Some Alexander Campbell Quotes
One of our guests has been talking about Alexander Campbell quite a bit recently. We don’t talk about A.C. much here, because our 3 TV hosts have said many times that the things he taught are somewhat irrelevant (my paraphrase) because he didn’t found the “Churches of Christ”. But, since “Jo” brought up Mr. Campbell, I thought I would give a couple of A.C. quotes that are pertinent to the issues we have been discussing.
“We will not hearken to those questions which gender strife, nor discuss them at all. If a person says such is his private opinion, let him have it as his private opinion; but lay no stress upon it; and if it be a wrong private opinion, it will die a natural death much sooner than if you attempt to kill it.” Alexander Campbell
“I have tried the pharisaic plan, and the monastic. I was once so straight, that, like the Indian’s tree, I leaned a little the other way. And however much I may be slandered now as seeking “popularity” or a popular course, I have to rejoice that to my own satisfaction, as well as to others, I proved that truth, and not popularity, was my object; for I was once so strict a Separatist that I would neither pray nor sing praises with any one who was not as perfect as I supposed myself. In this most unpopular course I persisted until I discovered the mistake, and saw that on the principle embraced in my conduct, there never could be a congregation or church upon the earth.” Alexander Campbell
Found here.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://answeringchurchofchrist.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/some-alexander-campbell-quotes/trackback/
It’s funny that the legalistic branch of the Churches of Christ ignore the founder of their heritage. He was a brilliant man who’s goals were quite noble. He is spinning in his grave right now considering what the ultra-conservatives are doing claiming their denomination as the one true church.
Also, here is a shorter one from Barton Stone that was from The Christian Messenger (1831):
“My opinion is that immersion is the only baptism. But shall I therefore make my opinion a term of Christian fellowship? If in this case I thus act, where shall I cease from making my opinions terms of fellowship? I confess I see no end. Let us still acknowledge all to be brethen, who believe in the Lord Jesus, and humbly and honestly obey him, as far as they know his will, and their duty.”
Interesting, Stone and Campbell sound very wise. I am thinking JR and NF would do some good to follow their lead.
Are we playing this game?
How about the famous Baptist Charles Spurgeon on instrumental music:
…Staunch old Baptists in former times would as soon tolerated the Pope of Rome in their pulpits as an organ in their galleries, and yet the instrument has gradually found its way among them…How far this modern organ fever will extend among our people, and whether it will on the whole work a RE- formation or DE- formation in their singing service, time will more fully develop.”
How about Martin Luther’s opinion on those who call themselves Lutherans?
“Please do not use my name; do not call yourselves Lutherans, but Christians. . . . The doctrine is not mine; I have not been crucified for anyone. . . . Why should I, a miserable bag of worms, give my meaningless name to Christ’s children?”
Campbell, Stone and all of the others who lead the call to go back to the Bible are not inspired. Their opinions and statements only matter inasmuch as they agree with scripture. Look at what Stone said; “my opinion is that immersion is the only baptism”. Actually, it is much more that Stone’s opinion, it is a Biblical fact. I would agree with his stance on baptism, but I would not agree that it is a matter of opinion or interpretation.
Nice use of the bold, coreydavis.
The reason I posted these quotes was because of some recent connect-the-dots going on by “Jo”, where he was talking about the opinions some Baptists in the early-mid 1800’s held about Alexander Campbell. The quotes I cited were a demonstration of why they might have felt that way. Barton Stone was a bonus.
Corey, notice that Spurgeon did not express in that quote a distaste for all instruments but rather a distaste for one instrument in particular. Many folks do not like organ music but they adore piano music.
Corey said “Actually, it is much more that Stone’s opinion, it is a Biblical fact. I would agree with his stance on baptism, but I would not agree that it is a matter of opinion or interpretation.”
But the part of that quote that I find most interesting is that both Stone and Campbell seem to emphasize how futile it would be to argue with others over this issue in particular of baptism. Look at Stone’s last sentence in that quote, he said he realized that in so doing (I would neither pray nor sing praises with any one who was not as perfect as I supposed myself- Stone) that he was making it so that there would never be one congregation here on earth.
That’s the purpose of those quotes. Not to once again argue the issue of Baptism. But to point out that causing such division really is accomplishing nothing for the glory of God and certainly is not bringing about “unity”.
I’m really digging the BOLD!
I have read the discussion with Jo and understand why you put them up. I have a hard time following Jo’s train of thought, so I’m not sure why she (?) put in all the quotes about Campbell.
I was just trying to make a point - before we start a big group hug about how tolerant and accepting Campbell and Stone may have been it is worth noting that those men’s opinions mean nothing if they contradict the Bible.
Also, when Katie says that Campbell seems wise I think it is more of seeing wisdom in those things he says that agree with her point of view (I’m not picking on Katie, just using her as the example). I see a great deal of wisdom in Spurgeon’s comments about instrumental music. I see a great deal of wisdom in Luther’s rejection of the name Lutherans. I also disagree with both men when their opinions contradict Biblical teaching.
By the way, since you mention the great English minister Charles Spurgeon I trust you know that he proclaimed baptismal regeneration as a great error and he preached strongly against it. He proclaimed it as an bad teaching developed from the Catholic Church
Well Rick, how about this quote from Spurgeon:
“We might as well pray by machinery as sing by it” and “Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her learn; but in these days when Jesus gives us spiritual food, one can make melody without strings and pipes… we do not need them. That would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto Him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument like the human voice.” Charles Spurgeon, Commentary on Psalm 42
And how about my favorite quote, from John Wesley, founder of the Methodist denomination:
“I have no objection to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither heard nor seen.”
Rick wrote: By the way, since you mention the great English minister Charles Spurgeon I trust you know that he proclaimed baptismal regeneration as a great error and he preached strongly against it. He proclaimed it as an bad teaching developed from the Catholic Church
Thank you for proving my point. I can pick out Spurgeon quotes that agree with my point of view, just as some of you can quote from Campbell and Stone. In many areas I strongly disagree with Spurgeon, just as in many areas you would disagree with C&S.
what I see as wise is their ability to be honest in pointing out that arguments over (baptism, instruments, etc) and choosing not to fellowship with another Christian because of those will not lead to unity. THAT is what I find interesting and wise.
