Information On The Church Of Christ

[pablope]

I

To us, it didn’t matter how you got the message, as long as you got the message straight from the Bible,

 

[FreciaMarie]

That is right…and you can see the first disagreement being tackled in Acts 15. But how did the Church tackle this disagreement?

It is discussed in the link I previously provided to you…mark-shea.com/tradition.html

The Church, of course, began as an almost totally Jewish sect. Its Lord was a Jew, the apostles were all Jews, the first thousands of converts were Jews and the only Bible it had when Gentiles began flooding into the Church were Jewish Scriptures. As delegates of the supposed Bible-only “hidden Church” attending the Council of Jerusalem, let’s try to resolve the question of whether to circumcise Gentiles who want to join the Covenant People. What does Scripture say?

It says the covenant of circumcision is “an everlasting covenant” (Gen 17:7). It says the Patriarchs, Moses and the Prophets are circumcised. It says that circumcision is enjoined, not only on descendants of Abraham, but upon every male who wants to join the Covenant People (Ex 12:48). Period. No exceptions. Moreover, looking around the room we note that the apostles and elders are all circumcised and that the Lord Jesus they preach was circumcised (Lk 2:21). And Jesus himself says that not one jot or tittle of the law would by any means pass away (Mt 5:18) while he is stone silent that Gentiles be exempted from the immemorial requirement of circumcision for all who wish to join the Covenant People.

And so, the Council meets and, in light of all this obvious scriptural teaching, declares…

…that circumcision for Gentiles is against the will of the God who does not change.

Suddenly the whole thing looks perversely Catholic, don’t it? So did apostolic Tradition change Scripture or what?

Nope. It simply acted as a lens and refocused the light of Scripture so that something which had been hidden there was now visible. For, despite appearances, the dogmatic definitions of the Church do not just pop up with absolutely no relation to Scripture. Rather, they assemble the materially sufficient revelation of Scripture using the mortar of Sacred Tradition. And that Tradition is not separate, secret and parallel to Scripture, but the common teaching, life, and worship of the Church. In the case of the Council of Jerusalem, the common teaching from the apostles included the then-unwritten command of Christ to preach the gospel to the whole world (Mt 28:19). It included the as-yet-unwritten common knowledge of Peter’s mystical revelation by the Holy Spirit (“Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” [Acts 10:15]). It included the experiences of Paul and Barnabas in preaching to the Gentiles (Acts 15:12). It is through this Sacred Tradition that James reads Scripture and sees in Scripture, not a judge or “final rule of faith” but a witness to the authoritative decision of the Church in Council. For he says not “we agree with the Prophet Amos” but rather that the words of the prophets “agree with” the Council (Acts 15:15). In short, the Council places the Church on the judge’s seat and the Scripture in the witness box, deriving its revelation not from Scripture alone but from Sacred Tradition and the magisterial authority of the apostles in union with Scripture. And so materially sufficient bricks of Old Testament revelation, which we thought were made to build into a synagogue are stacked and mortared with apostolic Tradition by the trowel of the Church’s magisterial authority, and turn out to make a cathedral instead.

The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, places Scripture in the context of Tradition and magisterial, apostolic authority. The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, speaks with apostolic authority and declares, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15:29). And so, the biblical Council, just like the modern Catholic Church, develops a doctrine which, to “Bible-only” eyes, appears to flatly nullify Scripture yet which, upon closer inspection, turns out to uphold it (Rom 3:31).

I absolutely love how you worded this. I just took a screen shot of it to send to one of my brothers who is struggling with understanding. Thank you for this!

 

[kmcarl56]

kmkarl56

from whom did you get the bible? the bible was most certainly created in time by men.

who were those men and would they not know more about what the bible teaches then someone who was not involved in creating the bible?

do you really think God wants every single human to be forced to rely on only their own limited abilities to know and believe what He teaches?

have you never encountered another human being that believes in foolishness?

do you not know there are people who believe in genocide, rwanda for a prime example of them.

