Information On The Church Of Christ

[Traverse]

It is NOT the Catholic Church that teaches “Bible Alone”. It is the Church of Christ that teaches Bible Alone. Therefore, saying that the Orthodox are not united to Rome has nothing to do with the point.

Isn’t your point that there are divisions? Are there not divisions among catholics as well? The orthodox split off (or you split from them, according to their own version of history). Sedevacantists… charismatic groups…

My point is that you can’t say “bible alone is clearly the cause for divisions” when the catholic church has gone through it’s own divisions completely unreleated to bible alone thinking.

All you have to say is that you’re giving authority to a certain group of people and you’re ignoring the authority of others who disagree with the first group. But, Bible Alone folks are very disconnected from this reality.

Of course authority is given to men, to the church. Elders and deacons are appointed for this reason. I don’t understand what you’re getting at.

Oh, well, that’s not a problem for you. You need not take the word of the Catholic Church! You can just read the reports from the Atheist-Communist government run newspaper. They provided some of the photographers, reporters, and pictures that we have of that day and much of the information that we have about that event. It was the government, by the way, that stationed armed troops to try and prevent people from getting to the field to see the miracle.

Fatima didn’t happen inside a church. Fatima happened in history. Your rejection of it being something tied to the Catholic Church does lack a reasonable foundation.

Well if you’d like to show me your evidences I will gladly look at them. All I’ve seen are pictures of people in a group and then the comments of some eyewitnesses. I haven’t heard anything about armed troops or even consistent witness reports, as some say the sun looked like it was about to hit the earth and some say it just spinned (which the sun looks like a lot if you just stare at it).

As far as I know the catholic church doesn’t require its members to belief in the events at Fatima, so I’m not sure why you’re so focused on it.

Catholics? No, of course not. The Catholic teaching is: do not use contraceptives. And, in following our Church’s teachings, we simply stay clear of killing tiny humans. But, not so with the Church of Christ. Each person is on their own - and unless they understand the details of the consequences of their actions, they’d have no idea that they were killing people. A Church of Christ member has no support for these kinds of issues - they have to go it alone, according to what you say. Keep in mind the consequences of taking “the pill” were not known at the time the Church was teaching in opposition to this form of killing. Even if a Church of Christ member was totally up on all the current science, they still would have fallen into the trap of killing in this fashion.

Do you see the difference here?

There is not difference. If it was doctrine to us that we’d avoid all contraception period because it is unnatural then we would have avoided abortifacents by default too. If it was not your doctrine to avoid all contraception then you would have also fallen into it. Considering that the catholic church has fallen into error in the past with executions, inquisition, and crusades, I don’t really understand your point.

But, what you’re doing is saying that any given person in that fellowship is not at all equipped to help another person avoid error.

I did not say that.

So, a vote is taken, then, among the members of any given Church of Christ congregation? How is it determined if a person is “unrighteous” or not?

No, that’s what elders are for.

I understand your confusion with the difference between teaching authority between our two belief systems, but I do not understand your confusion in how a person is determined as unrighteous. Do you think it’s so hard that if a person is sinning publicly and un-repentingly to notice that they are bad for the church?

**[1Cr 5:6-13 NASB] **
6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? 7 Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler–not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

 

[Traverse]

Please be fair then. You said we have God’s complete word. This is not true. If you want to amend your statement to scripture being complete…then I will agree with you… after all, the authority of the RCC says so.

The gospels touch but a fraction of Christ’s life. I am sure His life, outside what we know about through scripture, contained much more than what was for breakfast.

I don’t understand your disagreement.

If you can show me catholic teaching that comes from Christ that is not found in scripture then I can at least see where you’re coming from, that you claim to possess teaching through sacred tradition that is a different revelation than that already found in scripture.

 

[eddie_too]

if the written word was so important to the teachings of Jesus, why did He not write His teachings down?

since He did not write His teachings down but taught His apostles through speech, it seems reasonable that passing the faith through speech is being true to Jesus; and, relying solely on written words is to defy Jesus.