Appears to me that both of these men were speaking of their preferences rather a direct teaching that they were not permitted by Scripture. Spurgeon said “we do not need them” not that the Scripture forbids them. Wesley gave his distaste for them but not a proclamation of Scriptures prohibation of them.
Corey, you seem to have left out this part by Charles…
“We who do not believe these things to be expedient in worship, lest they should mar its simplicity, DO NOT AFFIRM THEM TO BE UNLAWFUL, and if any George Herbert or Martin Luther can worship God better by the aid of well-tuned instruments, who shall gainsay their right? We do not need them, they would hinder than help our praise but if others are otherwise minded, are they not living in GOSPEL LIBERTY?”
Katie hit the nail on the head.
Exactly Corey it does prove “our” point that we can quote from a variety of sources from the same individuals that support or dispute our views. tic, tac, tock.
In the end it will be God who will be the final judge of the “correct” version and the judge of rather or not these differences of opinion will be the final answer as to our salvation.
I agree Nathan.. great points by Katie (you are welcome darling) and a great point by Katherine at 10:02
That was actually the plea of those in the Restoration movement:
Christians only, not the only Christians
In faith, unity; in opinion, freedom; and in all things love
Katie wrote: what I see as wise is their ability to be honest in pointing out that arguments over (baptism, instruments, etc) and choosing not to fellowship with another Christian because of those will not lead to unity. THAT is what I find interesting and wise.
Exactly. You see wisdom in those quotes that agree with the position you already hold. You would not see wisdom in their quotes that say that baptism is essential to salvation and occurs before salvation.
Rick - how about the quote that we might as well pray with instruments as sing with them? And you are right, scripture does not forbid them. Countless times it has been explained that we don’t need a direct command to NOT do something. We have a command to sing and that would EXCLUDE additions to that command. I think we’ve covered this many times here.
Corey you’re still missing the whole point.
Whether I agree with all their doctrinal opinions or not, those are wise words plain and simple.
I have heard wise quotes from other notable sources, many of which I wouldn’t agree with that person’s life entirely but yet they had at least one wise thing to say.
And herein- Campbell and Stone (both noted speakers and ministers) have VERY strong statements from their own personal experience that persisting with these arguments does not bring positive results. In fact I would add that persisting with the same behavior (or arguments) expecting different results is definition of “crazy”. Apparently Campbell and Stone were wise enough to understand that and I think that it would do the rest of us good to come to that same understanding.
But, that is still a human inference and a choice-thereby it does not give us the right to condemn anyone who does not choose the same thing when God has said nothing about it. Did you read the rest of the quote by Spurgeon?
Rick, Katie, Nathan and others who hold like beliefs,
Let me say something that you will rarely hear from a “hyper-con” such as myself:
Since instrumental music in worship is not forbidden there is a chance that they are acceptable to God.
Will you agree since they aren’t directly commanded that they may NOT be acceptable to God?
This is what I WILL agree to
I WILL agree that further arguing over baptism and instruments makes one CRAZY given the definition of crazy. We are running circles.
Do you believe that is something that Christ wanted or wants today? NO, I would be willing to say that NO this is NOT what Christ envisioned that the church would busy itself doing.
You didn’t answer my question, and I believe it is a fair one.
I don’t see the benefit of answering your question and continuing the run around that is decidedly not beneficial to anyone and certainly not least of all beneficial to sharing Christ.
I think you won’t answer my question because you understand its implications (Matthew 21:23-27).
Corey,
This has gotten away from the original intent - to show Jo that there may have been a reason for Baptists of Alexander Campbell’s time might have had something good to say about him.
However, I’ll answer your question, but you may not like it.
The use of IM in worship is permitted in the OT. The NT is the fulfillment of the OT. Permission is never revoked. IM is talked about in reference to worship in heaven. Therefore, even though we aren’t necessarily (and I say that word because there are some compelling arguments about the word psalmos meaning IM) commanded to use IM, the overwhelming evidence is that there is no good reason to think it is displeasing to God.
Wouldn’t you expect him to say something like, “I used to like IM, but now I don’t!”? We learned that sacrifice was no longer necessary, we learned that circumcision was no longer necessary, why not IM?
My 2 cents.
Let me say again, Corey, how much I appreciate your reasonable discourse. Would you like to move to Martinsville and take over one of the broadcasts?
what sort of implications would I be “afraid of” Corey?
I fear no questions from you or any other man/woman.
I answer to God and God only and it’s only His opinion that I should fear.
I know this perfectly clear.
I love my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and I worship God and praise for Him for His goodness. I live my life with God as my Lord and priority and strive after holiness.
And I feel that all these arguments do nothing but divert attention from the grace and gift of Jesus and that to me is very wrong.
Amen, sister
Katie - I mean that the implications are this:
Since you have no command to use instruments of music in worship, if you acknowledge that they may be wrong, you acknowledge that part of your worship would be potentially unacceptable to God.
If I am wrong, and they are acceptable, then I’ve done nothing wrong by singing only (since we all know that is acceptable). If you are wrong, and they are unacceptable, then you have done something wrong by offering God a form of worship He doesn’t want.
Nathan - by your argument, God needed to go back to the OT laws regarding worship and give you a list of all that is now unacceptable to Him. There is good reason to believe that God doesn’t want instruments - those things he wanted to carry over (like praying and singing) are restated in the NT. It looks like instruments could have gotten a mention if they were to carry over as well. The image you refer to in Revelation mentions many things that are clearly symbolic. The fact remains that we are not in heaven.
Again, I will concede that they MAY be acceptable, but I just can’t understand why it is so important to use them when they may NOT be acceptable. Why not be reverent and cautious when approaching God in worship?