1. I got the Bible from my parents when I took my first communion.
2. Yes, the Bible was written by men over time, but those men were inspired by the Holy Spirit who gave them the words to write down (sometimes centuries later, in fact).
3. No, I do not think that every single human should be forced to rely only on their own abilities to interpret some things in the Bible. That IS why God gave our prophets (some of whom are now referred to as our Saints) and our current Biblical scholars the wisdom needed to help those of us who lack such enlightenment.
4. Yes, I do believe that there are a lot of fools in this world, and I have certainly met some. That is unfortunate for them. All we can do with our own knowledge and understanding is to tell them as much as we do know about the Lord our God and His wonderful and endless love for us.
5. Yes, I do know that there are people in this world who believe in horrible evil things as the truth. They truly need our prayers.

I really don’t like getting “yelled” at, so please refrain from doing so in the future. If you have nothing good to say, then say nothing at all. If you disagree with me, then say so in a kinder, more Christ-like manner.

Thank you.

KMC

 

[kmcarl56]

Welcome, KMcarl…

 

[eddie_too]

kmcarl56,

perhaps you do not know this, but the bible your parents gave you is a copy of a compilation of books that was compiled in the fourth century AD by the Church at that time as led by the successors to the apostles. these books were written by many men over the course of approximately eleven centuries. many other books, written during those same centuries, were determined, by those successors to the apostles living at that time, to not be inspired works and were not included in the bible compiled by the catholic bishops, i.e. successor to the aposltes.

i am not sure what you mean by my “yelling” at you. i was under the impression that when someone on the internet wants to yell at someone else they capitalize their words. i did not capitalize my comments to you. so, maybe you could explain why you say i “yelled” at you because i do not have any idea why you say that i “yelled” at you.

 

[ffg]

As a member and Deacon in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) I would like to clear up a couple of your statements. First the Church of Christ was not “invented by Alexander Campbell” nor was any church for that matter. Alexander Campbell was an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church. Alexander along with his son Thomas led a group of Christians believing that creeds were a source of division in the church when used as a test of faith as well a believing that the Lord’s Supper should be open to any baptized Christian regardless of denomination as long as they professed belief in Jesus Christ and accepted Him as Lord and Savior. Another contemporary Barton W. Stone led a separate group of Christians believing much the same so **the two groups merged to form the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). **The Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, the the non-instrumental Churches of Christ all derived from this movement. They committed themselves to the restoration of pure New Testament Christianity free of the the many man made dogmas associated with Tradition and the many abuses of the institutional church up to and following the Reformation. They believed in 'No Creed but Christ" and in speaking only where the scriptures speak. These three churches were products of the restoration movement while the United Church of Christ is a product of the reformed churches.

I appreciate a good history lesson. Especially on matter I am unfamiliar.

The bold seem to me to be equal considering the subject. ‘Two groups merging to form’ and ‘invented by’ in terms of a new religion (denomination) are the same if those doing the merging and inventing are only Human.

The question is why did they feel like they could just take what they liked about religion and mold it to their liking in a new Church?

The key question every Christian avoids today - Is there a right and is there a wrong? If there is a right and wrong, it’s not going to be capped at some arbitrary point in time for some guy to take with him to his new Church.

All the process of throwing out doctrine and dogma’s does is limit the followers ability to know what Jesus came to the Earth to proclaim…Truth.

 

[in_servitude]

They’re easy to reject on a cursory glance, to be fair. Blatant contradictions with the rest of scripture makes them easy to discard. I do not discount tradition’s role in that we got the bible and it was passed on and at some point you realize “hey this new writing came about years after the bible was complete why are we considering it?”

So, if a person looks at today’s NT and finds a contradiction, then those books should be then discarded?

Today, within Protestant circles, there are two different teachings on “Once Saved, Always Saved.” Both groups appeal to scripture to support their position. And yet, there is a strong disagreement. Therefore, the bible in insufficient to render a proper understanding on the fundamental nature of Christianity and salvation.

The word teaches us the importance of testing spirits, of knowing people by their fruits.

Here’s a real example of that: The reformation yields division - and by those fruits, it is easy to see the spirit involved.

I agree! The issue is we have differences of opinion on which church was THE church established by Christ. No doubt His church has been guided by the Holy Spirit and was guided in its early days to recognize what scripture was.

[1Cr 14:37-38 NASB] 37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. 38 But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

One of the major differences between my belief and the catholic beliefs is the nature of spiritual gifts. I believe that spiritual gifts were a temporary thing, as stated in scripture, used to help us until the “perfect” comes. My interpretation of the “perfect” is the completed word of God. That is, the finished bible. The early church rightly needed the spiritual gifts in the first century when they did not have a complete book to rely on for their teaching.

