Acts 2 by Preachers of Today
By Jerry Brewer, A man I greatly respect and admire.
The great tragedy of our time is that many so-called Gospel preachers have capitulated to sin in the lives of their hearers. Can you imagine what Peter’s sermon would have sounded like on Pentecost if he had imbibed the doctrines of some teachers at Abilene, Pepperdine, Oklahoma Christian, or David Lipscomb? Luke’s account might have gone something like this:
Men and brethren, there is some validity to your belief that some of us may be drunk. And though we have diversity of opinion on this matter, we can continue to be brethren because I believe we can find strength in that diversity and in our love for each other. Indeed, most of us have been drunk at one time or another, or at least done other things that were just as indiscreet. But I can not condemn any of my colleagues, nor would I presume to judge any of you for thinking we are drunk because we have different interpretations of this event and there’s certainly room for diversity among all of us.
However, though we may have different interpretations of this event that is not the case today and I can still call you “brother.” What you have witnessed is a great revival of Holy Spirit renewal that some ancient scribe researched and wrote about in a scholarly work that the rabbis often attribute to Joel. Now listen, all you Jewish brothers! Have I got some news for you! Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God by the love he showed in recent years by feeding the hungry, washing feet, and generally being nice, as most of you are aware, him, being approved of God, even though some may have made some mistakes in judgment about him, was crucified on the cross. But that is in the past. We all make mistakes and when that happened we were not in a covenant relationship with Jesus any way. But now the great news is that the Holy Spirit has come to tell you God loves you and wants you to feel good about yourselves and your intimate personal relationship with him.
Now when they heard this, they felt good about themselves, cried out, and said to Peter and the others, Men and brethren, glory hallelujah! Tell us what else to do. Then Peter said unto them, Do?! Do?! There’s not one whit you can or need to do. Jesus did it all. We are just telling you the good news. Just ask Jesus to come into your hearts, be nice to each other, love each other, tell the Romans, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and Herod that you love them, and make sure your kids have plenty of food, fun, and fellowship. Get involved in a blood drive in your communities, and let the Holy Spirit direct you to parking places. And with many other words did he testify and exhort saying, “Form Family Ministries, Youth Ministries, Outreach Ministries, and Children’s Ministries. Send your kids to camp, let Youth Minister take them to Six Standards Over Jerusalem, and busy yourselves with lots of programs. Then they that gladly received his word really felt good about their own lives, and had their self-esteem raised, and about 3,000 formed a Church Family that day. And they continued to shout and clap their hands, and formed an acappella singing group that could make sounds just like the harps and lyres of the Romans. And they accepted all into the Church Family and called all men “brothers” who called God “Father,” recognized Jesus as Lord, and dwelt under the umbrella of grace.
While that is a satirical look at what passes for Gospel preaching today, the fact remains that preaching the Gospel is deadly serious. It has to do with eternity and we who are dying must preach to dying men. This idea that Gospel preaching is some sort of spiritual 1960s hippie love-fest which tolerates sin in the lives of others, so long as we ourselves do not inhale it, is a damnable heresy that will send both those who promote it and those who believe it to hell.

89 Comments:
I go to Oklahoma Christian University and I greatly resent this article. Go ahead. Send your kids to secular schools. Send them to OU or OSU. See how many Christian influences and people they will come in contact with. For those reading this, OC is a GREAT Christian university, as well as many other Christian universities out there. Thank God that we have the opportunity to further our education in a Christian, godly, atmosphere. "Hail to Oklahoma Christian..."
July 17, 2005 12:09 PM
OC student, I went to both OC and OSU, the same things happened at OC that I saw at OSU. Drinking, premarital sex, drug use, etc. The problem with this is that a student at a christian university is more likely to let their guard down. Students and parents alike expect teachers to teach truth and the student body to live it. It is a fact that this is not always the case. Many of the "Christian" influences that I found there are no longer faithful to the truth. Many are caught up in the errors of liberalism and relativism. The stronghold of the young is not OC, it is in our faithful congregations. OC has failed to ground many of its students in the truth, it also caters to the divisive "unity" movement. Men who knew OC when it was once faithful mourn at the current state. The deceased professors Raymond Kelcy, Hugo McCord, and Avon Malone would join us in our lament.
July 17, 2005 12:40 PM
I attended Oklahoma State University and was glad I did. I knew many good faithful Christians at OSU who encouraged each other. The fact is there are bad things that happen at OSU as well as OC (as anonymous pointed out) and other colleges whether they be Christian colleges or not. You must choose who your friends are going be. If you choose your friends poorly then you will likely succumb to their bad influence but you also have the opportunity to choose good friends as well. A public college is not going to corrupt you (I turned out to be a gospel preacher) and a Christian college is not going to protect you.
July 17, 2005 6:14 PM
OC Student wrote, "Hail to Oklahoma Christian..."
Would it not be better to sing, "All Hail The Power of Jesus' Name?" While it may not be the case with "OC Student," it is often the case that people are much more devoted to schools which the Lord never founded than the church for which He died.
July 18, 2005 5:00 AM
I don't understand how belittling people, tearing them down, and condemning whole universities can be a Christian practice. Those of you who do this make it much more difficult for the Gospel to be accepted by those who need it the most. Who would want to be part of something that is known by such behavior? This is divisive and sectarian through and through. It is also a dishonest representation of people most of you have never met or talked to. Repent.
July 18, 2005 9:47 AM
Thank you Anonymous. I know for a fact that you Scott, or Legacy O'Tant do not go to Oklahoma Christian now. So you have no grounds to make condemning comments such as those. Once again, you bind your view of Scripture, your LAW, on others. And what in the world are you talking about Legacy O'Tant..."Wouldn't it be better to sing All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name?" Uhhh...I wasn't bashing that at all. Haven't you ever heard of an alma mater song? Well, that's what I was singing. Sorry if by posting that, it made you think I believe in OC more than God. I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but I greatly resent what you were trying to get at. OC is a great Christian institution! The fact is, there are bad things that go on there. Like EVERYWHERE ELSE! Freed-Hardeman has bad things that go on there too! Every single college or university will have bad people. It is easier, however, at a Christian college or university, such as OC, to get in with good, Christian people who strive to live their lives for God daily. I go to OC. I have many many friends who go to OC or ACU or other Christian universities. They all say the same thing. It's easier to be a Christian at a Christian university. Do what you want with your kids. I will encourage mine to go to a university that encourages Godly living.
July 18, 2005 10:14 AM
Where is the condemning comment I made OC Student? I was just commenting on your condemning comment about public schools. You stated "Send your kids to secular schools. Send them to OU or OSU. See how many Christian influences and people they will come in contact with." I was merely showing you that this statement is wrong. I went to one of the public schools listed and I encountered many Christian influences and the public school in no way corrupted me.
As for our Christian colleges many of them are leaving the old paths for which they once stood. They no longer hold to the truth with which they once held on to firmly. I have most of the lectureship books from ACU beginning back in 1919 and I assure you they do not teach the same things that they taught in those early years. Oklahoma Christian is not the same college it was back in the days of Hugo McCord and Raymond Kelcy. I have a personal letter from brother McCord where he states "I am grieved at what is happening at OCU." Truth never changes. The gospel never changes but the colleges have changed their positions over the years. This means that brethren such as Hugo McCord, Raymond Kelcy, A. G. Freed, N. B. Hardeman, David Lipscomb and others were wrong and now the colleges have the truth and they are right or it means that the colleges are wrong now and those brethren I listed were right. They cannot both be right because they disagree about many issues. Since truth never changes one must be right and one must be wrong. Who is right and who is wrong?
You also state since I am no longer a student at OC I cannot comment on the situation. This is ridiculous. Does this mean I have to join the church of Satan before I condemn those who are Satanic worshipers? Do I need to join the Roman Catholic Church before I point out the error that they teach? The fact is I am very close to OC and it is easy to keep up with what it going on there. In fact I had lunch with a person in the Bible department just a couple of weeks ago.
July 18, 2005 10:37 AM
These institutions have not left the path of the Christian walk. Students do not view the world in the same way as those who were taught by McCord, Kelsey, etc. Logic and reason do not have the same authority with this generation as with the older generation. Just because teaching method has changed does not mean the message has been altered.
What is the average age in the congregation you preach at Scott? I bet it is older because what you seem to advocate as the way to preach is more accepted by the older Christians and not by the post-modern generation. We must reach people where they are and not force them to think in a manner that is foreign to them. The message may be presented a little differently but it is still the same eternal gospel.
July 18, 2005 11:10 AM
You are wrong these institutions have changed. There is a difference in presenting the gospel differently or by using a different method and changing one's position on doctrinal issues. When brother McCord made the statement that he was "grieved at what is happening at OCU" he made it because of doctrinal issues. Oklahoma Christian had invited Mark Henderson to speak on their lectureship. I also have another letter in my possession where brother McCord writes "I do not believe that Raymond Kelcy would have endorsed having a lectureship speaker such as Mark Henderson, preacher for the Quail Springs Church of Christ in Oklahoma City, who advocates fellowship with denominations, female leadership in worship, the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship to God today." The fact is many of the colleges have changed their "position" on these doctrinal issues. Many have changed their position on fellowship. Brother H. Leo Boles, a one time president of David Lipscomb college, has written a tract on the divsion the Christian church caused when it split from the Lord's church but many of our Christian colleges invite speakers who advocate unity between the churches of Christ and the Christian church. Oklahoma Christian recently had Marvin Phillips speak at their chapel for three days in a role. What Marvin Phillips teaches is in direct contradiction with what brother H. Leo Boles taught. I assume that if brother Boles was president Marvin Phillips would not even be allowed on the grounds until he repented of the error he teaches.