 

[Traverse]

how is an individual, who adopts the idea that only they can determine what the scriptures mean, able to determine when he or she has arrived at the complete truth?

I guess I’d have to ask you how you do that. Do you go by what the catechism says? How did catholics do this before the catechism? Did they go by what the bishop said? What if the bishop was in error? Did they go by a majority consensus of what the bishops overall said?

also, how is the communion of believers, that Jesus’ prayed for, created when everyone determines what is the correct meaning of scripture for themselves? it is self-evident that human beings divide themselves over the meaning of scripture.

That’s why we are continually warned against divisions. People are crazy! Anyway, you make it sound like any given congregation of the church of christ is full of people all believing wildly different things. This isn’t so. Some congregations will differ from others, but they typically only differ on things like instrumental music or whether to support organizations with the Lord’s money. These are not exactly major doctrinal issues.

Some catholic services use an organ. Some use many instruments. Some don’t use an organ at all. Some communities do things differently. But are you unified by the core of your belief?

since the gospel of Jesus Christ existed before the new testament was written, it is reasonable to believe that the correct meanings of scripture existed within Christ’s Church from the beginning. it is not reasonable to believe that this meaning was ever lost and needed to be restored. consequently, any interpretation of scripture or body of believers that cannot trace its origins, historically, to the first believers cannot be correctly interpreting scripture.

I never said it needed to be restored. The restoration movement applies to churches in America, not worldwide. Don’t make the mistake of assuming that because there was a restoration movement that meant that the church fell from the face of the earth and was missing for hundreds of years.

finally, if the written word was the most important way for transmitting the gospel of Jesus Christ, why did not Jesus write His gospel down?

I’d have to ask Him. There could be a number of reasons. Maybe he didn’t want people to become obsessed with only his writings and ignore the writings of the apostles. Maybe he meant it when he said the church was the pillar and the foundation of the truth, and wanted the church to be at the forefront of spreading the message?

Why would I judge what Christ has done?

it seems to me the height of arrogance or a result of extreme ignorance for a human being to believe that Jesus made them the sole arbiter of the meaning of scripture instead of making His Church the sole arbiter.

I never said anything related to this conclusion. Is not the church made up of people? Aren’t all people supposed to decide for themselves what they will believe? Even if you take the word of a bishop, that is a choice you make based on your own understanding.

 

[JHow]

I don’t understand your disagreement.

If you can show me catholic teaching that comes from Christ that is not found in scripture then I can at least see where you’re coming from, that you claim to possess teaching through sacred tradition that is a different revelation than that already found in scripture.

How about Christ’s descent into Hell, as found in the Apostles creed and Athanasian creed?

I’m expecting you will discount this, but it does push your timelines back.

 

[eddie_too]

jhow,

i believe in one of st. peter’s letters he refers to Jesus’ descent in to hell.

i believe everything the RCC teaches is supported by sacred scripture. however, the correct interpretation of sacred scripture is rightly granted to the successors to the apostles.

members of the coc simply prefer the interpretations of their elders to the interpretations of the successors to the apostles. to members of the coc, it is not reasonable that the teachings of the Lord should produce billions of believers.

it is abundantly clear, to anyone who has studied the documents and the history of that era, that the earliest writings of the christian community recognized that the apostles designated successors and that these successors were give a special office and authority within the christian (catholic) community to teach the gospel. the apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirite, created apostolic succession. they knew no other way in which to ensure the proclamation of the Lord’s gospel remained true to Him.

not only in the new testament, but in the earliest non-biblical writings, this truth (apostolic succession) is asserted repeatedly.

yes, it takes a great deal of faith to surrender one’s freedom to Christ, but that is what He wants us to do. He, more than anyone else, understood fallen human nature and how it could lead many astray. He alone, created a mechanism within the human community by which the proclamation of His gospel could be guaranteed to be true to Him.