As to your last comment - I could never do what J,N & J do. Their knowledge of scripture is far beyond that I possess. Say what you will about their methods, it takes a great deal of confidence in, and knowledge of, the Bible to go on live TV and take on all comments (even inviting those of differing beliefs to come and discuss them). I know that I would try to approach things with a different demeanor and tone, but I could never wield the word with the ease they do. Hopefully I can one day.
It is the twisting of “their knowledge of scripture” that bothers me-not just their methods.
Corey,
As to IM - I agree to disagree. I don’t question your salvation when you act on your convictions regarding the use (or nonuse) of musical instruments in worship, and I do this in the spirit of Romans 14.
As to the TV broadcast - I was halfway kidding. I don’t know many people who would do what they do.
I will concede that they know the Word - at least the portions that uphold their doctrine. Unfortunately, they demonstrate their knowledge of the Word on their broadcasts in a Matthew 23 kind of way.
Nathan,
I knew you were kidding. I just said what I said because I wonder why more preachers (from all groups) aren’t willing to go on live TV and have their beliefs opened to scrutiny.
One of my favorite programs a while back was called “Hashing It Out” - on this program, a very conservative Evangelical Christian named Steve Brown would debate issues with Tony Campolo, who is a pretty liberal Christian. I thought it was awesome, and I always felt like I learned something. Both of these men really love the Lord, both know the Word, and both are very strongly opinionated. Sometimes their discussions would get pretty heated - but, at the end of the day, they remained good friends.
Dear Mr & Mrs of the Forum I love,
May i ask this to see if all are being forthright?
Will you allow the preacher to addressed as Father?
Mt 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
In the spiritual since
Mr. Father Rick?
If no, why? Please
So I assume that you will abide what is “forbidden” in plain statements?
Please just humor me?
No one is going to call the pastor father. What is your point?
Mr. Chuck,
Will you tell us why please?
it is clear from what you just said
Mr. Chuck,
So you are saying that a direct command that condemns the practice will stop you?
true
Mr. Chuck,
Does this lead you to say that it is only you who cannot call the pastor father, or that anyone who does is going against Jesus clear statement?
I see where you are headed jo… You want me to condemn the whole of the Catholic faith.
Dear Mr. Chuck,
Is it you? Are they not self condemned?
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Are these the deeds of light or darkness?
Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
You should condemn what Jesus condemned if you want to be in accord with him.
I believe that this is also what Mr. Alexander Campbell came to. Remember he was a Baptist coming out of that faith.
fyi, I found the book on line that Rick and Jo were writing about. $31 Baptist from 1800 tellin it all.
Looks like jo was right. Whole association fell apart because of AC
…and their call was for UNITY…”Christians only, but not the only Christians…
I get it!
You want me to join your condemn club
fight club
Dear Mr. Chuck,
I don’t make the rules.
Baptist are fighting over women’s roles.
Why the big fuss?
Churches of Christ are fighting over a lot of the same issues. What’s your point?
I can see the difference with Baptist.
The Bible does say women are not to teach over men.
Why are there no women apostles. No women pastors.
email me please at tan_moms@hotmail.com
No, it doesn’t
ummm..first of all I’m not following the banter back and forth between Jo and Chuck.
and second of all no one has called “Mr.”Rick by father except for me and that would be because HE IS MY FATHER (ie… I am his biological offspring).
LOL Katie
dear folks, just for your information, I don’t mind being called father Rick. It is quite satisfying.
have a good night,
father Rick
LOL
this blog has been a little “off” today..
Katie (in a Darth Vader voice)…Rick…is…your…FATHER!!
sorry, I had to do it
OH MY… ROFL
that’s hilarious!
This has been… interesting.
Jo, you wrote:
“So you are saying that a direct command that condemns the practice will stop you?”
Conversely, would you say that a direct command for a practice means that must do that practice?
For example, one of the most interesting features of the hypercon Churches of Christ is that they say we must “speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent”. However, they don’t follow this unofficial creed in a consistent manner. Some examples:
Taking the Lord’s Supper each first day of the week. There is no command for this, and yet hypercon churches try to infer a command, and then condemn those who don’t follow this inference.
The Holy Kiss. Five times in the NT, the writers command that Christians should greet (or salute) each other with a holy kiss.
Romans 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14
Five times. That’s pretty clearly spoken for a group that insists that Christians should “speak where the Bible speaks”. Seems like it would be a no-brainer.
However, if you visit a typical hypercon Church of Christ, you will not be greeted with a holy kiss. They will greet you warmly, give you a nice handshake and a pat on the back - but that is not the command. And then they shrug it off on their interpretation that a holy kiss was only a cultural thing, and that it doesn’t apply to the Lord’s church today.
“Will you allow the preacher to addressed as Father?
Mt 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”
Jo,
Respectfully, do your homework. Taking the verse out of context does not help your attempted stab at the Catholic Church.
Romans 16-17
..and what did St. Paul say in Corinthians 14-15?
….also, going with your logic, do not ignore the next verse that states not to call ANYONE teacher!
Nathan,
You’ve already had a post about the “holy kiss”, so we can take this discussion over there if you want. Since you brought it up here, I will address it here.
I have a simple question; will you agree that kissing was the normal method of greeting for the people to whom Paul wrote “greet one another with a holy kiss”?
JP - let’s look at the passage from Matthew 23 in context:
5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
6And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees and they way they love to be seen of men in regards to their supposed piousness. While “teacher” is the literal meaning of Rabbi, the term “Rabbi” was a specific religious title that the Pharisees loved to hold. Jesus is speaking of giving men titles that belong only to the Father and Son.
Men love titles - “Holy Father”, “Reverend”, etc. Jesus is denouncing that. He is not saying that you can’t say “JP is my Sunday School teacher”. Nor would it be wrong to say “my father’s name is Larry”. He is saying that giving men special titles, which they use to “show off”, is wrong.