July 18, 2005 11:42 AM
Maybe these people realize the sin of sectarianism and want to move out from under that view. Maybe they understand that all baptized believers in Jesus Christ belong to the Lord's church. Maybe these people are the ones trying to conserve the ancient faith and recognize the things they were taught were more traditions of the brotherhood, and not the view of Scripture. Usually those who speak the loudest and most aggressively to force their view upon others are those who have a liberal agenda and are not the ones trying to conserve the faith.
July 18, 2005 12:07 PM
I'm tired of seeing such blanket statmenst that imply rediculous and unfounded claimes in attempt to advance a position. This is absolutely shamefull behavior and has no place in any group that claims to wear the name of Jesus. These discussions have exhausted the issues and folks continue to ignore evidence on either side and content themselves with throwing labels and blanket statments and hide them behind a catch-all phraise of "I only say these things out of love and concern for the truth." Words said in love should not need a disclaimer to clarify the issue. I am also tired of veild attacks on men, women and institutions hidden behind a claim that it is only about an issue, not a person. I for one do not buy it any more.
July 18, 2005 12:16 PM
It almost sounds like McCord, Kelcy, Boles, etc. are being close to deified. If they state something, or are grieved by it, then it must be true. It's like a letter from McCord holds apostolic authority.
I have great respect for these men who had so much to do with OC, but a person, institution, group should never just get to one point and "stop" - which is what some seem to wish for OC. "If we could just stay exactly the same as it was when McCord and Kelcy were there." That's not learning; that's stagnating.
July 18, 2005 12:36 PM
Does "speaking the truth in love" equal "don't say anything negative"? The statements quoted from brother McCord and others were not meant as "authoritative" but to show the difference of 15 years ago and today. It may be the case that Scott may only preach to 70 year olds, however I know many congregations holding the same beliefs as Scott who have many young people who believe much the same. In fact most graduates of "old fashioned" schools of preaching such as Bear Valley, Memphis School of Preaching, Southwest School of Biblical Studies, and Brown Trail are in their 20's. These graduates are not the ones advocating compromise for the sake of "unity". These are not the ones waffling on the plan of Salvation. These are not the ones advocating female leadership in worship. These are not the ones who mock inerrancy of scripture and inspiration. Can this be said of our "christian" universities?? The idea that to call someone out or point out error is condemning is utter foolishness. By participating in error and advocating error people condemn themselves.
July 18, 2005 2:05 PM
Maybe its that people woke up and realized how far from the path they had gone in the name of the brotherhood and are now rejecting the old 'we're right and everyone else is wrong' mentality. There is also a reason that most of those young men you mentioned preach in rural congregations that still embrace 19th century Enlightenment thought. It is also interesting that when many of those young men exit those preaching schools they are unrecognizable when compared to who they were before entering. They all come out and sound identical in speech and rhetoric. It looks more like brainwashing than education.
July 18, 2005 2:46 PM
I rarely bother with blogs of this nature, but th emost recent post has moved me to comment. It is true that many of the same things happen at a Christian University that take place at a State School. However, there is one glaring difference. I have never had the experience of State School professors sitting next to me in church. Never have I seen a state school professor pray in the class room. Never have I heard of a state school professor sponsoring mission trips. I know there are godly men and women in state schools who do this occassionally, but its the exception and not the norm. I have studied at Oklahoma Christian for many years and nearly all the professors were concerned about my spiritual wellness. While I have disagreed with a few of them at times, I was never mocked or laughed at for my faith or what I belived scriptures to teach. Trash Christian schools if you want, but they taught me to think on my own and stand for my own faith. I was never expected to believe something because they said it and I was always encouraged to read widely from various views. While some people fear that and get angry with that, I firmly believe truth has nothing to fear from honest searching hearts. I have met many people who only read from people with whom they agree. I am thankful that God made it possible for me to attend Oklahoma Christian. I am even more happy that God has, through his grace, allowed me to be a member of his eternal kingdom.
July 18, 2005 2:48 PM
The problem with 'Christian Colleges', besides the fact that they are Not a work of the church and not authorized in the bible is this:
Young men and women go to 'Christian' schools expecting to hear the truth. Their guard is down. They don't expect to hear the unsound teaching that goes on at these schools (in the bible department). I personally know men and women that have gone to OC and returned home unsound in the faith.
State schools are totally different. When I attended OU I did not go there with my guard down. I knew I would run into filth, but it was not disguised as 'truth'. Jesus said those that teach error will be in 'sheeps clothing', in other words, we cannot just look and tell. So, people go to OC with their guard down and fall captive to false doctrine. At state schools, we know what to expect and can therefore easily avoid it. We KNOW what sin looks like, Paul said it was manifest in Gal. 5. Wolves in sheeps clothing is all together different.
Lets not buy into these 'christian' schools because of their name. Investigate!
July 18, 2005 3:17 PM
"I have never had the experience of State School professors sitting next to me in church"
Some of us have had the experience to not only sit next to a state school professor in church but to learn more about God's word from him than from any of my professors at Oklahoma Christian combined. Many have heard him debate atheist on the existance of God, debate Pentecostals on Miraculous gifts. I'm still waiting on a Christian college professor to set such an example by taking a stand for the truth.
July 18, 2005 3:29 PM
The problem with 'Christian Colleges', besides the fact that they are Not a work of the church and not authorized in the bible is this:
Neither are youth groups, Sunday Schools, VBS, etc. I have heard the reasoning for these things being allowed in the ministry of the church. So the whole authorization argument is nothing more than a double standard. Things are authorized when it serves your purpose but when you don't like it it is not authorized.
You did hit the nail on the heard. Christian Universities are not the church. They are institutions of higher learning. Christian Universities try to balance preparation for working in this world with establishing a strong Christian foundation from which to live in the world. Rather than create clones that all think, act, and talk alike these schools create highly intelligent, capable leaders who will impact this world and do it as Christians.
That being said do not present your bias against Christians schools as some biblical matter. It is, plain and simple, your unispired opinion and bias against some of the best schools in the country. These schools turn out people who can think for themselves and explain why they believe what they believe instead of just regurgitating talking points repetitively presented to them.
July 18, 2005 6:32 PM
Anonymous stated "It almost sounds like McCord, Kelcy, Boles, etc. are being close to deified. If they state something, or are grieved by it, then it must be true. It's like a letter from McCord holds apostolic authority."
No where has this been stated or even alluded to. The statement made by anonymous is simply a smoke screen. Instead of addressing the issue at hand he makes some off the wall statement like the one above. The only reason why these men were brought up is because they are a part of history. I was merely pointing out to some on this blog that our colleges are not teaching the same things that they used to teach. This means either our colleges once taught error in the past or they are teaching error now. They cannot both be right since truth never changes. Which is it anonymous? Were our colleges wrong in the past? Were the men who founded these institutions that you closely cling to wrong or are the men who are teaching there now wrong? It cannot be both.
July 19, 2005 6:34 AM
Another Anonymous stated "I was never expected to believe something because they said it and I was always encouraged to read widely from various views. While some people fear that and get angry with that, I firmly believe truth has nothing to fear from honest searching hearts. I have met many people who only read from people with whom they agree."
You are right in stating that some people fear reading or studying things which disagree with their point of view but I don't think you will find anyone like that on this blog. In fact I will be teaching a class this fall entitled denominational doctrines and we will read stuff from many of the denominations and look to see if it is true. The problem with some of these professors in our Christian Colleges is that they have you read false doctrine and they never point out the error. Their responsibility as a teacher is to teach the truth. Many of the teachers overwhelm their students with books that teach false doctrine and little about the truth. This idea is ridiculous. Would a math teacher give you a book that primarily dealt with someone's theory on how they believe 2 + 2 = 7? If we have truth we should be more concerned about teaching it than teaching error.
July 19, 2005 6:54 AM
John says;
"Does "speaking the truth in love" equal "don't say anything negative"? "
Of course not and I have never said that. What I do say is that SAYING we speak in love does not mean we ARE speaking in love, or that our love is correctly guided. These things should be evident by our words and actions. Lumping everyone at Christian universities into one category as has been done in this post is not only misguided, it does not show love. We can disagree and debate all we wish, but I for one am tired of the spiteful, baiting, and degrading attacks that are unnecessary, only to have someone then say "I made fun of you to point out your error... out of love."
Scott, reading something for the purpose of tearing it down is not considering it. What anonymous is talking about is laying what we know aside to study anew to search for truth. If we come back to where we were, then we are stronger in that faith. But if we learn something new or different, we may have corrected a previously viewed error. This is what I feel is the real strength of Christian institutions and the heart of restoration. You say that either we are right now or we were right then. I would say that we are at least closer to right now than we were in the past for that very reason. The things that we bound in the past are not listed in the bible as binding. We have taken our traditions and preferences and bound them to the point where we continually twist and take things out of context to prove our point. As above, we authorize what we do because it is 'inferred' but forbid what we don't do because there is no authorization. This is not a Biblical concept. Scripture has EQUIPED us for every good work, not defined every good work; not given us hints at what to do and we have to puzzle them out or God will punish us. Not only is this concept not biblical, but it has been pointed out time and again to be logically unsound due to inconsistencies (we can infeer that bible school at our home congregations is okay, but Christian universities are unauthorized).
As we continually evaluate what we do with out bias, we learn new things about the truth of God that we previously misunderstood. The Bereans were praised because the continually went back to see if what they did was correct, not because they just sat where they were and refused to consider the fact that their understanding may have been incorrect. None of us have apostolic authority, so let's quite acting like we do. If we truely want to follow Scripture as our sole authority, that means we have to lay our biases and traditions aside and look with new eyes from time to time to see if we have stayed true to God's will.
