?😉

I just figured there’s more members of the Church of Christ on this site that could help.

Good luck, Reflect, in your studies!

Notworthy
 
40.png
NotWorthy:
And now, back to the thread. Has anyone found what New Testament Bible the members of the Church of Christ used prior to the King James Version?

Notworthy
Click to expand...
Don’t hold your breath on that one.
 
My friend, who is Church of Christ, uses the NIV.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
Notworthyhathsaid

“And now, back to the thread. Has anyone found what New Testament Bible the members of the Church of Christ used prior to the King James Version?”

Your situation is impossible,Notworthy for the simple reason that that King James bible was published all the way back in 1611.

Which is 294 years BEFORE the so called “churchofChrist” was started in 1906.

An institution cannot use a reference centuries before it exists, that is impossible.
 
Exactly Boppysbud! I have great respect for logicians. Especially since I myself am lousy at it. 😃
 
Here is my dad’s response [a minister] to the first posed question. Sorry it took so long, he’s a busy individual.

The biblical evidence to prove that the Church of Christ had its birthday, on Sunday, the day of Pentecost according to Acts chapter 2 is irrefutable by astute students of the Bible.

The church went into apostasy in keeping with very plain predictions from the scriptures ( Acts 20-28-32; I Timothy 4:1-3; II Timothy 4:1-8; II Peter 2:1-4)
The church went into the Dark Ages period about 275 A.D. until about 1066 A.D. It was not restored until the latter years of the nineteenth century by men such as Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone, James O’Kelly, Marshall Keeble, R.N> Hogan and J. W. Winston.

The evidence to prove the succession of the true church, through the ages, provided by historians such as Origen, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and others. However, the divine assurance concerning the perpetuity of the true church is affirmed by Daniel in Daniel 2:44b. He declared that the church would never be destroyed and that it would stand forever.”

THE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE

The querist needs to read the book entitled “How We God The Bible” by Dr. Neil Lightfoot. The Bible was written by Holy men of God (II Peter 1:19-21). While we do not have the original manuscripts of the Bible, we do have ancient copies.

Dr. Lightfoot points out on page 30 of his book that the largest and most important copies of the scriptures are the Vatican, the Sinaitic, and the Alexandrian manuscripts. They date back to A.D. 300-450. These manuscripts contain basically all of the Old and New Testament.

The querist also need to read the Church, The Falling Away, and the Restoration by J.W. Shepherd.

The Bible (alone) is the sole authority in matters of faith, worship, and practice for the church. Oral traditions of men cannot be trusted and should not be added to the Word (Matthew 15:7-9; II Timothy 3:16-17; Jude verse 3; Psalm 68:11, Revelation 22:18:18-20).
 
40.png
ReflectHim:
The evidence to prove the succession of the true church, through the ages, provided by historians such as Origen, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and others. However, the divine assurance concerning the perpetuity of the true church is affirmed by Daniel in Daniel 2:44b. He declared that the church would never be destroyed and that it would stand forever.”
Click to expand...
OK, Origen, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr are going to be the referees on which is the true Church.

Papal Authority: Irenaeus - [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:1415-416

Infant Baptism: Justin Martyr - “And many,both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixtey or seventy years…”
Justin Martyr,First Apology,15:6(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:167

Infant Baptism - Irenaeus - “For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies,2,22:4 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:391

Infant Baptism - Origen - “Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, B****aptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.”
Origen, Homily on Leviticus,8:3(post A.D. 244),in JUR,I:208

The Real Presence in Communion: Justin Martyr - “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour,having been made flesh and blood for our salvation,so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished,is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
Justin Martyr,First Apology,66(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:185

The Real Presence: Ireneaus - “[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…”
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,IV:18,4(c.A.D. 200),in ANF,I:486
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood,from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body,from which he gives increase to our bodies.”
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,V:2,2(c.A.D. 200),in NE,119

Auricular Confession: Ireneaus - “… those of them who have returned to the Church of God–a thing which frequently occurs–have acknowledged, confessing, too, that they have been defiled by him, …At last, when, with no small difficulty, the brethren had converted her, she spent her whole time in the exercise of public confession, weeping over and lamenting the defilement which she had received from this magician.”
Irenaeus.Against Heresies,1:13(A.D.180),in ANF,I:335

Now who’s in Apostasy and who’s not? It seems the men that you provided as proof of the Apostolic Succession preach from the Catholic Pulpit!!!