“I have a simple question; will you agree that kissing was the normal method of greeting for the people to whom Paul wrote “greet one another with a holy kiss”?”
That maybe true, however, scripture makes a command and you are only implying using personnel opinion in stating that it was only cultural gesture. Hence the problem with private interpretations. You can take this literally, this metaphorically, this culturally. Where does it end? If you take “be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins” literally, “greet one another with a holy kiss” should be taken literally true. If not, how do you determine its a cultural issue not a command (literally) for today? Now, I agree with your premise, but using Church of Christ logic, it must be taken literally
Corey,
I use the same logic, when we call our pastors father, we are showing mere respect, not putting that person in the same light as God the Father. We as the faithful know that, and so do they.
It’s not correct to say that all men use the titles to “show off”. You can show off with “elder” or “deacon”, too.
I’ve met some incredibly humble and Godly men who go by the title “Reverend”. I would guess Church of Christ folks can think of one or two proud “elders” or “deacons”, too.
It comes down to a person’s heart, and where that heart is. It was this sort of thing which Christ was teaching in Matthew 5:38-42 - that the law doesn’t go far enough - God wants our hearts and our inner men more than he wants our strict allegiance to a set of rules. Read those passages.
I would offer too that a pastor who has received religious schooling and earned a degree and is ordained, has worked for the title of “Rev” just as much as a surgeon has worked for the title “Doctor”. I agree though that we should be careful not to view ourselves as bigger than God and so I think a man who gloats around his title is certainly attempting to do just that. But people like my dad who have received their education and ordination are referred to as “rev” out of respect for their work and out of respect of them being a leader in the church just as one might say “mr.” or “mrs.” It’s a term of respect.
Re: the holy kiss, Manzi made my point well:
“Where does it end? If you take “be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins” literally, “greet one another with a holy kiss” should be taken literally true.”
Why do those “incredibly humble” men need such titles? Why do we need to give them respect above another Christian? Calling a pope “holy father” or a preacher “reverend” elevates them above others by giving them a title to set them apart. I think that is exactly what Jesus was talking about.
And as to elders and deacons, those titles are actually authorized, although I know of few who are actually addressed with them. If I introduced you to the elders of my congregation I would introduce them as George or Martin, not Elder George or Elder Martin. They hold an office directed by God, not fancy titles to impress men.
I would assume that the literal stuff with some verses and not with others goes back to what I’ve heard the other CofCers refer to as generic and specific commands or something like that.
This is difficult to address two different things at once.
If you’ll agree that the method of greeting at the time was a kiss, then you should see that Paul’s admonition to “greet one another with a holy kiss” is not telling them to kiss when they greet. They would have already been doing that - there was no need for such instruction. If I told you to “greet one another with a holy handshake” I wouldn’t be changing the manner in which you greet people - that is already how most Americans greet one another.
Paul is telling them the manner in which to greet, not the method.
Corey,
I do not want to get into a history lesson with you on the Catholic Church and the usage of titles. Others have spoken well, it’s a sign of respect. Why don’t you address the scriptures, Romans 4:15-17 and 1 Corinthians 4:15. Also, what is your reply to the holy kiss?
So, you admit to using personal judgement in quoting scripture. You merely stating your opinion Corey, though it sounds like a command to me. If another Church of Christ assembly takes that verse literally and as a command, do they have a right to withdraw fellowship from your church for not following that command. No different then you not having fellowship with the baptists over (for example) the musical instrument issue.
Where is the line in the sand drawn?
the line in sand is drawn on the correct side
Looking at a passage from a logical and historical perspective does not equal “using personal judgment”.
1 Corinthians 4:15 doesn’t mean that Paul was to be called “Father”. Look at the very next verse:
“Therefore I urge you to imitate me.”
Paul was one worthy of imitation (like children imitate their fathers) as long as he followed Christ.
I’ve had some religion classes, so how about everyone addressing me as Holy Right Reverend Most High Pastor Corey from now on? You know I’m joking, but the principle Jesus set forth is no joke. The problem is that people think we NEED such titles. Do I need to call you by a special title just because you have more formal education than me? The titles set people apart and elevate those with them. That is what Jesus spoke of.
By the way, I have no problem with calling anyone “doctor” if they have gone to school and earned a doctorate in some area. That is not a religious title. Reverend, Pope, Holy Father, etc. are religious titles, and like Jesus, I have a problem with them.
so you have no problem calling a man by “doctor” in teh church setting, say a man who has earned a doctrate in divinity?
but back to the other thing- regarding logical and historical judgement
Okay so you are saying that historically the people Paul was addressing kissed each other upon greeting and so we aren’t bound to the same cultural greeting.
I would have to agree with you.
My question?
Using that line of thinking and interpretation we could then look at the argument surrounding women in ministry and say the same thing. Culturally the women and men were segregated and men were the leaders and responsible for their families. So when Paul refers to a woman not teaching it’s an obvious thought because the women were not educated in their cultural time. So of course the woman would not be teaching in a religious setting. However today, women ARE educated and so that verse that is used so often to indicate that women can not serve in lines of ministry, we could say that logically and historically it made sense for the time but today we need to interpret in the cultural mindset and see that we aren’t bound to the same “rule”.
and just to clarify
I’m not looking to start another “discussion” revolving women in ministry
just asking that if you use that line of historical/logical interpretation in one case where the culture is a BIG reason that Paul said what he said that what keeps you from using the same method in another instance when it’s a big cultural issue.
to me it is all about inconsistencies. I see lots of double standards and what not in the methods of interpretation which lends itself to doctrinal “holes”. I realize that I probably have my own inconsistencies but that’s the key for me in attempting to understand another person’s POV.
The point is that the human heart can find the smallest thing in which to take pride - and where does it stop and start? I often battle with pride, and I don’t have a title. If I had a title, I would still battle with pride. If I never have a title, I will struggle with pride.