July 19, 2005 7:27 AM
OC student notes that there are bad people in all universities. We whole heartedly agree with that. There are even bad people in the church.
What OC student doesn't seem to grasp is that we are not discussing "good" or "bad" people, but error that is taught in colleges purporting to be "Christian."
There are also good people at ACU, OC, Freed-Hardeman, etc., but whether people in those institutions are good or bad is not the point. We're not talking about people, but issues.
And, my, my, oc student! Don't be so defensive. You need to go back and read what I wrote. I never concluded that you believe in OC more than God. I don't even know you. What I said was that, "It is often the case that people are much more devoted to schools which the Lord never founded, than the church for which he died."
That is a true statement. It *is* often the case that people are so inclined. If I were to say, "It is often the case that college students are thieves," would you think I referred to you? Read the statement carefully. I made no personal reference to you or anyone else.
July 19, 2005 8:16 AM
My reason for avoiding these blogs has been reaffirmed in the response to my previous posting. I get so tired and frustrated at comments such as Josh's that say,"I personally know men and women that have gone to OC and returned home unsound in the faith." I can list just as many peple who have been part of Barnes preaching school, or the former McLoud preaching school that have abandoned the faith. Should I conclude that such men were taught that error there? I know of men who graduated from schools who believed the truth only because they swallowed what someone told them without searching for themsevles. Both cases are wrong. Sending people to schools to walk away believing what they are told is wrong regarless of what they are taught. We need to encourage people to study for themsleves, make up their own minds, shape their own faith, and quick regurtitating everything they hear. Some of the posts on this blog have merely been repeating what you have heard other "great men of the faith" say in the past, without studying issues for themselves. OC no more forces men and women to accept error, than any preaching school forces people to accept truth. In the end, I am accountable for the things I believe and teach to others. I have to "search the scsriptures" for myself. Why are we so afraid of people doing that?
July 19, 2005 9:06 AM
Dear Anonymous-
Please do not get frustrated with comments such as mine. I *do*, honestly, know men and women that were sound in the faith, attended OC for a Ministry Degree, and came away all messed up in false doctrine. It is a true statement- What does it prove? Perhaps nothing, as you have pointed out that you know men and women that have attended Preacher Schools and have fallen away.
Remember- we are here to discuss issues, not bash each other. Keep reading, keep posting, keep studying.
Study this- OC is supported and supports Quail Springs Family Church? (church of Christ), who are openly and publicly fellowshipping the teachings of John Calvin by worshipping in joint services with the Baptists. What does your study of God's word tell you about the teachings of John Calvin? What does your study teach you about his 5 tenants? Should we fellowship that in worship if it is false doctrine? Is it false doctrine? If OC overlooks it, and it is wrong, what does your study tell you about that?
I hope you take the time to answer.
Remeber, Baptists teach and believe (at least their authorities teach and believe, I have noticed that a lot of good Baptists don't know what their creed teaches and what their conventions teach):
Salvation by faith only.
Total hereditary depravity.
Unconditional election.
Limited atonement.
Irrisistable grace.
Perserverance of the saints.
What does your study tell you about those beliefs? Can you worship and have unity with someone that believes and teaches such blatant error?
July 19, 2005 2:13 PM
Josh,
I go to Quail Springs. I have heard a quote by a professor that I admired greatly, and it said this: "If you bash or condemn something, you better be an expert on what you are condemning." How many times have you been to Quail Springs Church? How many times have you heard Mark Henderson preach? Be honest. How many times have you attended there for worship services? I go there often. I have never once seen or heard an instrument during worship services. Whoever accused Quail of doing this needs to repent, because they are spreading lies. I'm trying to be as honest as I can with you. I go there. I know what is done there. If you bash Quail Springs Church, you better be an expert of the church, and know absolutely EVERYTHING said there. If not, you are standing on dangerous ground.
Please, since you made your opinion of Quail Springs Church of Christ public, please go ahead and be honest with my questions. We need to know if you are an expert on this matter, and if so, I will be quiet. Because I attend there, and it hurts to see other brothers in Christ bash our congregation over and over again. It's just funny, because many of those who bash it have never attended a worship service. I will be waiting for your reply.
July 19, 2005 3:24 PM
A fair question indeed.
I have heard Mark Henderson's sermons (I have not heard him live) and I can provide links to them, In which he teaches that baptism in NOT essential for salvation. This is False Doctrine! He spoke about this on Niccum's blog a few months ago as well. Quail Springs has been doing this for years. It is very public in nature. Sure, Henderson claims that baptism in essential to be added to Quail Springs, but not for salvation.
I have never been to Quail Springs. I don't have to go somewhere to believe the *proof* of something. Have you ever been to the great wall of China? Have you ever been to Red Square? Lenin's tomb? So you can not claim that they exist right? See the point? Of course you can, you have seen and held the evidence, proof even! I know what Quail Springs teaches because I have studied it.
Have you ever been to Quail Springs website???? Go there and see the pictures of the 'praise teams', many including women in the leadership of 'worship experiences', and see the pictures of instruments and people jamming away. I can easily claim them to be in error because of the overwhelming proof!
Furthermore, I have seen, held, and been a part of overwhelming proof of their fellowship and shared worship services with the Baptists across the parkinglot! It is public, they announce it in the paper. We denounced it in the paper!
Well, I hope you see that you don't have to be an 'expert' on anything to condemn something. If you have the proof and evidence, it speaks for itself. This quote, incidently, is a weak way of saying "Don't condemn ANYTHING!"
Now that I have answered your questions, how about you cease AVOIDING mine from my earlier comment and answering it.
ps- please sign on with at least your first name, even if you make it up, that way we can keep this straight.
Truly in Christian Love-
July 19, 2005 3:42 PM
I should have mentioned-
Some time ago, a year or two, quail springs had a church servey on its websight giving the percentages of people that believe certain things, ask around, you may find it. Anyway, it speaks Volumes, half the congregation did not believe that baptism was essential for salvation! Only 2%, 2%!! thought that it was a sin to use instruments in worship. I'll see if I can find that survey.
July 19, 2005 3:44 PM
Anonymous stated,
"I go to Quail Springs. I have heard a quote by a professor that I admired greatly, and it said this: "If you bash or condemn something, you better be an expert on what you are condemning." How many times have you been to Quail Springs Church? How many times have you heard Mark Henderson preach? Be honest. How many times have you attended there for worship services? I go there often. I have never once seen or heard an instrument during worship services. Whoever accused Quail of doing this needs to repent, because they are spreading lies. I'm trying to be as honest as I can with you. I go there. I know what is done there. If you bash Quail Springs Church, you better be an expert of the church, and know absolutely EVERYTHING said there. If not, you are standing on dangerous ground."
This is an example of some of the false teaching that occurs at OC. The professor who said this is wrong. Yes, you do need to have your information correct and know what you are talking about before you mark somebody but in no way do you have to go there and worship with them. If this is true then we need to go worship with the Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostals, Seventh Day Adventist, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc. before we mark them or comment on their false teaching. This is ridiculous. According to your professors logic each member of the church would have to be an expert on Wicca before they comment on that religion. How many experts on Wicca do you know in the church? What are you going to tell your friend when they ask about the Wicca religion? Are you going to tell them "Yeah, you should go over there and check them out and tell me what you think." This is absurd. We are told in the Bible to "mark those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them" (Romans 16:17). In 2 Thessalonians 3:6 we are commanded to "withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us." This passage specifically deals with brothers and sisters in Christ. We do not have to be an expert on a subject to withdraw from somebody or to mark them. As for the Quail Springs congregation you can find enough on their website to know that they are unsound and should be marked and avoided.
You can simply go to their website and and go to ministries and then click on music/worship. Once you get to this page click on the photo album and then click on worship night. This will take you to a set of photos where all kinds of people are playing every instrument you can imagine and the title under all the pictures is "worship" night.
They also have openly fellowshipped denominations in the past. This alone is enough evidence to mark this congregation.
July 19, 2005 4:04 PM
I doubt that survey is accurate. I would have to see it myself. However, it seems that QSCofC finally opened its eyes to the error of sectarianism that you and others preach. If belief that Jesus is Lord, repentance, and baptism into Christ are no longer enough to become Christian then please prophet of God tell us the new Gospel. You condemn huge numbers of people as being in error when maybe you should look in the mirror and make sure that what you have been told to believe is not a tradition of men which you have turned into law and tried to bind on others as a new heavy burden on men's shoulders that no one can endure since failure to uphold even the smallest part leads to condemnation and banishment from the family of God. I have seen so many 'defenders of the faith' on these blogs talk about all the people they do not consider to be Christians that you must have a direct revelation of God outside of Scripture to come to these conclusions. Many who have been called out by name are sound preachers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and truly understand the living faith of the NT and embrace the Spirit's guidance of the church.
You know what bothers me the most? I heard a young man say that he grew up in the fundamentalist churches of Christ all of his life and then became a minister. He was asked to present a message on grace and he realized that he had never been taught about the grace of God and had nothing to say about it. How can a group call itself the 'one true church' and not teach its young people about God's grace? Instead the focus is on how they better do everything exactly right or they will go to hell because Jesus will remove His atoning sacrifice from them because they did not follow the correct 'pattern'. That is absolute nonsense and shows that the entire message of the NT has been neglected because it does not fit the tradition of the 'brotherhood'. The one's who suffer are those that go through life never knowing what God's grace is like.
GRACE = Unmerited favor
In other words we do not even deserve to look toward the heavens and pray to God but because of His GRACE He no longer sees us and our sins but He sees the blood of His Son Christ Jesus covering us and our sin. Through this we are His adopted children. What kind of Father would adopt a child and then when the child makes a mistake He banishes the child from the family. Is that a picture of a loving, gracious God? No but it is the picture that some intentionally or unintentionally present on these blogs.