When did the Holy Spirit finally deliver this “finished bible” The “complete book” upon which we “rely for teaching”?? Give me a date, please!!!

As such, while I believe the Holy Spirit still works today, I do not believe it is involved with the bestowing of spiritual gifts in the same manner. I base this on the fact that in the early church, as presented in the bible, these gifts were not rare. They were all over the place. But today, I do not see them at all and for those who do belief claim they are rare and hardly ever seen.

First, I disagree that the events were common place. If 10 years worth of recorded events are contained within a few dozen pages of scripture, then that is a very low rate of occurrence. But, regardless:

Perhaps, then you could explain the events in Fatima on October 13, 1917? The Holy Spirit is laying down even more dramatic displays in these days, not less.

The speaking of tongues is used as a sign for those who do not believe, for those outside the church, for by this miracle they can be persuaded. Yet this is not a thing that is ever seen anymore. This might be somewhat of a tangent, but my point is that while the church itself will never die, I don’t think you can say that anyone within it is free from error. The gifts to help us be free from error no longer exist, and honestly, the Corinthians were in error all the time in spite of them.

I had not heard that people were speaking in tongues on a regular basis in the 1st century. There are a couple of recorded instances. It would not surprise me to learn of a couple of recorded instances of this in the 20th century.

Our promise from Christ is that the church will endure. If all men fall yet a couple remain, then the church of Christ still exists on earth and has not been destroyed by the gates of Hades. But to suggest that a magisterium can be free from error doesn’t quite make sense. Though furthmore, I’d ask if you knew that the church you claim is free from error is THE church.

The Catholic Church is kept free from error, yes. Free from teaching error on the subjects of faith and morals. For example, contraception. I’m not aware of protestant denominations that have not fallen into error on this subject. What is the teaching from the Church of Christ on contraception? If they say it’s acceptable, then I say they are in grave error.

There’s lots of church history, and lots of tradition, but it seems there is more tradition than history and tradition doesn’t seem to really count as evidence for anyone other than catholics.

The problem that I have is the double talk in regards to the bible. People say it’s the Word of God, but in reality, they implicitly ascribe authority to people from a long time ago in the process. Yet, it’s not all people, just a certain group of people. Why it is that only one group of people should be acknowledged while others ignored, it is not obvious to know the truth outside of a given authority. Arians thought they were right, no question. But, the Church stayed the course to where we are today.

 

[Traverse]

That is right…and you can see the first disagreement being tackled in Acts 15. But how did the Church tackle this disagreement?

…]

As delegates of the supposed Bible-only “hidden Church” attending the Council of Jerusalem, let’s try to resolve the question of whether to circumcise Gentiles who want to join the Covenant People. What does Scripture say?

It says the covenant of circumcision is “an everlasting covenant” (Gen 17:7). It says the Patriarchs, Moses and the Prophets are circumcised. It says that circumcision is enjoined, not only on descendants of Abraham, but upon every male who wants to join the Covenant People (Ex 12:48). Period. No exceptions. Moreover, looking around the room we note that the apostles and elders are all circumcised and that the Lord Jesus they preach was circumcised (Lk 2:21). And Jesus himself says that not one jot or tittle of the law would by any means pass away (Mt 5:18) while he is stone silent that Gentiles be exempted from the immemorial requirement of circumcision for all who wish to join the Covenant People.

And so, the Council meets and, in light of all this obvious scriptural teaching, declares…

…that circumcision for Gentiles is against the will of the God who does not change.

Suddenly the whole thing looks perversely Catholic, don’t it? So did apostolic Tradition change Scripture or what?

Unfortunately you are ignoring the part of the council where the decision is justified by scripture.

[Act 15:15-19 NASB] 15 "With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, 16 ‘AFTER THESE THINGS I will return, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN, AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL RESTORE IT, 17 SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,’ 18 SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO. 19 "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles…

You have also ignored the fact that these are matters resolved and discussed before the new testament was completed, at a time when the apostles, inspired by the Holy Spirit, were with us as teachers.

You appear to be arguing for sacred tradition, showing that the apostles taught something not found in the bible, yet ignore the fact that the matter was later recorded in the bible for us to have while the apostles are no longer with us.