Notworthy
 
40.png
ReflectHim:
The Bible (alone) is the sole authority in matters of faith, worship, and practice for the church. Oral traditions of men cannot be trusted and should not be added to the Word (Matthew 15:7-9; II Timothy 3:16-17; Jude verse 3; Psalm 68:11, Revelation 22:18:18-20).
Click to expand...
Can you provide the actual quote that says that? II Timothy 3:16-17 says that “All Scripture is inspired by God and IS USEFUL for teaching…”. I hope you don’t interpret “is useful” to mean “is sufficient”.

Notworthy
 
40.png
ReflectHim:
The biblical evidence to prove that the Church of Christ had its birthday, on Sunday, the day of Pentecost according to Acts chapter 2 is irrefutable by astute students of the Bible.
Click to expand...
I agree that biblical evidence that the Chuirch had its birthday on the day of Pentecost is indeed irrifutable by astute students of the Bible. However, your dad’s implication here is that anyone who does not irrefutabley conclude from scripture that the Church of Christ is that Church is obtuse. That reminds me of the Jehovah’s Witness who told me that any sincere seeker of the truth would naturally be convicted of the truth of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Unspoken “fact” being that anyone who is not a Jehovah’s Witness is obviously not sincerely seeking the truth.
The church went into apostasy in keeping with very plain predictions from the scriptures ( Acts 20-28-32; I Timothy 4:1-3; II Timothy 4:1-8; II Peter 2:1-4)
Click to expand...
God said that the Church cannot go into apostacy (Matt 16:18). Groups of individuals can, however. That is what the verses you have offered indicate. They say nothing whatsoever about the Church as a whole but rather, very specifically and in no uncertain terms, speak of “some”. Your dad has forced a meaning on the text that simply isn’t there.
The church went into the Dark Ages period about 275 A.D. until about 1066 A.D. It was not restored until the latter years of the nineteenth century by men such as Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone, James O’Kelly, Marshall Keeble, R.N> Hogan and J. W. Winston.
Click to expand...
Don’t the Mormons make the same claim about Joseph Smith?
The evidence to prove the succession of the true church, through the ages, provided by historians such as Origen, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and others. However, the divine assurance concerning the perpetuity of the true church is affirmed by Daniel in Daniel 2:44b. He declared that the church would never be destroyed and that it would stand forever.”
Click to expand...
Amen to that brother!!!
THE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE

The querist needs to read the book entitled “How We God The Bible” by Dr. Neil Lightfoot. The Bible was written by Holy men of God (II Peter 1:19-21). While we do not have the original manuscripts of the Bible, we do have ancient copies.

Dr. Lightfoot points out on page 30 of his book that the largest and most important copies of the scriptures are the Vatican, the Sinaitic, and the Alexandrian manuscripts. They date back to A.D. 300-450. These manuscripts contain basically all of the Old and New Testament.

The querist also need to read the Church, The Falling Away, and the Restoration by J.W. Shepherd.
Click to expand...
For what reason should the querist objectively accept Dr. Neil Lighfoot’s book as authoritative on this matter? Is there any other reason that YOU accept his claims other than the fact that his claims agree with what you already believe?
The Bible (alone) is the sole authority in matters of faith, worship, and practice for the church.
Click to expand...
The bible makes no such claim for itself. By what authority does your dad make this claim?
Oral traditions of men cannot be trusted
Click to expand...
Some oral traditions should not be trusted, but Paul specifically says not only that some SHOULD be trusted but that they should be “held fast to” (2 The 2:15). What you have stated here is not only NOT in scripture but in direct opposition to it.
and should not be added to the Word (Matthew 15:7-9; II Timothy 3:16-17; Jude verse 3; Psalm 68:11, Revelation 22:18:18-20).
Click to expand...
The unspoken and unscriptural assumption your dad has made here is that “the word” is always and only a reference to the written word. This idea is found nowhere in scripture. The written word tells us specifically that “the word” is to be listened to, heard, not neglected, received, proclaimed, preached, taught, listened to and spoken. NEVER ONCE the the written word tell us that “the word” is to be written or read. In light of this fact, and using the written word of God only, how does your dad justify his claim that the use of “word of God” in the bible is always and only a reference to the scriptures?

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
This is a public apology to ReflectHim. I absolutely did not mean to offend you but rather was raising points for discussion. I’m sorry for having offended you and hope you’ll accept my apology!

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top