If I was a member of a church of Christ assembly and was put into the position of elder or deacon, even if I was never referred to as Elder Nathan, I would still struggle with pride. If it’s not pride, then it will be something else. Why? Because I am a sinful human being. (Romans 3:10) This is the case for all of us, according to Paul.
The title is irrelevant. What is relevant is our spiritual condition, or our spiritual lack of condition.
I agree Nathan,
and more than that too I just don’t see the point in making a big issue out of what a person calls another person, it seems awfully trivial to me. I mean I see a lot of these discussion as just running in circles but the other discussions at least have some foundational beliefs in them but this one (the argument over titles) just seems like a nit-picky discussion, IMHO.
AND this kind of bickering is why I am a Catholic, lol. There’s so much division within Protestantism! Though, I guess that’s the meaning of the word, “Protestant.”
I think that the main premise behind the “holy kiss” idea and other issues is the idea of consistency. We cannot write one thing off as cultural and say that another is not, or condemn someone for doing something that is or is not in the Bible if we cannot even be consistent. Now, it is different if it is how you have interpreted and choose to follow and do not want to do anything that would violate your conscience-in something that has not be directly commanded to do or not do to-but another to tell someone else they are wrong if they choose otherwise. Does that make sense?
There does have to be a line-but everything does not have to be written in stone, either. That is where it becomes complicated when men try to write their own laws and claim them as Biblical-and then cannot stay consistent. That is why neither the silence stance nor the CENI stance can really work because neither are consistent-there are way too many holes. There is also freedom in Christ-not to do whatever we wish, but there is certainly freedom.
Katie,
I understand what you’re saying and why so many people feel the same way. Here is the difference - in 1 Corinthians, chapter 11, Paul shows that his teachings about women in leadership aren’t cultural when he says, “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man” (verse 9). So Paul tells us that this issue is not grounded in culture, but in creation.
In other words, the relationship between men and women (with men having the authority) is not determined by culture, but by God in creation. If Paul didn’t make this distinction then I would probably agree that the prohibitions on women as leaders were cultural. That is the difference between that subject and that of the “holy kiss”.
I hope you don’t take my explanation as an attempt to debate women leaders. It is just the only way I can clarify the Biblical position on these matters.
Let me also agree with Katie and Nathan that the topic of religious titles shouldn’t have to be a big deal. Imagine if those titles had never been introduced in the first place - there would be nothing to discuss. And I agree with Nathan that pride can be a stumbling block to us all. Perhaps that is why an elder must be temperate and not self-willed (1 Tim 3, Titus 1). A man who struggles with pride (above what we all struggle with) should not be an elder.
Dear Forum,
I started this line to demonstrate that Mr. Rick and his friends will only argue to “undo” any thing that seems binding. If you notice they never affirm anything on this forum.
This is exactly as the Atheist does in his argumentation. They debunk but never put up a system that governs them.
We all know that Baptist Presbyterians have formulas to go by but they are acting like they will not defend anything.
Let us hear you want affirm anything but “anything goes since the Church of Christ won’t greet with a holy kiss.”
Please do not pander, just put up an affirmation. Not something in the core gospel but something that you know you affirm. Like Presbyterian form of government which the defend and so on.
I venture now to say it will not come forth.
Dear Forum,
Why do we continue to make statements ?
Read my post on the Baptist association falling into dissolution resulting from Alexander Campbell’s arguments in 1834.
It can happen!
Figsboro Primitive Baptist now the church of Christ according to Mr Robertson. The former preacher at that church was converted and lately his 76 year old son too.
The Methodist preacher from Duke Divinity school of religion now preaching the truth in Reidsville (Mr. Nunley)
Jason Hairston trained in hypercon Baptist school started by John R Rice
Mr. Robertson claims to have taught 4 denominational preachers the truth in the last 4 years.
Correction;
Let us not hear “you want affirm anything since the Church of Christ won’t greet with a holy kiss.”
Please do not pander, just put up an affirmation. Not something in the core gospel but something that you know you affirm. Like Presbyterian form of government which they defend and so on.
I venture now to say it will not come forth.
Jo,
If you read back through the myriad of comments that have been written over the past few days you’ll find that we affirm many things. I’m not going to take the time to review our affirmations - you can look through and see.
The only person who has typed “anything goes since the Church of Christ won’t greet with a holy kiss” is you. If you are trying to paint us into a corner, sorry, Jo, it just won’t go.
This blog is called “answeringchurchofchrist” - not “promotingourowndoctrines” for a reason. If you want to start a blog to debate what everyone else here believes, there are lots of domain names left on wordpress. Go for it! Have you ever run a blog? It can be quite rewarding… if kept up to date.
By the way, just out of curiosity, how would you define the “core gospel”?
Congenially,
Mr. Answer
Dear Forum,
I want to answer ahead of time if I may.
I know that some one will say “all these preachers did not stay faithful.”
Some did!
It is very hear to be a faithful preacher of the truth.
“It is very hear to be a faithful preacher of the truth”?
Can you rephrase that, Jo?
Cordially,
Mr. Answer
Mr Rick,
I have heard Mr. Robertson answer the “Christ didn’t send me to baptize” argument that you made here.
I would love to see you try to defend it on his show.
I know debating can’t be wrong because you are doing it here.
I wonder how you would be if you were to take a stab at DEFENSE Publicly.
Guess we will never see that side of Jesus and Paul coming from you?
Bye for now Reverend Mr.Rick
Ps 111:9 He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.
You may call him Father Rick as long as the church of Christ doesn’t practice the holy kiss?
All my kisses of brethren are holy!
2Jo 1:10 ¶ If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; NKJV
2Jo 1:11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.NKJV
Jo’s point that so little is affirmed here is an interesting one. And by “core gospel”, I assume she means the very basics of the good news - that Jesus is the Son of God, that He lived a perfect life as a man, gave that life that all men may be forgiven and that He arose from the dead and is now reigning with the Father in heaven. Jo can correct me if I’m wrong.