 

[in_servitude]

Isn’t your point that there are divisions? Are there not divisions among catholics as well? The orthodox split off (or you split from them, according to their own version of history). Sedevacantists… charismatic groups…

My point is that you can’t say “bible alone is clearly the cause for divisions” when the catholic church has gone through it’s own divisions completely unreleated to bible alone thinking.

It is not the Catholic Church that claims that the Bible is the only authority needed in the current day. It is, however, the opinion pushed forward by the Church of Christ that the Bible Alone is all that is necessary, and that it is perfect. If Bible Alone was perfect, then there would not be divisions among Church of Christ members.

Yes, there are divisions among Catholics - and people do decide to leave the Church. However, what they are rejecting is the authority of the Church.

Yet, those following a Bible Alone approach look at scripture and come away with widely divergent teaching. Thus, Bible Alone doesn’t work.

Of course authority is given to men, to the church. Elders and deacons are appointed for this reason. I don’t understand what you’re getting at.

I’ve seen other assert that there are no elders or deacons (I suppose they are not ordained). Thus, the idea must be that God works through the elders and deacons.

Well if you’d like to show me your evidences I will gladly look at them. All I’ve seen are pictures of people in a group and then the comments of some eyewitnesses. I haven’t heard anything about armed troops or even consistent witness reports, as some say the sun looked like it was about to hit the earth and some say it just spinned (which the sun looks like a lot if you just stare at it).

The book “Meet the Witnesses” tries to be simply fact oriented. You’ll see information about armed troops and the like. Amazon Link

Why am I pushing this? I view the events at Fatima as deflating the argument that God is no longer showing us His power through miracles. That is just not true.

Something you might want to know is that the events of Fatima took place over a 5 month period - and it was a series of miracles that convinced people to push through armed troops to get to that field. And, during the big October miracle: you didn’t see the part where all that water (it rained for days before the miracle) dried up in 30 minutes. And, blind people were cured. There’s so much more…

As far as I know the catholic church doesn’t require its members to belief in the events at Fatima, so I’m not sure why you’re so focused on it.

Do you mean the historical events? Or, the messages that came through the seers? The Church doesn’t tell us what we should or should not believe in history.

There is not difference. If it was doctrine to us that we’d avoid all contraception period because it is unnatural then we would have avoided abortifacents by default too. If it was not your doctrine to avoid all contraception then you would have also fallen into it. Considering that the catholic church has fallen into error in the past with executions, inquisition, and crusades, I don’t really understand your point.

I do assert that the Church has not taught error in the area of faith and morals. What particular error do you assert that the Church taught when it comes to the inquisition or the crusades? I’m asking a serious question, here. I doubt you’ll be able to produce one document that shows the Church teaching error on faith and morals.

But, following a “bible alone” approach, a person is exposed to the error of contraception and will fall into the trap of killing tiny humans. How can a person assert that the bible is the perfected teaching of God when it allows people to fall into the trap of killing tiny humans?

No, that’s what elders are for.

Are these elders lead by their conscience? By the Holy Spirit? Their sound reasoning?

I understand your confusion with the difference between teaching authority between our two belief systems, but I do not understand your confusion in how a person is determined as unrighteous. Do you think it’s so hard that if a person is sinning publicly and un-repentingly to notice that they are bad for the church?

I was mostly curious about this. We (humans) generally have no idea what is in another person’s heart, and the Catholic Church does not say that declarations of ex-communication, for example, are determined infallibly (as far as I know). Therefore, the authority to withhold the sacraments in the Catholic Church is not what the Rock is all about (again, as far as I know.)

 

[BMCD]

I must take strong exception to the statement that “the Baron Stone churches not believing the Trinity makes sense”. While I am a Deacon in the Disciples of Christ branch of the the Stone-Campbell and not Church of Christ I can tell you with out doubt or hesitation that we do strongly believe in the Trinity. We baptize in the name of the Trinity, and profess orthodox belief in the doctrine. We are different than most “high” churches iin that we do not attempt to define the Trinity or understand that mystery; we simply have faith in the triune nature of God and accept it as something we can never understand or explain.