The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, places Scripture in the context of Tradition and magisterial, apostolic authority. The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, speaks with apostolic authority and declares, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15:29). And so, the biblical Council, just like the modern Catholic Church, develops a doctrine which, to “Bible-only” eyes, appears to flatly nullify Scripture yet which, upon closer inspection, turns out to uphold it (Rom 3:31).

So your argument for sacred tradition is that the church affirmed the authority of scripture?

 

[Traverse]

So, if a person looks at today’s NT and finds a contradiction, then those books should be then discarded?

Today, within Protestant circles, there are two different teachings on “Once Saved, Always Saved.” Both groups appeal to scripture to support their position. And yet, there is a strong disagreement. Therefore, the bible in insufficient to render a proper understanding on the fundamental nature of Christianity and salvation.

Just because some twist the words of scripture doesn’t make it a contradiction. You should know that very well. The inability for people to agree does not nullify the truth.

When did the Holy Spirit finally deliver this “finished bible” The “complete book” upon which we “rely for teaching”?? Give me a date, please!!!

Is the date important to you? The bible was complete when the apostle John finished Revelation, as it was the last book written. As you well know from history, the various new testament books were passed around to the churches without delay. It would have taken time for all the churches to have seen all the new testament texts, but I think you would agree that the texts weren’t waiting around for a couple hundred years before a council met to affirm them.

If you mean a complete and bound book with “bible” printed on the front, that’s really not what I’m talking about.

First, I disagree that the events were common place. If 10 years worth of recorded events are contained within a few dozen pages of scripture, then that is a very low rate of occurrence. But, regardless:

Perhaps, then you could explain the events in Fatima on October 13, 1917? The Holy Spirit is laying down even more dramatic displays in these days, not less.

I had not heard that people were speaking in tongues on a regular basis in the 1st century. There are a couple of recorded instances. It would not surprise me to learn of a couple of recorded instances of this in the 20th century.

Two things. You’re ignoring the biblical record which loves to casually whip out things like…

[Act 8:13 NASB] 13 Even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed.

[Act 19:11 NASB] 11 God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul,

[2Cr 12:12 NASB] 12 The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.

And so on. More miracles are alluded to than actually recorded. And the churches were even warned about how to speak in tongues because people were using it improperly. There was genuine concern that someone would walk into the church from outside and see a bunch of people speaking in tongues and think they’re all crazy. If that situation wasn’t possible there would have been no warning.

The Catholic Church is kept free from error, yes. Free from teaching error on the subjects of faith and morals. For example, contraception. I’m not aware of protestant denominations that have not fallen into error on this subject. What is the teaching from the Church of Christ on contraception? If they say it’s acceptable, then I say they are in grave error.

Abortion is wrong, therefore abortifacients are wrong. Condoms are considered acceptable.

The problem that I have is the double talk in regards to the bible. People say it’s the Word of God, but in reality, they implicitly ascribe authority to people from a long time ago in the process. Yet, it’s not all people, just a certain group of people. Why it is that only one group of people should be acknowledged while others ignored, it is not obvious to know the truth outside of a given authority. Arians thought they were right, no question. But, the Church stayed the course to where we are today.

I’m a little confused by what you’re saying here. Can you clarify? It sounds like you’re denying the idea that there is one church which Christ established.

 

[pablope]

Unfortunately you are ignoring the part of the council where the decision is justified by scripture.

[Act 15:15-19 NASB] 15 "With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, 16 ‘AFTER THESE THINGS I will return, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN, AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL RESTORE IT, 17 SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,’ 18 SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO. 19 "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles…

 

[kmcarl56]

There is a church of Christ not far from my house, but this church is a Mormon church.

Churches of Christ are in no way associated with Morman churches.

 

[fred_conty]

Churches of Christ are in no way associated with Morman churches.

Well, my grandson has friends who are/were Mormon and that is the church they went to.
Actually the Church is named “Church of Christ” and then in small letters “of latter day saints”.
Whenever I drove by I always thought it was a Christian church but then when he told me his Mormon friends went there, then I looked closer and saw “latter day saints”.

So some of the churches of Christ are Mormon.

 

[Traverse]

No, that’s not how it works, Fred. Just because it has the name “church of christ” doesn’t mean it’s a church of christ.