However, Nathan (Mr. Answer) has the greater point - this is his website. He is generous in that he allows members of the churches of Christ to come here and answer the things posted here without editing them (as long as they are civil). It is also true that you could start your own blog called “answeringdenominations” (or whatever) if you’d like. In other words - this is his forum and he makes the rules. Just as Mr. Robertson and Norm & James make the rules on their blogs, tv shows and other forms of teaching. I would guess that many people in denominations lack the courage and conviction of those who regularly post here. I applaud them for their convictions even though I believe many of their teachings to be in error.
The emphasis here may be to only call out the church of Christ, not to actually state and defend the beliefs of Nathan and others, but that is their right.
Thank you
hard to be…
Dear Forum,
Is that a “no we are not going to affirm and defend” or is that a “yes we are like atheist who only debunk but have no system we care to put forth as binding.”
Dear Forum,
here is my response to the question about “core gospel”
ignore it
ask some other question so I will not have to affirm anything myself
Here goes;
the church of Christ is never found in the singular so J N J can’t really preach that the church of Christ is biblical.
Point of saying this;
we can now preach Presbyterian and Baptist since J N J are preaching something not in the Bible.
Mr. Nathan, can you tell Rick how you get sprinkling babies?
I will be preparing an answer for Mr. Rick from the American Baptist manual in case he can’t get one out!
Thanks, Corey. I appreciate your reasonableness, and your understanding. I’m honored to have your participation on this blog, even if we may disagree on many things.
Come to think of it, you remind me a bit of Norm Fields, who seems to be the most reasonable (and most savvy) of our home trio, and the one of the three who I think best represents the hyperconservative Church of Christ POV in our community. He doesn’t seem to have the ax to grind that Mr. Robertson seems to have, and appears to be more of his own man than Mr. Oldfield. I hope that he rubs off on them, and not visa-versa.
Let me state, however, that this perspective all comes from watching the men’s broadcasts, not from spending time hanging out and grilling in the backyard with them. But, when it comes to TV, “branding” is a very important word, and the first two gents might want to think a bit about how they’ve branded themselves.
To Jo:
If some of the men you listed didn’t remain faithful (as you said), then why put their names up as examples? It would seem that their lack of faithfulness would be an argument against what you are promoting, not an argument that would support it.
In Sincerity,
Mr. Answer
Can someone interpret “Mr”Jo’s comments for me because I have no idea what is even being discussed now.
or maybe you can clarify Jo
What exactly are you trying to accomplish/ask/answer on this blog? Because if you have any direct questions or thoughts I’d be more than willing to discuss but I really have no idea what sort of answers you are looking for.
other than using my dads name in every other post, I’m not sure what you are looking for
Mr Corey
are you in a liberal church of Christ or would you be comfortable at a debate between well known Baptist Mr Bogart and say our Brother Warlick?
You may know that literally 100s of thousands were obeying the truth then?
Jo,
Here are some things that I affirm:
1. That the sole authority for faith and practice for all Christians is the Scriptures of the OLD and NEW Testaments.
2. That the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is the record of God’s revelation of Himself to man and that the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ and none other.
3. That there is one and only one living and true God revealed to us by Scripture as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
4. That Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God, conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary and was perfectly righteous without sin.
5. That the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God who inspired men of old to write the Scriptures, exalts Christ, convicts of sin and calls men to the Saviour.
6. That Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
7. That baptism is the immersion of a believer in water and that it is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus.
Go to http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/basicbeliefs.asp for more of the things that I affirm.
I know there is a lot going on here…but I wonder if I could comment to try to bring the discussion back to the relevant point. To do this I would like to express the concerns of folks like Corey, and probably Jo (tho I can’t quite figure out what she is saying a lot of the time) in what will hopefully be a clearly way.
There has been talk of “where do we draw the line” if we decide to not fellowship those with differing views. I understand where people are coming from. If I decide holy kisses are optional (not in principal, but literally), then why draw the line there? Shouldn’t I take it literally if I take Scriptures about baptism literally? About women’s roles literally?
But, here is the other side of the issue. Where do I draw the line if I say clear statements are not to be taken literally? Does that mean that we are not to take literally Christ’s statements about belief in Him being necessary for everlasting life? Does that mean we don’t take literally His statements about being the only way to the Father?
Although I believe “hyper-cons” take it too far (I know many of you might think I am one…just wait until we have more time to discuss to reach that conclusion)…they have a valid concern. What’s stopping us from losing Christian identity altogether if we stop taking things at face value?
So, ideas like “baptism is not an important enough issue to discuss” bother me (not a direct quote…trying to get general idea….sorry if I missed it). Scripture closely associates baptism with salvation language (forgiveness, saved, sons of God, raised with Christ, in Christ…etc.). In the very least, it demands our close attention because of its association with these terms (whatever side of the argument you are on). We cannot afford to be wrong about something so closely connected with salvation terminology.
Anyway…just some thoughts…I am concerned. If Biblical topics are not important enough to discuss, then what is? If we say we are not going to draw lines of fellowship over this or that issue, where do we stop? Why draw lines at belief? Or at specifics about Christ’s divinity or miraculous power?
I hope this is clear. It is not meant to be judgmental, but sincerely questioning. If we say that these things don’t matter…then why do we have a right to say anything in Scripture matters?
Jo,
I don’t know what you mean by a “liberal” congregation. Some would say a “liberal” congregation is one that claps when singing, fellowships denominations, etc. My congregation does none of those things. Some consider a “liberal” congregation one who supports orphan homes, has a kitchen and eats pot-lucks on the property owned by the church. My congregation does all of those things.
My beliefs are very similar to Johnny Robertson. I don’t like his confrontational style - but I agree with his message. I listened to his sermons at jscoc.org and greatly enjoyed them. He presented those lessons in a much different manner than he does in the videos I’ve seen on the internet.
I have no problem with debate. I have no problem saying that God doesn’t accept every form of worship. I have no problem with the call to leave denominationalism and follow the Bible only. I do have a problem with shouting people down, insulting them and acting like they are stupid.