Like I said in an earlier post every experience I had in the Church of Christ believed strongly in the Trinity. Andrewstx was saying that his Church of Christ congregation did not believe in the Trinity and threw out a theory. I was genuinely trying to figure out why a Church of Christ congregation would not believe in the Trinity as my entire family and everyone I went Church of Christ schools with believed in it too. His congregation not believing in the Trinity may have been a certain congregational thing. I asked some friends and family members last night and I got the same orthodox response about the Trinity from everyone.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

I don’t understand your disagreement.

If you can show me catholic teaching that comes from Christ that is not found in scripture then I can at least see where you’re coming from, that you claim to possess teaching through sacred tradition that is a different revelation than that already found in scripture.

Easy–though not different, just “cannot be found in Scripture”. The same “Tradition” Patrick Madrid stumped James White (Reformed Baptist) in public debate some years ago patrickmadrid.com/does-the-bible-teach-sola-scriptura-mp3/

The Canon of the New Testament

 

[concretecamper]

Traverse:

Quote:

Originally Posted by concretecamper

Please be fair then. You said we have God’s complete word. This is not true. If you want to amend your statement to scripture being complete…then I will agree with you… after all, the authority of the RCC says so.

The gospels touch but a fraction of Christ’s life. I am sure His life, outside what we know about through scripture, contained much more than what was for breakfast.

I don’t understand your disagreement.

If you can show me catholic teaching that comes from Christ that is not found in scripture then I can at least see where you’re coming from, that you claim to possess teaching through sacred tradition that is a different revelation than that already found in scripture.

I’ll make 2 points and you can have the last word.

1. St Augustine: The which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should, be written; meaning not the world had not space for them, but that the capacity of readers was not large enough to hold them: Augustine recognizes that Christ reveled to the apostles truths we could not understand.
2. The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in scripture. I recognize that scripture points to 3 persons…but the doctrine is not explained in scripture. To believe in the Blessed Trinity, one has to submit to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

God Bless

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[concretecamper]

Traverse:

Quote:

Originally Posted by concretecamper

Please be fair then. You said we have God’s complete word. This is not true. If you want to amend your statement to scripture being complete…then I will agree with you… after all, the authority of the RCC says so.

The gospels touch but a fraction of Christ’s life. I am sure His life, outside what we know about through scripture, contained much more than what was for breakfast.

I don’t understand your disagreement.

If you can show me catholic teaching that comes from Christ that is not found in scripture then I can at least see where you’re coming from, that you claim to possess teaching through sacred tradition that is a different revelation than that already found in scripture.

I’ll make 2 points and you can have the last word.

1. St Augustine: The which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should, be written; meaning not the world had not space for them, but that the capacity of readers was not large enough to hold them: Augustine recognizes that Christ reveled to the apostles truths we could not understand.
2. The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in scripture. I recognize that scripture points to 3 persons…but the doctrine is not explained in scripture. To believe in the Blessed Trinity, one has to submit to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

God Bless

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[concretecamper]

Traverse:

Quote:

Originally Posted by concretecamper

Please be fair then. You said we have God’s complete word. This is not true. If you want to amend your statement to scripture being complete…then I will agree with you… after all, the authority of the RCC says so.

The gospels touch but a fraction of Christ’s life. I am sure His life, outside what we know about through scripture, contained much more than what was for breakfast.

I don’t understand your disagreement.

If you can show me catholic teaching that comes from Christ that is not found in scripture then I can at least see where you’re coming from, that you claim to possess teaching through sacred tradition that is a different revelation than that already found in scripture.

I’ll make 2 points and you can have the last word.