July 19, 2005 4:34 PM
Why do you bring up the subject of Grace? This is another smoke screen to take attention away from the real issue at hand. The issues you bring up are not relevant to what is being discussed. I preach grace. If one does not preach grace then they are not a sound preacher. Many people today have a wrong view of God's grace. They think grace will cover them even if they don't repent. This is not what the Scriptures teach. Do you think grace will cover someone who has committed murder and has not repented? Do you think God's grace will cover one who is practicing the sin of homosexuality? When we are baptized we are baptized for the remission of our sins (Acts 2:38). Once we come up out of the water all of our past sins have been forgiven but does that mean we can continue in sin from that point on and just expect to be covered by God's grace? Paul answers this question in Romans 6:1-2. "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!" Those are the words of the apostle Paul. We cannot continue in sin expecting to be covered by God's grace. Once we have obeyed the gospel there are certain things we are expected to do. If we want to continue to be covered by the blood of Christ we must "walk in the light as He is in the light" (1 John 1:7). If we expect to receive a "crown of life" then we must "be faithful until death" (Rev. 2:10). If we commit sin then we must repent (Luke 13:3). The book of Philippians was written to Christians. The brethren at Philippi had already came into contact with the blood of Christ by being immersed in water for the remission of their sins but the apostle Paul writes to them and tells them to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12). What salvation was Paul talking about? It wasn't salvation from past sins because they already had that. He was writing them concerning their eternal salvation. Paul didn't say "set back and relax because the grace of God will cover you no matter what you do." He said "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." God's grace is important. We see it throughout the entire Bible. We need to preach about the marvelous grace of God but we shouldn't cheapen it in any way.
July 19, 2005 5:02 PM
You are right, Jesus did exercise righteous anger against certain people which is the same thing I have done in the last few posts. You guys always assume you are the ones with correct doctrine and the rest of us who disagree are in error, false teachers, apostates, etc. If you look at the description of false teachers you will see one of the characteristics is arrogance. Humble thyself before thy God, whom without Jesus covering your sins would banish you from His presence just as you banish other brothers and sisters in Christ from your 'fellowship'. Who gave you the seat at the right hand of the Father to judge His people?!!!
________________________
The 'plan of salvation' that came about in the 19th century through Walter Scott is closer to what the NT teaches than the adapted version that focuses all attention on humans.
God's plan: send Jesus to live and then die for our sins, rise from the dead, and give us the choice to accept this message through belief, repentance, & baptism, at which time He grants us the gift of the Holy Spirit, and eternal life. That is the true plan of salvation as it comes from God revealed in the NT. There is absolutely nothing that anyone of us can do on our own that can make us righteous and holy before God. Our righteousness is but filthy rags before the Lord. We can only be made righteous and holy through Christ Jesus. I think too many of us have forgotten that and have become puffed up in our 'knowledge'.
Lord, forgive me for not being able to perfectly walk as you did. Please forgive us for focusing more on ourselves than on You. Please forgive us for being distracted by things that do not bring honor to Your Name. Lord Jesus, thank you for taking the place reserved for me and my sin so that I could be reconciled to You Lord. May I live a life worthy of one who calls himself a disciple of You. In Your Name Jesus, Amen.
July 19, 2005 8:21 PM
"I get so tired and frustrated at comments such as Josh's that say,'I personally know men and women that have gone to OC and returned home unsound in the faith.' I can list just as many peple who have been part of Barnes preaching school, or the former McLoud preaching school that have abandoned the faith."
The teacher cannot be condemned if one of their students leaves the faith after they have been taught the truth. Jesus taught Judas and Judas betrayed Jesus. Jesus cannot be blamed for what happened to Judas. The difference between the schools of preaching that were mentioned and oc is, oc has professors who teach error. If one was sound and then went to oc and was taught falsely then the teachers can be blamed for leading one astray. I think that was Josh's point because I too have seen sound conservative men enter oc only to be corrupted by the error that many on the faculty embrace. I also think many have suffered from a lack of knowledge after attending oc. I have worked alongside students and graduates of oc who did not know some of the fundamentals of the faith. If a teacher fails by not teaching enough or teaching error then that teacher can be blamed if one of their students suffers because of the teacher's shortcomings.
July 19, 2005 9:06 PM
Anonymous- Get real!
You state that you 'doubt' the survey is accurate! Nice way to push it under the rug!!!
Read it for yourself! You will see that the majority of people there do not believe in the truth found in the Bible that you claim we all need to study and learn about. We are no prophets, we simply state it as the bible states it. If you were honest you would see them for what they are and get out of that situation. Instead, you chose to sweep it under the rug and ignore it. Now that is what Jesus would want you to do!
Close your eyes to the evidence and get angry. Just like the Pharisees did! See all Jesus' miracles and attribute them to satan. See all the signs and then ask for a sign. You in essence do the same thing when you see the proof and then completely ignore it.
ps- Is this Jeremie?
July 20, 2005 4:01 AM
http://www.quailchurch.com/down/downloads/QSCC_final_analysis_-_web.pdf
Pg. 34-38
July 20, 2005 4:01 AM
Anonymous wrote,
"Humble thyself before thy God, whom without Jesus covering your sins would banish you from His presence just as you banish other brothers and sisters in Christ from your 'fellowship'. Who gave you the seat at the right hand of the Father to judge His people?!!!"
Anonymous is doing what he accuses others of doing. He is judging.
"Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things" (Rom. 2:1).
July 20, 2005 6:05 AM
So it is okay for you Jerry to pass judgment on everyone who disagrees with you, but when I tell you to repent and humble yourself somehow I am judging. I do not doubt you are a Christian brother and do not disfellowship you because we disagree. You stand up and say we must 'defend the faith' yet when someone rebukes you, your pride does not allow you to honestly look at yourself to see if there is something you need to correct. I daily look at my life to see where I need to change behavior or thoughts to live as Jesus did. I never said I was righteous in and of myself. I never claimed I had all the answers. Your refusal to honestly look at yourself and instead try to attack me with Scriptue shows me that you do not approach this with humility. For that I am sorry brother.
I wonder if what is going on here breaks the heart of our Savior as much as it breaks the hearts of the people who have been hurt by the rhetoric of the great 'defenders of the faith' who leave a path of destruction through the church of all the people they have condemned as false teachers, apostates, and ignorant people who embrace 'error' because they can not really understand what they read in Scripture since they came to conclusions that were different from those who have it all figured out.
Jesus told us we will know people by their fruit. When I see people who tear down, belittle, condemn, and disfellowship other Christians I as well as others can see that this is not the fruit brought about by the Spirit of God. I say to you who do this: repent brothers, return to your Lord, and allow the Spirit to produce more good fruit in your lives. If you allow Him to lead you, you will do much greater things than you can do on your own.
July 20, 2005 10:38 AM
91% said they belief baptism should be through immersion
88% said they recieved forgiveness of sins when they were immersed
31% said they believe baptism saves (the water itself)
I looked through the survey and it shows me a congregation that knows what Scripture teaches and a congregation that longs to be trained how to live out the faith in the surrounding community so that others can come to the Lord. I did not see anything that showed this congregation had departed from the faith, though a minority of people may not fully understand all the issues. Your characterization showed more of a bias against a particular congregation than an honest assessment of that congregational survey which helped focus the ministers and elders attention on things that need to be addressed to develop a healthier and more active Christian community.
July 20, 2005 10:50 AM
I want to urge those of us who frequent this blog to stop. The arguments are repetitive, tempers are flared, sins are committed because we are not looking at these issues in a loving light. I have posted numerous times, but I just cannot do it anymore. The things that are said on this blog are not done out of love at all. The whole point is to argue. Argue about this or argue about that. I beg those of you who do not agree with the writer of these blogs to stop posting. Let's set our sight on God and strive to do His will daily. Arguing the same stuff over and over does not do anything profitable for God. It does not give glory to God. I am done with this blog, and I hope others will follow my lead. Thanks, Josh, for letting me post on here. God bless!
July 20, 2005 12:11 PM
Disagree with OC= sin
standing for truth=sin
calling for bible authority in worship= double sin
saying we must draw a line of fellowship= sin x 10
Thats what i've learned so far
If the people on this blog didn't love they would not even try to tell you that you are wrong. They would let you sin and close their eyes to it. You who have supported the doctrines that Josh and Scott and others have opposed should investigate what you teach and not hate them for saying you are wrong. Repetitive arguements are repeated because they have never been answered, only mocked for being "19th century enlightenment". Mocking an arguement doesn't answer it. Accusing Josh, Scott, and others of sin and hate does not answer arguements either.
July 20, 2005 2:40 PM
If the people on this blog didn't love they would not even try to tell you that you are wrong. They would let you sin and close their eyes to it. You who have supported the doctrines that Josh and Scott and others have opposed should investigate what you teach and not hate them for saying you are wrong. Repetitive arguements are repeated because they have never been answered, only mocked for being "19th century enlightenment". Mocking an arguement doesn't answer it. Accusing Josh, Scott, and others of sin and hate does not answer arguements either.
This proves my point. YOU think YOUR SIDE is right and the rest of us are mired in sin and in need of repentance. I do not see humility in this at all. I have never mocked any argument, rather I have paid attention to all of these discussions for months and have seen many people that Scott and Josh and others disagree with admit they do not know everything, admit they are not perfect, admit that they make mistakes. Never once have I seen Scott, Josh, or others imply that they could be mistaken on any of the issues that have been discussed. That looks like pride and arrogance and trust in their own knowledge instead of honestly looking at what they have been taught to see where they may have been taught error. If you just looked at what they said you would come to the conclusion that their words and understanding are without error on every matter and all who disagree with them are obviously ignorant and do not know what Scripture teaches.