I really enjoy the lessons and videos Norm Fields has. I would say that he presents the truth without wavering, yet he isn’t nasty in the way he behaves.
Does that answer your question?
Dear Mr Corey,
yes it does
thank you
Is Mr. Robertson wrong or do you think it is a judgment issue?
If judgment, have you considered that his tech is actually getting him Bible studies right and left and he baptizes quite a few folk ?
How are you doing with your style
or do results count?
2Ti 4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
I am just trying to see why people are so critical if it is judgment and it is working?
I don’t know if it is “wrong” or not. When he goes after those who are willingly trying to pervert the gospel, he’s being Christ-like, so it wouldn’t be wrong. When he goes after honest people who just don’t have a good knowledge of the scriptures, it isn’t Christ-like, and then it would be wrong.
I’m sure he does get many Bible studies. I’m sure he’s baptized more than a few. That is great. As I said, I’ve heard his sermons outside of his TV program, and I think they would lead many to obey Christ.
I’ve said this before here, and I’ll say it again; imagine you have a family member who is obese to the point that their health is in danger. Would you say to them, “you are FAT and if you don’t lose weight, you are going to DIE!!!”
Or would you say, “I’m concerned about your health due to your weight. I want you to be around for a long time and I want to help you get healthy”?
Both statements are true. There are probably even some who would respond positively to both statements, but overwhelmingly people see your concern, be it for their physical or spiritual health, when your words are kind.
I think people are critical of Mr. Robertson because at times he seems more concerned with winning arguments than souls.
Corey said “I think people are critical of Mr. Robertson because at times he seems more concerned with winning arguments than souls.”
That’s it exactly!!
Yes, Amen-that is the problem I see, too-a BIG one.
It’s not the only problem, mind you, but K&K are right that it is a big one. The problem actually extends deeper into the doctrine.
True-very true, Nathan-I didn’t mean it is the only one
Mr Corey
If my family member were reading your post they would take offense at what you just said. So in that way are you now wrong too.
I’ve said this before here, and I’ll say it again; imagine you have a family member who is obese to the point that their health is in danger. Would you say to them, “you are FAT and if you don’t lose weight, you are going to DIE!!!”
I think it is just as right to say “fat” as it is whoremonger when speaking of persons who “live together”
I also think you all are very close to so neutralizing the truth by trying to be so sweet speaking that no one will be able to know what you are saying.
How can these people possible conclude what Mr Robertson’s motivation is?
His reports to his supporters record that he spends all his time seeking lost folks. People call him at all hours of the night. He travels 1000s of miles raising salaries for others.
He has spent over 1\3 of his time in 3rd world countries. His health brought him home last tour.
His insides were bleeding for 4 months.
Have you ever bled for the lost?
Any of you?
I think I am in the wrong place. I respect men like him.
I think we are missing the whole point of Jesus’ message. He came to seek and save the lost and he didn’t sugar coat it or beat around the bush about it. It seems to me that Johnny Robertson is trying to pattern himself after Jesus, instead of men who say we should be nicer. And Corey, since you have seen shows outside of TV would you be as bold in preaching as he is?
Besides I have a family memeber whose Dr. told them they were “fat” and needed to lose weight. And now they are trying to lose weight. What about that?
Jo seems to know an awful lot about Johnny.
“more than you know” (quoted from Randy
Jo,
That is great that Johnny is so committed to doing the Lord’s work. I would guess that you and I would agree on just about everything regarding worship & manner of life for Christians. I don’t know of any doctrinal difference between us.
That said, I still believe there is a right way to speak to others. You think you should talk to people any way you want and they should just be happy you’re telling them the truth.
I have tried to be kind but firm in my opposition to the people here. I don’t try to be “sweet speaking” to the point that the truth is compromised. Everyone who has been posting regularly here - Nathan, Rick, Katie, Katherine and others - knows exactly where I stand on things. I’ve never had to be rude or disrespectful to get my point across. Feel free to ask them where I stand on baptism, instrumental music or any other topic often mentioned here. You can also ask them if I’ve been rude or abrasive in what I’ve said.
Have you heard of brother Keith Parker of the Hendersonville, TN church of Christ. He has nearly doubled the size of that congregation with his powerful preaching. He has never compromised the truth. He teaches everything that Johnny teaches and travels many miles to serve the church. Perhaps he too has bled, I don’t know. The point is that he preaches with kindness and firmness. The two can go hand-in-hand.
Dear Corey,
Mr Robertson tells in his presentations to congregations to get them involved with him why he decided to preach like he does.
From my understanding it was because in the mission field (overseas) people like Kieth Parker preach just like he does. Why? Because they are urgently trying to get people to obey, and they don’t have to worry about getting fired for saying denominations are going to hell.
He told of preachers that had been to the Nashville Jubilee even preaching like that.
I heard the lessons online from jscofc and I notice he called every denomination in the book.
These people are leading people to hell right and left and you are over here worrying over being rude.
Is rude cultural?
What is rude to you may just be plain to others
Amen, Corey.
Jo and whoever else-no one is trying to sugarcoat the Bible here. Did you ever hear the phrase “They don’t care how much you know until the know how much you care”? It seems pretty fitting here.
Jesus also went to the people where they were-and GENTLY rebuked them (save for the Pharisees who were trying to save themselves), and brought them into a relationship with Him-which is where the truth is found.
I will say this again-attacking people from other denominations, telling them they are going to hell, being deceptive, etc. is doing nothing for the kingdom of God but bringing shame on Him. I do not condone it, and from what I read in the Bible-I do not believe God does either. I don’t respect it either. It is just simply not what God has called us to, and I only want to do what He desires for us.
You seem to know so much about Johnny, tell me-do you think his main objective is to “win arguments” and prove everyone else wrong, or is it to truly seek and save the lost-and by lost-I don’t mean those who are in other churches, but those you truly do not know Christ at all. Can you give some insight into that?