1. St Augustine: The which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should, be written; meaning not the world had not space for them, but that the capacity of readers was not large enough to hold them: Augustine recognizes that Christ reveled to the apostles truths we could not understand.
2. The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in scripture. I recognize that scripture points to 3 persons…but the doctrine is not explained in scripture. To believe in the Blessed Trinity, one has to submit to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

God Bless

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[concretecamper]

Traverse:

Quote:

Originally Posted by concretecamper

Please be fair then. You said we have God’s complete word. This is not true. If you want to amend your statement to scripture being complete…then I will agree with you… after all, the authority of the RCC says so.

The gospels touch but a fraction of Christ’s life. I am sure His life, outside what we know about through scripture, contained much more than what was for breakfast.

I don’t understand your disagreement.

If you can show me catholic teaching that comes from Christ that is not found in scripture then I can at least see where you’re coming from, that you claim to possess teaching through sacred tradition that is a different revelation than that already found in scripture.

I’ll make 2 points and you can have the last word.

1. St Augustine: The which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should, be written; meaning not the world had not space for them, but that the capacity of readers was not large enough to hold them: Augustine recognizes that Christ reveled to the apostles truths we could not understand.
2. The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in scripture. I recognize that scripture points to 3 persons…but the doctrine is not explained in scripture. To believe in the Blessed Trinity, one has to submit to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

God Bless

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[Traverse]

it is abundantly clear, to anyone who has studied the documents and the history of that era, that the earliest writings of the christian community recognized that the apostles designated successors and that these successors were give a special office and authority within the christian (catholic) community to teach the gospel. the apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirite, created apostolic succession. they knew no other way in which to ensure the proclamation of the Lord’s gospel remained true to Him.

not only in the new testament, but in the earliest non-biblical writings, this truth (apostolic succession) is asserted repeatedly.

To be fair, different scholars will disagree with that assertion. It depends on who you read.

The apostles appointed elders/bishops at various churches, but were these seen as successors to the apostles or an entirely different work?

We know that some apostles became bishops themselves and some did not. Paul traveled all over the place doing missionary work, never staying in one place long enough to really be its bishop.

In fact, in chapter XLIV of 1 Clement it is shown that successors are appointed “…by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whoel church…” and not exactly as a direct line from the apostles. If a bishop died and no successor was appointed the people at the church would appoint for themselves a bishop. But it is my understanding that in the catholic church the appointment by a bishop specifically is required. Yet, 1 Clement seems to contradict this fact. Furthermore, we know that Timothy and Titus appointed elders in each city as directed. Not men chosen by Paul, but men chosen from the criteria Paul gave them. So someone who was not an apostle was going around appointing elders which, to me, is the opposite of apostolic succession.

 

[eddie_too]

i know of four proposed methods to interpret the bible correctly.

1. a person can believe that the bible to interpret itself. in other words, the meanings of bible verses are self-evident. this method flys in the face of reality, considering that there are over 35,000 different christian sects who all interpret the bible differently it becomes obvious that the bible does not interpret itself.
2. a person can believe that they have been given all of the knowledge, understanding and wisdom needed to interpret the bible correctly. the problem with this method is that it leaves everyone else out in the cold. that is unless they bow to the brilliance of such a claimant’s interpretation.
3. a person can believe that the majority rules when it comes to interpeting the bible. this might work for a single sect, but it is not available to all christians.
4. a person can believe that the meanings of sacred scripture were known at the time sacred scripture was created; and, that those meanings have been maintained through tradition by those given the authority and responsibility to maintain them.

there may be other methods besides these four, but i am not familiar with them.

 

[Traverse]

It is not the Catholic Church that claims that the Bible is the only authority needed in the current day. It is, however, the opinion pushed forward by the Church of Christ that the Bible Alone is all that is necessary, and that it is perfect. If Bible Alone was perfect, then there would not be divisions among Church of Christ members.

Yes, there are divisions among Catholics - and people do decide to leave the Church. However, what they are rejecting is the authority of the Church.

Yet, those following a Bible Alone approach look at scripture and come away with widely divergent teaching. Thus, Bible Alone doesn’t work.