These arguments would not occur if they did not post things that further the sectarian spirit of the ultra-conservative wing of the brotherhood who want to conserve their tradition, not to be confused with those who want to conserve the ancient faith.
July 20, 2005 2:53 PM
If someone claims to be "right" and you disagree are you not also claiming to be "right".
If you are not claiming to be "right" saying "i don't know everything" then why do you say people who do claim they are right "sin",use "rhetoric", "divisive", "unloving", and so on. If you don't even know who are you to say they are wrong. You have an obligation to investigate what they say, not argue with them until you both get angry. You should rather investigate. Accusations have been brought against OC.... those accusations should be investigated, not argued with when you haven't even bothered to find out the source or the motivation behind the accusation. I notice alot of people judging the hearts of those who do bring accusations as being unloving. Rather than be unloving in return why not find out whether those things are so. You say we shouldn't judge people who disagree with us, well....don't you have a right to that opinion? I have a right to mine. First we must decide whether it is opinion. Many claim anything that they disagree with is opinion. They are wrong. Truth is absolute, there is only one correct interpretation to a given passage. If you think I am wrong, investigate before you call me a sinner.
July 20, 2005 2:55 PM
Should I study the bible so I can think I am wrong in order to be "humble". Thats not humility, thats foolishness. I think I am right, you think you are right. If you think you are wrong you need to get off the blog and go study the bible!!
Can you imagine the Jew's telling Peter after he had told them to "repent and be baptized", "peter you are so arrogant... you think you are right". What if Peter replied "I'm sorry, I might be wrong about this". People should always be studying to know that they are right. They should have conviction. If they do not, they should stay out of conversations like this.
If you are disagreeing with us and you don't know if you are right about that subject, you shouldn't say anything at all. If I thought I was wrong about something it would be dishonest to throw it out there as a truth. I believe Josh, Scott, Jerry and others have a deep conviction about the subjects they comment on. If they thought they were wrong they would stay away from these blogs.
July 20, 2005 3:04 PM
There is a difference between being humble in regards to my own knowledge and being arrogant that I am always right. I know that if I lived two-hundred years I would still never reach the depths of what Scripture teaches. I know even if I lived twice as long as the human lifespan that I would never have all the answers figured out. I worry about anyone who says at the age of twenty or thirty or seventy that they have all the answers figured out.
I too have deeply held convictions about things, but I do not hold convictions on peripheral issues to be binding on everyone. My convictions on thehe core matters of the faith are different. If we have a command or example in Scripture then my convictions are that they are to be obeyed. If I have to make an educated guess about something (inference) I do not give those the same authority as a command or example.
I study Scripture everyday. I read only books that deal with ecclesiology, theology, and biblical studies. My knowledge base is extensive and I could bash everyone over the head with it, but that would only show that I am puffed up with my own knowledge. The more I learn the more I realize how much I don't know. Don't assume that you have the market cornered on knowledge of spiritual matters. Realize that many of us choose not to beat people up with our knowledge. You could learn something from us if you would simply humble yourselves and listen to other people's views instead of calling them sinners and false teachers.
July 20, 2005 3:23 PM
Anonymous has accused some on this blog of thinking they are always right.
No one on this blog as ever claimed this. This is just another straw man argument that anonymous has constructed. He likes creating straw man arguments that are easy to tear down and throwing up smoke screens that waste our time. This is one of the main reasons why these discussions do not go anywhere. If some people would spend a little more time on what is being discussed instead of creating straw man arguments and throwing up smoke screens then we might be able to get somewhere.
Anonymous I challenge you to find where Josh or I have claimed to always be right and to know everything. Since you have made the accussation why don't you now supply the evidence.
July 20, 2005 3:52 PM
Scott,
Everytime someone says something you disagree with you label them as being in error, a false teacher, or a false brother. Yet never once have I seen you admit that others could have the right interpretation and you could be wrong. When people have used logical evidence to prove there position you usually ignore it, do not answer it, or delete their comments.
That is why people are so frustrated with you guys. You use certain rules to prove your positions, but when others use those same rules they are wrong. Everyone who has kept up with your blog and Josh's blog knows this and has repeatedly tried to show you this yet you refuse to honestly investigate it. Instead you label them, condemn them, or belittle them. If you allowed people to look at all of the comments on all of the posts on your blog they would see this trend. And then when they have done that they can go look at Curt Niccum's blog to see more evidence for my claims. Why is it that everyone else is wrong when they come to a different conclusion but your positions are infallible?
These are not straw men, these are observations that come from watching what goes on in these blogs over the last few months. I am holding a mirror up for you guys to look at yourselves but you refuse. Instead you continue to attack other people, and institutions and then say this is not about people but issues. Yeah right!
July 20, 2005 4:24 PM
"Instead you continue to attack other people, and institutions and then say this is not about people but issues. Yeah right!"
I'm glad you can see the heart of those guys you so easily condemn anonymous. This is probably the most judgmental statement I have read on this blog.
July 20, 2005 4:47 PM
Obviously you have not paid attention to these blogs for very long. I am just stating my observations gathered over months of watching and participating. Why will you not look at yourselves?
I'm glad you can see the heart of those guys you so easily condemn anonymous
Jerry Brewer said: I cannot speak for others, but I am not in fellowship with any of the people who signed that "Christian Affirmation." Those people are not my "leaders" nor do they speak for me. THEY HAVE DEPARTED FROM THE FAITH.
Thus he condemned many of the leaders in the resoration movement without giving justification.
Someone responded to Jerry:
Jerry said, "On the contrary, I am in fellowship with all Christians....All who walk in the light of the Truth are in fellowship one with another because they first submit to the demands of that Truth."
-----
So Jerry, you believe that Don Vinzant and Howard Norton are not Christians? They are not walking in the light?
To use the syllogistic method:
Jerry Brewer fellowships Christians.
Jerry Brewer does not fellowship Don Vinzant or Howard Norton.
Therefore, Don Vinzant and Howard Norton are not Christians.
This example shows what has been done by the 'other side'. I have not condemned anyone in this manner. I am merely trying to get my brothers in Christ to humble themselves and come down from the pedestal they have created for themselves and honestly engage in discussion with an open-mind and with an acknowledgement that they could be wrong on some of these debated peripheral issues that they hold over peoples heads as binding law. The fact that you all refuse to listen shows me that these blogs are not intended for honest open discussions but are a tool to force people to accept your way or be cast out of the church by calling them out by name and labeling them. Why do you think people have stopped using their names on these things?
I have NEVER once said that Scott, Josh, Jerry, or anyone else I disagree with are not my brothers in Christ. That is the difference. I do not condemn even when I have been condemned. There is a difference between calling people to look at the plank in their own eye before they try to remove the speck in their brother's eye, and telling people they are not your brothers.
July 20, 2005 5:55 PM
Is there a difference between a child of God(a brother) and a Christian?? Since we were all kids we understood that a Christian is a person who is "Christ-like".
When we sin we are not being "Christ-like" therefore when we sin and have not repented of that sin we are not Christians, we are erring children of God(erring brothers).
Don Vinzant and Howard Norton are in fellowship with men who teach error, they themselves do not oppose the error but endorse it(by means of open fellowship). This is sinful...
Now follow the reasoning
July 20, 2005 7:52 PM
Enough of this nonsense. I have heard Josh, Scott, and others talk about unity only coming through agreement.
Josh, Scott, Jerry, Brant, and any others: I want you to give a detailed list of everything we must agree on to have true Christian unity. Do not leave anything out because if we must all completely agree on every matter then you must tell us everything that we must agree on. I am sincere in this request and will post it on all your blogs. I look forward to your answer so we can be unified as brothers.
Please do not respond by giving generic: everything in the NT or everything Jesus and the apostles taught. We need specifics because we all know there are cultural examples and commands that are not binding on us. If you truly want unity then tell us what we need to agree on, please.
July 20, 2005 9:43 PM
Christian Baptist wrote,
"Enough of this nonsense. I have heard Josh, Scott, and others talk about unity only coming through agreement.
You accuse us of making unity a matter of subjective judgment. None of us has ever said that. Unity does not come through our subjective choices to "agree," but by Paul's injunction to "speak the same thing" (1 Cor. 1:10). Unity with each other is, first of all, a matter of unity with God. When I accept what Christ taught and you do the same thing, then we have unity. But we don't bring that about by choosing to "agree" with each other. It comes through our mutual acceptance of the gospel.
"Josh, Scott, Jerry, Brant, and any others: I want you to give a detailed list of everything we must agree on to have true Christian unity. Do not leave anything out because if we must all completely agree on every matter then you must tell us everything that we must agree on."
Since unity comes through our belief of and obedience to the "same thing" (1 Cor. 1:10) perhaps it would be best for you to describe what we *don't* have to agree on in order to have unity.
July 21, 2005 5:29 AM
I'm sorry this is a bit late, but it may get the conversation back on an earlier topic...
Josh, I'm glad you posted the link to the qscoc for folks to see for themselves. We have gone over this before. In those lessons, Mark Henderson never once says that baptism is not necessary for salvation. If fact he thoroughly defends the necessity of baptism. What he does is look at the issue through the eyes of others to show how we are perceived and then from there defends baptism. This way, others can see the truth for themselves on the issue of baptism. The last time this came up, I learned that the folks using this example had actually only listened to portions of the sermon series. I have listened to the entire thing, and Mark does not teach anything other than the necessety of baptism.