 

[DannyGR]

Well, my grandson has friends who are/were Mormon and that is the church they went to.
Actually the Church is named “Church of Christ” and then in small letters “of latter day saints”.
Whenever I drove by I always thought it was a Christian church but then when he told me his Mormon friends went there, then I looked closer and saw “latter day saints”.

So some of the churches of Christ are Mormon.

The Churh of Christ is completely separate from the LDS church, they just have a similar name. They are in no way the same thing.

 

[BLP]

The Church of Christ and the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints are totally different. The Latter Day Saints are Mormons.

 

[fred_conty]

The Church of Christ and the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints are totally different. The Latter Day Saints are Mormons.

Yes, quite true. But then a person might walk into a Mormon church and think it was a Church of Christ by mistake just because of identical names. I wonder how many people the Mormon church has gotten people that way. In fact the one I saw looked just like any other nice protestant church and even had a steeple. Fooled me for a while. Think this is intentional?

 

[concretecamper]

today we do have His complete word for us.

Doesn’t the apostle John tell us that all the books in the the world could not contain everything that Jesus said and did? Is scripture His “complete” word?

 

[eddie_too]

why do peple believe the truth is better communicated through writing than through conversation and speech?

if that made sense, why would we have preachers?

if that is true, would not it make more sense to just have people read sacred scripture without anyone commenting?

if that is true, why are there hundreds, if not thousands, of denominations (distinguished by their differing interpretations of sacred scripture) that say they are “sola scriptura”?

it is obviously NOT true that the sacred scriptures are all that is needed to know Christ and what He taught and did.

 

[Traverse]

Doesn’t the apostle John tell us that all the books in the the world could not contain everything that Jesus said and did? Is scripture His “complete” word?

To be fair, that statement in the book of John has nothing to do with scripture being complete or not. I’m sure Jesus also said “Yes” and “No, I don’t want any figs today” but that wouldn’t make the knowledge of that necessary for salvation.

why do peple believe the truth is better communicated through writing than through conversation and speech?

Considering the bible as the ultimate authority doesn’t require a belief that written communication is better. Words can be misinterpreted, but the key is that the words we have before us won’t change and we can go back to them when our memory falters. Words we hear orally can also be misinterpreted, but less easy to re-examine.

if that made sense, why would we have preachers?

[2Pe 1:10-12 NASB] 10 Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; 11 for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you. 12 Therefore, I will always be ready to remind you of these things, even though you already know them, and have been established in the truth which is present with you.

if that is true, would not it make more sense to just have people read sacred scripture without anyone commenting?

if that is true, why are there hundreds, if not thousands, of denominations (distinguished by their differing interpretations of sacred scripture) that say they are “sola scriptura”?

it is obviously NOT true that the sacred scriptures are all that is needed to know Christ and what He taught and did.

To be fair, there is also more than one denomination that holds to sacred tradition. Do you think that because truth is given to the people that they will always stand behind it? Will they not, whether written or orally given, twist it however they want?

 

[Traverse]

Here is my queestion to you…what is that “with this” that the words of the prophets agree with?

Potato, potahto.

And I might add…prior to this council…Peter already had decided:

Acts 10:Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Acts 11:17 So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”

18 When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

These passages seem completely unrelated to our discussion. The council was called because of the questioning of some, not Peter.

Ha the Holy Spirit stopped inspiring the teachers of the Church? Has the Holy Spirit stopped guiding the Church?

I never said that. The Holy Spirit works in His own ways. I only said the very specific gifts of the first century have ceased.

Let me ask you…how does Scripture exercise its authority?

I in no way claimed that scripture exercised its own authority. The church is the pillar and the foundation of the truth and is given the ability to bind and loose. The church exercises scripture’s authority, but the authority still ultimately lies with scripture. The church does not create truth, it receives it.

Think of it this way. We are to be obedient to God alone. How did God communicate his desires to us? You would say, through scripture and sacred tradition. I would say through scripture. Why? Not because traditions do not exist, but that traditions do not reveal anything not already present in scripture. The only catholic traditions I’m aware of that aren’t simply a restating what is in scripture pertain to the assumption of Mary and other things like that. Matters that, while interesting, have no bearing on anyone’s salvation.