Your logic here does not follow. You could say the same thing about a bible alone church. “They reject the gospel.” rather than “They saw something else in it so therefore their authority was misplaced.” Likewise I could say divisive catholics reject the church’s authority, or I could say that they misinterpreted catholic rulings from the past to decide that current leadership is faulty. Therefore church authority doesn’t work."

Why am I pushing this? I view the events at Fatima as deflating the argument that God is no longer showing us His power through miracles. That is just not true.

Something you might want to know is that the events of Fatima took place over a 5 month period - and it was a series of miracles that convinced people to push through armed troops to get to that field. And, during the big October miracle: you didn’t see the part where all that water (it rained for days before the miracle) dried up in 30 minutes. And, blind people were cured. There’s so much more…

What would be your opinion of the fact that we were warned about demons posing us with false miracles?

Do you mean the historical events? Or, the messages that came through the seers? The Church doesn’t tell us what we should or should not believe in history.

Therefore it’s irrelevant to our discussion.

I do assert that the Church has not taught error in the area of faith and morals. What particular error do you assert that the Church taught when it comes to the inquisition or the crusades? I’m asking a serious question, here. I doubt you’ll be able to produce one document that shows the Church teaching error on faith and morals.

Does the church not also teach by example? Approving murder and carrying it out sounds to me like a proclamation of faith and morals.

But, following a “bible alone” approach, a person is exposed to the error of contraception and will fall into the trap of killing tiny humans. How can a person assert that the bible is the perfected teaching of God when it allows people to fall into the trap of killing tiny humans?

Because it contains all that is necessary for salvation.

Are these elders lead by their conscience? By the Holy Spirit? Their sound reasoning?

Look at the qualifications for elders in the new testament.

Are these not men appointed based on their character and their ability to teach? So their own knowledge is useful then isn’t it?

 

[Traverse]

Easy–though not different, just “cannot be found in Scripture”. The same “Tradition” Patrick Madrid stumped James White (Reformed Baptist) in public debate some years ago patrickmadrid.com/does-the-bible-teach-sola-scriptura-mp3/

The Canon of the New Testament

Nice one, but mostly irrelevant. I do not dismiss the use of tradition, but I dismiss the importance it has in the catholic faith to present doctrines like the immaculate conception and the assumption which not only are unfounded biblically and yet is a requirement of belief in the catholic tradition.

 

[Traverse]

I’ll make 2 points and you can have the last word.

1. St Augustine: The which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should, be written; meaning not the world had not space for them, but that the capacity of readers was not large enough to hold them: Augustine recognizes that Christ reveled to the apostles truths we could not understand.
2. The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in scripture. I recognize that scripture points to 3 persons…but the doctrine is not explained in scripture. To believe in the Blessed Trinity, one has to submit to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

God Bless

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

Ok.

On point one… irrelevant. The bible itself comments on this even so you don’t have to go to Augustine. But the question is about whether the bible contains all we need to learn for our salvation, not if there are other truths not present.

On point two… I’d disagree, but fair enough. It’s not explicitly explained, but I also don’t think it has to be.

 

[eddie_too]

the bible is not the Church. the Church is necessary for salvation.

 

[Traverse]

i know of four proposed methods to interpret the bible correctly.

1. a person can believe that the bible to interpret itself. in other words, the meanings of bible verses are self-evident. this method flys in the face of reality, considering that there are over 35,000 different christian sects who all interpret the bible differently it becomes obvious that the bible does not interpret itself.
2. a person can believe that they have been given all of the knowledge, understanding and wisdom needed to interpret the bible correctly. the problem with this method is that it leaves everyone else out in the cold. that is unless they bow to the brilliance of such a claimant’s interpretation.
3. a person can believe that the majority rules when it comes to interpeting the bible. this might work for a single sect, but it is not available to all christians.
4. a person can believe that the meanings of sacred scripture were known at the time sacred scripture was created; and, that those meanings have been maintained through tradition by those given the authority and responsibility to maintain them.

there may be other methods besides these four, but i am not familiar with them.

1. Study the scriptures with an honest heart and with continual prayer.