July 21, 2005 11:17 AM
Thank you Andrew for bringing this out. I want to encourage everything to do as Andrew did and listen to the entire sermon, as well as Mark Henderson's entire sermon series. These "straw man" accusations against Mark will fall by the wayside once people listen for themselves.
July 21, 2005 11:49 AM
In order to obtain Biblical unity you must teach the right things. Those who teach things that are contrary to the “apostles doctrine” are the one who cause division (Acts 2:42). Paul commands in Romans 16:17 “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” Unity is so important that we are told to mark and avoid those who disrupt it. One cannot have true Biblical unity with people who teach false doctrine.
Rick, Jerry, Scott (who continues to delete comments rather than discuss them), Brant, and any others this excerpt is from Scott's post about Unity. I have simply asked you to enlighten us on what parts of the apostles doctrine we must agree upon to be brothers. Your response: get a Bible and figure it out yourself. Must we make our women cover their heads? Must we wash one anothers feet? Must we greet one another with a holy kiss? Must our women abstain from makeup and jewelry?
You tell us we must be in agreement to fellowship, yet when someone asks you to provide information on where we must agree you delete their post or tell them to study the Bible. These blogs have been filled with people who study their Bibles and come to different conclusions than you, so you tell them they are not brothers, are not Christian, are in error, are false teachers. Yet you will not tell us what we need to believe to be in agreement and have unity. It seems you are all talk but when it gets to the specifics you haven't a clue how to go about living out what you say.
Again I ask you to provide us ignorant heathens with the information so we can be in agreement.
I will post this on all your blogs, and if you refuse to answer or delete this then it shows us that you are holding people to a standard that you yourselves cannot define in its entirety.
July 21, 2005 12:33 PM
Sorry, I meant to say "encourage everyONE" instead of "encourage everyTHING." I hope everyone knew what I was talking about.
July 21, 2005 3:06 PM
Christian Baptist wrote,
"Rick, Jerry, Scott (who continues to delete comments rather than discuss them), Brant, and any others this excerpt is from Scott's post about Unity. I have simply asked you to enlighten us on what parts of the apostles doctrine we must agree upon to be brothers."
One of the Pharisees, a lawyer, asked Jesus a similar question: "Master, which is the great commandment in the law?" (Matt. 22:36). You see, like many people today, the Pharisees thought if they just kept *one* of God's "important" laws that would be accepted by God as obedience to *all* of His laws.
The Pharisees were early proponents of what is described today as "The Core Gospel." If they obeyed a few "core" teachings, nothing else mattered. In essence, they asked Jesus, "What parts of the Law of Moses must we agree upon to be brothers?"
Jesus' answer didn't please the Pharisees. They thought some of God's commands were superfluous and could be ignored. Some Pharisees thought the Sabbath law was the most important. Others held that the law regulating conduct respecting human life was the most important. Modern Pharisees are like that. They believe that calling Jesus, "Lord," is the most important command and, therefore, relegate all other New Testament commands to matters of "opinion" or unimportance.
Christian Baptist also wrote,
"Your response: get a Bible and figure it out yourself. Must we make our women cover their heads? Must we wash one anothers feet? Must we greet one another with a holy kiss? Must our women abstain from makeup and jewelry?"
You left out "meeting in an upper room" and "shaving one's head as part of a vow." The apostles were infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit in all matters of doctrine (John 14-16). What they commanded, what they approved by their own inspired examples or what is implied by their teaching is what is required, for they taught "all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:20).
July 22, 2005 5:37 AM
Jerry replies:
"You left out "meeting in an upper room" and "shaving one's head as part of a vow." The apostles were infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit in all matters of doctrine (John 14-16). What they commanded, what they approved by their own inspired examples or what is implied by their teaching is what is required, for they taught "all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:20)."
Jerry, this sounds like you are saying we should indeed be meeting in upper rooms et al because they were infalably guided. Does your congregation do all of these things? Most CoC's do not do these things, showing some level of inconsistancy in the way make our inferances. We disreguard a command for women to keep their heads covered by explaining it away, but we refuse to keep the same logic on other issues.
July 22, 2005 8:56 AM
"You left out "meeting in an upper room" and "shaving one's head as part of a vow." The apostles were infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit in all matters of doctrine (John 14-16). What they commanded, what they approved by their own inspired examples or what is implied by their teaching is what is required, for they taught "all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:20)."
So you admit that you do not follow all of the apostolic doctrine. You do not meet in an upper room to fellowship and take the Lord's Supper. You do not greet one another with a holy kiss. You do not wash one another's feet. And on and on. If you do not follow the apostolic doctrine in every detail then how can you condemn others as not holding to the apostles' doctrine?
Just a thought.
July 22, 2005 9:48 AM
You ought to read Scott's post on custom or commandment. This might solve these minor issues.
July 22, 2005 10:24 AM
Andrew said
"Jerry, this sounds like you are saying we should indeed be meeting in upper rooms et al because they were infalably guided. Does your congregation do all of these things?"
We would do these things if the apostles taught them as part of the "all things which I have commanded you" in Matthew 28:20. The apostles never taught, nor practiced meeting in an upper room as part of the doctrine of Christ.
The infallible guidance of the apostles did not extend to every detail of their lives. That's evident from Peter's dissimulation at Antioch (Galatians 2). The apostles did lots of things that were not part of the doctrine of Christ, like meeting in an upper room.
July 22, 2005 10:50 AM
Christian Baptist wrote,
"So you admit that you do not follow all of the apostolic doctrine. You do not meet in an upper room to fellowship and take the Lord's Supper. You do not greet one another with a holy kiss. You do not wash one another's feet. And on and on. If you do not follow the apostolic doctrine in every detail then how can you condemn others as not holding to the apostles' doctrine?"
None of those things cited are part of the apostles' doctrine. What *is* part of the apostles' doctrine is the command to "sing" in worship. But let's grant, for the sake of discussion, that I do not hold to the apostles' doctrine. How does that justify the introduction of mechanical instruments into the worship of God? Are you saying two wrongs make a right? Is it okay for others to be wrong, so long as they can point out that I am wrong as well? Are you asking, like the Pharisees, "which apostles' doctrine is the most important?"
No matter what one thinks, the Scripture says, "let God be true, but every man a liar" (Rom. 3:4). If none of us held to the apostles' doctrine, God's Word would still be true. It isn't my perception (or yours) that determines Truth, but what God has revealed (John 8:32; Gal. 1:6-9). Neither is it my actions (or yours) that determine Truth, but what the Scripture saith.
Your argumentation is reminiscent of the child who is caught in the cookie jar and justifies his actions by saying, "Well, he got one too!"
July 22, 2005 11:04 AM
Jerry,
What is the criteria for something being included in the "apostles' doctrine"?
July 22, 2005 11:21 AM
Jerry and others, the point is not to show that you are wrong as well and that two wrongs make a right. The point is that it shows that the logic is not as sound as you would have us believe. Many of the things we in the CoC hold to by tradition are based on human inferences, not on the apostle’s doctrine, but we have been taught to use a collection of scriptures that have a completely different purpose to prop up our traditions. No one is asking us to give them up; they are just asking that we not demand they follow them.
Christian Baptist and others... I (a member of the CoC) gladly recognize you a brothers and sisters under Christ. Scott, Josh, Jerry and others... I do not think you are wrong for your conviction. I understand and respect your views that these things are a part of the apostle’s doctrine. There will always be groups that can not see eye to eye. Were the CoC a more "centralized" group, we would be heading for a split as well. There are those who wish to demand that Quail Springs and other such congregations keep to the traditions that we have (because of an honest view that they are necessities, not tradition). Similarly, there are those that are not willing to condemn or disfellowship others over these issues (because of an honest view that they are tradition, not because they do not care or study).
I understand that my views cause others to view me as lost and therefore not a brother or a "true" Christian. However, I will not be judged by their understanding, but by God’s truth. Scott, Josh, Jerry and others, I respect your conviction and knowledge of your beliefs. Christian Baptist and others, I respect your conviction and study as well. We each probably have some differences in belief on one level or another. Perhaps I sound like a broken record, but all this ramped up rhetoric on both sides is unproductive. If we can not do any better, I would suggest that we all go separate ways, or at least find a medium that would be better moderated and kept on subject. Any time we start a discussion, we end up assuming motives, jumping from one topic to the next, and head down the same unproductive path.
July 22, 2005 11:49 AM
Thank you Andrew. There are many more like you out there and that gives me great hope that your congregations are moving in the right direction.
I also respect the 'opposing' views and never said these men were not my brothers in Christ even if they do not view me the same. I simply wanted them to present the pattern and fellowship issues we must agree on so that we can begin to build unity.
When you all come up with that detailed information post in on a blog and I will return to discuss it.
July 22, 2005 3:49 PM
Christian Baptist you are unfair. Some have attempted to answer your questions and you refuse to look at their answers and discuss them. It seems we can only have a discussion if we abide by your rules. I am glad you are deciding to "seperate" yourself from these discussions. You have demonstrated an unwillingness to have an educated discussion where both parties look at the issues. You have accussed us of being unloving when some have refused to answer your questions but now you are guilty of the same thing. It seems that you do not love us enough to explain why our conclusions are wrong. These are the very answers you asked for and now you refuse to even discuss them. This has been nothing but a waste of time.
July 22, 2005 9:27 PM
Andrew wrote,
"Many of the things we in the CoC hold to by tradition are based on human inferences, not on the apostle’s doctrine, but we have been taught to use a collection of scriptures that have a completely different purpose to prop up our traditions."
Andrew,
You have made an assertion without documentation. Would you document some of those "traditions," please?
July 23, 2005 5:01 AM
Christian Baptist wrote,
"I also respect the 'opposing' views and never said these men were not my brothers in Christ even if they do not view me the same. I simply wanted them to present the pattern and fellowship issues we must agree on so that we can begin to build unity."
For a start, the Bible teaches there is *one* church, purposed from eternity (Eph. 3:10-11), promised to the patriarchs (Gen. 12:1-3), predicted by the prophets (Isa. 2:1-4; Dan. 2:31-45), prepared by John (Matt. 3:1-3), built by Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:18) and established on the first Pentecost following the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 2). This was in approximately 33 A.D., long before there was such a thing as a Baptist Church, or any other modern denomination. Jesus died for His church (Acts 20:28) which is His body (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18) and which He will save (Eph. 5:23). Christ's church is *one* (Eph. 4:4) and denominations of men do not constitute any part of it.
The terms of salvation which His church preaches are those set forth in the book of Acts by inspired men---faith (Acts 16:30), repentance (Acts 17:30), confession of Christ as God's Son (Matt. 10:32; Acts 8:37) and baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).
Those are a couple of things relating to the pattern of New Testament Christianity.
July 23, 2005 5:18 AM
Andrew wrote,
"There are those who wish to demand that Quail Springs and other such congregations keep to the traditions that we have (because of an honest view that they are necessities, not tradition)."
Andrew,
Perhaps you could explain what is meant by the following from the Quail Springs website. What are these "spiritual gifts?" I know the apostles, and others on whom the apostles laid hands, had spiritual gifts, as delineated in First Corinthians 12, but I wasn't aware that such were extant today. Is it merely "tradition" to teach that spiritual gifts have ceased?
"We believe the church should function as a body of believers empowered by the Holy Spirit, where every believer faithfully stewards his or her spiritual gifts."
July 23, 2005 5:38 AM
"For a start, the Bible teaches there is *one* church, purposed from eternity (Eph. 3:10-11), promised to the patriarchs (Gen. 12:1-3), predicted by the prophets (Isa. 2:1-4; Dan. 2:31-45), prepared by John (Matt. 3:1-3), built by Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:18) and established on the first Pentecost following the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 2). This was in approximately 33 A.D., long before there was such a thing as a Baptist Church, or any other modern denomination. Jesus died for His church (Acts 20:28) which is His body (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18) and which He will save (Eph. 5:23). Christ's church is *one* (Eph. 4:4) and denominations of men do not constitute any part of it.
I question your interpretation of the OT passages but not the description you give. In the first century, Jewish congregations were distinct from Gentile congregations. This is evidenced by the council in Jerusalem, the problems discussed in Romans and Galatians, and the need for the Gentiles to make a gesture of unity by gathering a collection for the church in Jerusalem. The church is one, but that should not be mistaken for uniformity. If uniformity is required then why claim that each congregation is autonomous? Why not create a centralized heirarchy to ensure that all congregations are faithful to the pattern? Which is in effect what is being done when people disfellowship those congregations that do not follow the 'approved' pattern by the great leaders in the 'church of Christ'.
The NT picture of unity shows it to be a way to bring together diverse groups with different cultural norms. Would you say that a congregation in Africa must look and act exactly like a congregation in Texas. If so then what you are advocating is Americanized congregations and not NT congregations. That is not a principle based on NT teaching as the epistles testify to since in each one Paul had to address congregational specific problems and cultural issues. If every congregation was exactly the same in every way why do we not see the same problems occuring in the different congregations that Paul wrote to?
Lastly, your proclamation that denominations are not part of the Lord's church is not based on scripture but your own preference, tradition, and opinion. Anywhere baptized believers in Jesus Christ (those whose conversions are biblical) gather together there the church is since the church is Christ's people and not human buildings. If you think that those in denominations are excluded because they have incorrect theology or doctrine then by claiming you belong to the 'true' church you in effect are saying you are correct 100% of the time. If you are only correct 99% of the time then you are not perfect in your obedience to apostolic doctrine and thus are excluded from the true church since you have not completely fulfilled the 'law' of the NT.
If this is not a correct view of what you teach then please correct me.
July 24, 2005 1:57 PM
Christian Baptist wrote,
"...your proclamation that denominations are not part of the Lord's church is not based on scripture but your own preference, tradition, and opinion."
If you can find a modern denomination in the Scriptures, please point it out. You are big on assertion (like the one above) but woefully lacking on Scriptural documentation. Upon what do you base your assertion that such a conclusion is based on my "own preference, tradition and opinion?"
July 25, 2005 4:51 AM
Jerry,
Let me make a brief attempt to address your two questions. Firstly, you ask me to document some traditions of the CoC. I will provide a list, but as I stated earlier, I recognize that you will disagree because you view them as necessity. Each of these issues have been debated using scriptural support, and no consensus has been reached, so I will not rehash these debates. Things I would include in that list would be anything we do based on our inferences, not direct command or example. Forbiddance of instrumental music, view that the HS has no active role in the lives of modern Christians, view that paid youth ministers, singles ministers, etc. are not allowed etc, view that small groups meeting in homes are not allowed and others. In my life and on these blogs, I have seen each of these arguments made and I am not looking to re-open those debates here for logistics if nothing else.
Secondly, you ask me to address my take on the statement you copy form Quail Spring CoC’s website. As for spiritual gifts… what would you call your ability to preach or teach a lesson? I would call it a gift from God. It is a talent given to you to use for a spiritual purpose. We all have spiritual talents or gifts to use for Godly purposes. As for living lives empowered by the Holy Spirit, this is another instance where we disagree. If I understand your view correctly, the Holy Spirit inspired the apostles and writers of the NT and has no other role. Christians today only see evidence of the HS in the scriptures. As listed above, we disagree on that. I do not and have never claimed to have any special ability given me by the HS, however I do believe he is present in our lives in other ways. I believe that by our willingness to follow Gods spirit (through study, prayer, and God’s providence), we can lead lives equipped for good works by God and his spirit.
July 25, 2005 7:22 AM
Upon what do you base your assertion that such a conclusion is based on my "own preference, tradition and opinion
Anywhere baptized believers in Jesus Christ (those whose conversions are biblical) gather together there the church is since the church is Christ's people and not human buildings.
Your stated position is that Christians only belong to those congregations who fit YOUR approved pattern, and not what the NT teaches about what constitutes a Christian. AS of yet you still have not outlined what this approved pattern is in detail. You stick to the talking points that everyone else is wrong and you are right but you do not back it up by showing us what you really stand for, instead you focus on what is wrong with everyone else.
I have read many of your articles and am aware of your stated positions. The proof is seen in all of the people you have said are not Christian brothers because in your 'opinion' they have departed from the faith.
July 25, 2005 12:43 PM
Christian Baptist wrote,
"Your stated position is that Christians only belong to those congregations who fit YOUR approved pattern, and not what the NT teaches about what constitutes a Christian."
There you go making assertions again without documentation. Please give the quote where such is my "stated position."
July 26, 2005 10:44 AM
Taken from: "The Church Purposed by God" by Jerry C. Brewer, in The Gospel Preceptor
"The salvation of mankind was God's purpose before the world began and the church of Christ, the kingdom of God, is the divine institution in which that purpose is accomplished. In it the fullness of Christ dwells, (Eph. 1:22-23).
One cannot be in Christ without being in his church and one who is in the church is in Christ. It is instrument of salvation for which Christ was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, (1 Pet. 1:18-19) and only within that one church are all the spiritual blessings that heaven bestows, (Eph. 1:3)."
I was converted in accordance with the NT teachings which means I am a Christian and belong to the one church, yet because I am not affiliated with your congregations you conclude that I am not really a Christian. By your own words here I meet the standard, but I know that you do not really consider me to be a brother because I have also read: "Denominations Ignore God's Authority" as well as "Salvation and the Church".
I understand your position and my assertions are not made in a void of knowledge.
July 26, 2005 5:06 PM
It is almost hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
The very term UNI-VERSITY has to do with a system built on One View. We are talking about world-view here.
Not only have state "universities" become diversities in peddling multiple views as equally valid, it is increasingly true of the so-called Christian universities.
Truth is narrow and knowable. Education is to help us know the truth, use it, and be able with solid reasoning skills to recognize and refute false views.
July 27, 2005 8:37 AM
Truth is narrow and knowable. Education is to help us know the truth, use it, and be able with solid reasoning skills to recognize and refute false views.
Truth is knowable, but the rest of your statement is no longer applicable today. Try to teach using logic and reason in a university today and whatch how many students tune you out, ignore you, or question you every chance they get. Today's university students think completely different than what you just put forth as the means to determine truth and falsehood. These students will discover truth but they will take a different route than logic and reason to get there. Welcome to the 21st century.
July 27, 2005 10:23 AM
Christian Baptist wrote,
"Taken from: 'The Church Purposed by God' by Jerry C. Brewer, in The Gospel Preceptor
"The salvation of mankind was God's purpose before the world began and the church of Christ, the kingdom of God, is the divine institution in which that purpose is accomplished. In it the fullness of Christ dwells, (Eph. 1:22-23).
"One cannot be in Christ without being in his church and one who is in the church is in Christ. It is instrument of salvation for which Christ was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, (1 Pet. 1:18-19) and only within that one church are all the spiritual blessings that heaven bestows, (Eph. 1:3)."
"I was converted in accordance with the NT teachings which means I am a Christian and belong to the one church, yet because I am not affiliated with your congregations you conclude that I am not really a Christian."
Please point out in the above writing, taken from The Gospel Preceptor, where I said, you are "not really a Christian" because you are not "affiliated with" my "congregations."
Also, please point out where there is error in the quote you provide from the Preceptor.
You allege that my "stated position is that, "...Christians only belong to those congregations who fit YOUR approved pattern, and not what the NT teaches about what constitutes a Christian."
You cannot find where I ever said that, because I never did. If you can, please provide the quote. If you cannot, you should apologize to readers of this blog for your misrepresentation and cease making undocumented allegations.
July 27, 2005 12:05 PM
From "DENOMINATIONS IGNORE GOD'S AUTHORITY"
We invite you (meaning those outside your congregations) to stand upon the word of God with us. Reject all human names and practices which aren't authorized in the Bible and become only a Christian and a Christian only. Believe in the Lord (John 8:24), repent of your sins (Luke 13:3), confess Christ as God's Son (Romans 10:10; Acts 8:37) and be baptized into Christ for the remission of sins. Then worship with us as we follow the authority of the Bible and the Bible only.
You imply that one must not be affiliated with any congregations outside of yours, and to be welcomed into the church one must worship with you.
Doesn't that mean you do not consider those outside of your congregations to be brothers in Christ?
From: "Salvation And The Church"
One cannot be saved in Christ without being saved in the church of Christ. The Bible knows only one circle and to be saved is to be in the body of Christ, for it is His fulness.
Does this mean that even though my conversion is biblical I am not really in Christ because I am not in the 'church of Christ' even though I am in the church of our Lord?
You allege that my stated position is that, "...Christians only belong to those congregations who fit YOUR approved pattern, and not what the NT teaches about what constitutes a Christian."
That's a neat trick, but my statement is a summary of what you have written and not a direct quote, thus no quotation marks were in my original comment though my summary is accurate based on what I have read in your articles.
From: "Christ Is "Narrow Minded"
To believe and/or teach that all denominations comprise the one church of the New Testament is sophistry gone to seed and defies all logic. Christ has only one body — the church — and that's the one found within the pages of the New Testament. It takes Baptist doctrine to make a Baptist, the Methodist Discipline to make a Methodist, the Catholic's Catechism to make a Catholic and the Presbyterian Confession of Faith to make a Presbyterian. But it takes the New Testament without addition or subtraction to make a Christian — a member of the church Jesus built. Christ has only one body.
Denominations do not constitute the church of Christ. Therefore they do not constitute God's temple — he has only one. Therefore, their worship is vain because they teach the doctrines of men. (Matt. 15:8-9)
Christ has only one church and denominations are no part of it.
AS you can see my summary is accurate. Even though my conversion is consistent with NT doctrine, because I do not worship in your congregations I am not really considered a Christian by you. I am obedient to the clear commands and examples of the NT, but do not accept your inferences or educated guesses (which you hold as binding) about matters not explicilty addressed by the apostles and in which God never condemns in the entirety of His Word to us. If the Word of God is His complete revelation to us then we have no authority to make guesses about things and then hold them over others as binding law.
July 27, 2005 12:52 PM
Christian Baptist wrote the following quote:
"To believe and/or teach that all denominations comprise the one church of the New Testament is sophistry gone to seed and defies all logic. Christ has only one body — the church — and that's the one found within the pages of the New Testament. It takes Baptist doctrine to make a Baptist, the Methodist Discipline to make a Methodist, the Catholic's Catechism to make a Catholic and the Presbyterian Confession of Faith to make a Presbyterian. But it takes the New Testament without addition or subtraction to make a Christian — a member of the church Jesus built. Christ has only one body.
"Denominations do not constitute the church of Christ. Therefore they do not constitute God's temple — he has only one. Therefore, their worship is vain because they teach the doctrines of men. (Matt. 15:8-9)
Christ has only one church and denominations are no part of it."
Please point out the error in the above quote, and please do the same for the previous quote.
July 27, 2005 1:04 PM
Your error is that you nullify the cross when you claim that those who have biblically been converted to Christ are not Christians because they do worship with you in your congregations and do not accept your guesses about certain matters, though they agree with you on the core matters of faith that cannot be compromised.
__________________________
I am affiliated with a baptist congregation. I believe Jesus is Lord, I have confessed that before men, I have repented of my sin, I have been baptized into Christ for the forgiveness of my sin, I attempt to live daily as a Christian and disciple of our Lord.
Do you consider me to be a brother?
July 27, 2005 1:10 PM
It's difficult, if not impossible to reason from the Bible when those with whom one reasons refuse to make their points from the Scriptures.
Christian Baptist has taken the well-traveled road of postmodernism in all of his replies to me. I cannot recall one Scripture being cited in support of his religious positions. If one reasons from his own subjective experience in spiritual matters, then no common ground exists for continued discussion. Jesus said, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32). But Christian Baptist has consistently refused to point out from God's Word where I wrote error. I'm still waiting for a Scriptural reply.
July 27, 2005 1:25 PM
I believe Jesus is Lord, I have confessed that before men, I have repented of my sin, I have been baptized into Christ for the forgiveness of my sin, I attempt to live daily as a Christian and disciple of our Lord.
Does that not come from Scripture or do I have to put the unbiblical chapter and verse headings to show you that it comes from Scripture?
Answer me: Based on the above quote and knowing I am affiliated with a baptist congregation am I a Christian?
Christian Baptist has taken the well-traveled road of postmodernism in all of his replies to me
I speak in the terms that the world understands just as the early Christians did. I am not a modernist or a postmodernist. I think both are failures. Modernism failed because logic is not supreme in determing truth (as evidenced in the warring factions within the 'brotherhood' of the 'churches of Christ'). Post-modernism failed because it provides no alternative to modernism. I speak as one who is seeing a restoration of NT Christianity not based on 19th century thought but on the picture provided in Scripture.
July 27, 2005 1:43 PM
CB is looking at and referencing the same passages of scripture you are using Jerry. You are coming to one conclusing about them, and he is coming to another. The debate is not about wether to use scripture vs. ones own "subjective experience," the debate is over how to apply several scriptures that you both are looking at.
The post about postmodernism does nothing to further the conversation, nor does it address the issue. You use scripture to imply that none outside of the church of Christ is saved, and those in denominations need to repent and be saved because of your assumption that they have not been baptized by the blood of Christ, and into Christ for remission of sins. But yet you will not look at the real-life example before you. One who has had a biblical conversion into Jesus' blood, yet does not worship in a CoC... Is such a one a Christian? Is it even our place to judge that? I'm pretty confident there are more than enough passages to back that up.
July 27, 2005 1:48 PM
Anonymous,
I would agree to a large degree that what you said concerning many students today and the use of logic.
This is not new. John Dewey can be thanked for dismantling logic and the correct use of reason as a part of our public educational system.
This is why Christian colleges SHOULD start teaching these students HOW to reason correctly. They should require the students to learn these skills. This ability is essential to good communication and the investigation of truth.
Truth is often put in propositional terms and as such need to be handled correctly. Too many students are ignorant of how to go about doing this. Just because a student objects to an argument does not mean that the student is going to arrive at the truth another way. It only goes to prove that he is unlearned and needs the training.
God did not say Come let us have an experience together. He said, Come, Let us reason together.
July 27, 2005 1:56 PM
The term Christian describes a person who is a disciple of Jesus. One may be a child of God by virtue of having been born again. But if that one ceases to be faithful to the teaching of Christ and ceases to follow Him, then he also ceases to be a Christian.
An unfaithful child of God cannot be properly called a Christian. A Christian is a learning/follower of Jesus Christ.
When a person does not worship, work, or fellowship among those who are true disciples he has become unfaithful. He forfeits the claim to the name Christian.
July 27, 2005 1:59 PM
In Galatians and Ephesians where Paul talks about our adoption as sons through Christ, I do not see him adding conditional statements on to that adoption such as a lack of perfect obedience means forfeiture of our status as children of God. It appears this is an addition unless you are claiming that all those who worship you have achieved absolute perfection, otherwise we all forefeit our claim to the name Christian.
But if that one ceases to be faithful to the teaching of Christ and ceases to follow Him, then he also ceases to be a Christian.
You like logic and reasoning so I will show you where the logic of this statement leads. Unless you are perfectly obedient everyday you cease to be a Christian, therefore by this logic no one is truly a Christian because no one is perfectly obedient all the time.
July 27, 2005 2:44 PM
"worship with you"
July 27, 2005 2:45 PM
Andrew wrote,
"CB is looking at and referencing the same passages of scripture you are using Jerry."
And which scriptures are those, Andrew?
August 09, 2005 1:21 PM
Christin Baptist wrote in part:
"You like logic and reasoning so I will show you where the logic of this statement leads. Unless you are perfectly obedient everyday you cease to be a Christian, therefore by this logic no one is truly a Christian because no one is perfectly obedient all the time."
=======
You have added to what I said and built a straw man. Your conclusion is NOT warranted by anything I actually stated.
Many a man is a faithful husband, but no wife would claim they have a perfect husband. Big difference.
1 John 1:7 speaks of walking in the light which refers to direction and purpose, not faultless performance. It is a lifestyle. And it is in this that the blood is continually applied. Why so, because in spite of our best efforts we do sin. We have an advocate with the Father in our behalf. And as long as we are honest and forthright about sin, confessing it, He is faithful and just to forgive us.
My earlier comments were about someone who CEASED to be faithful.
August 14, 2005 12:12 PM
CB wrote:
"If you will notice I did not claim that you made that statement. I merely showed you where the logic behind your statement leads. Big difference. Your logic is flawed because of conclusion that it leads to."
=====
My might try to infer it, but it does not follow...it is not implied. That is why you had to add a statement to get that conclusion. Thus you have built a straw man.
As far as "the rest" having ceased to be faithful... if they have never obeyed the gospel plan of salvation and been added by the Lord himself to his church...then they cannot become unfaithful.
The truth on the plan of salvation is the number one concern to determine if a person is a true disciple and a congregation is a part of the true church.
August 15, 2005 9:39 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home