Well, if all denominations are going to hell-I hate to break it to you-but we are all doomed-because Johnny and the like are making the Church of Christ into worse of a “denomination” than they preach against. That is the ironically sad part.
Thankfully, it isn’t true because that is a false misconception of what the church REALLY is, and who God will save is not up to us. Will everyone make it to heaven? No. Will ALL those in the institutional “Church of Christ” make it to heaven? No. Will everyone in ever other denomination go to hell? No way. God will save who He saves.
This is just so tiresome-fighting others and moving people from one denomination to another completely misses the point of why Jesus came and died on such a cruel cross for the salvation of the world.
Mr. Corey,
I am listening to a sermon from Mr Parker
He just said that all denominations should cease to exist and that Jesus condemns the division they cause.
Can I ask this forum to comment on this statement?
He now just said “it is a sin to be in a denomination”
MAN THIS IS STRONG!
Mr Corey I think people on this forum will not like this preaching.
http://www.morristownchurchofchrist.com/sermons.html
go to “is unity possible” to hear this sermon
Mr. Corey,
I think you may be mistaken about the kind of preaching going on over there.
He is condemning denominations as well as I have ever heard.
Great Sermon!
May be a preacher named Mr. David Shannon
Jo, please answer this-since you seem to be so hung up on “fighting denominations” (Which I clearly do not Biblically agree with):
You seem to know so much about Johnny, tell me-do you think his main objective is to “win arguments” and prove everyone else wrong, or is it to truly seek and save the lost? …and by lost-I don’t mean those who are in other churches, but those you truly do not know Christ at all. Can you give some insight into that?
Mr Corey
Mr Shannon said “not only is it a sin to be in denominations but it is a shame”
I don’t think anyone on here will say they like it.
I think they all will say he is rude and doing harm!
I thank him for this good lesson.
I’m not talking about Mr. Shannon, but brother Parker. I’m sure he says many of the things Johnny does, but his tone is completely different. Listen to “I’m in Love With a Thief” on the site you linked to. It is the same message as Johnny with a completely different tone.
And your right, on the jscoc website Johnny calls out every denomination under the sun and I’m glad he does. He doesn’t attempt to shout anyone down in those sermons. He doesn’t talk down to anyone in those sermons. He just boldly preaches the truth. Sure, some people probably didn’t like it, but not everyone loves the truth. When Johnny gets on tv (in the clips I’ve seen) he gets combative. He seems angry at callers who seem honest. I have no problem with him getting angry with those who call in just to try and trip him up or teach some false doctrine. He should call those people out. You just don’t have to treat every honest individual with the same demeanor you would a false teacher.
By the way - is English your second language?
By the way Jo (and Kwame) - click on my name and read the top post on my blog. Then you can tell me if I’m a liberal or not bold enough.
Mr. Corey,
Can you tell us why every sermon from Act 3 through Act 7 either got the preachers arrested or killed?
Mr. Corey,
Dos anyones really tries to be grammatical on the webs
Sure. Because the people who were preached to didn’t like the message. The apostles and disciples were seen as trouble-makers because they challenged the leadership of the Jews. They were shaking things up and many people didn’t like it.
Can you show me a sermon in Acts where one of the apostles suggests that a man’s wife may not be faithful to him? Can you show me where they berated or belittled someone?
Jo, I am sure that Corey will give you his reply to your question to him: Can you tell us why every sermon from Act 3 through Act 7 either got the preachers arrested or killed?
My impression is that they were arrested or killed by Jewish leaders because they were teaching Jesus as the Messiah not because they were teaching “doctrine”.
There is a huge difference between using proper grammar and communicating well enough to be understood.
Several of the people here (myself included) have a hard time deciphering your posts. I wasn’t being condescending, I was genuinely curious. You had made a mention before that maybe you weren’t from here. Maybe you only meant the VA/NC area.
and yes, Jo-there are those of us who try to use proper grammar and try to get our point across. It is hard sometimes to understand what you are trying to say-even if the grammar is correct.
You have yet to answer my question, too-care to take a stab at it?
All this fighting about what constitutes a liberal and a conservative is minute. Both Catholics and Orthodox alike believe a liberal too be one who interprets scripture on their own, forming their own doctrines based on their own fallible interpretations. Though I agree with Corey on the holy kiss argument, I am still unsure how that verse can be interpreted as a cultural things not a direct command that is so often preached in those circles. When you read an isolated verse in scripture all you are doing is basing your own opinion on what it is saying.
Speaking of Jo’s comments about the sermons online. I AM in agreeance that denominations aren’t good. I would highly agree with that. I believe that we do need more unity in the Christian faith. I don’t believe I have ever argued that, that divisions are a good thing. But it’s quite a horse of a different color when you go from saying “we need more unity” to “we are the only ones that are right”. And that is what Mr.Robertson and crew are saying. Claiming that the CofC is not a denomination is just dumb, sorry but it is. Because it is the VERY DEFINITION of denomination. What we need are more people that honestly want to share Christ, regardless of religious background and denominational traditions and just cling to the message of the cross and redemption.
Religion is bad.
Denominations are bad.
Christ is ALL THAT IS GOOD. If we would focus more on that than our man-made doctrines and religious arguments, we would accomplish a world of good and give Christ the credit that He so deserves but that we so often rob Him of in our petty disagreements.
corey,
thanks, my point exactly if you have a good case
you dont need to taunt someone or try to to get them
angry. i cant find an example of jesus saying anything
like that. he spoke the truth and that will always be
enough to cut to the heart of any matter.
well said corey amen
lee
Let’s not forget, Lee, Jesus’ little anger outburst when he was in the temple flipping the tables over of the money exchangers!
What JP just mentioned is a very important portion of scripture. At that time Jesus displayed the truest form of righteous indignation. People were willing making a mockery of the temple of God. Those people knew what they were doing was wrong, yet they did it anyway.
I have no problem with someone like Johnny going after people today who behave in similar ways. This includes the Benny Hinns, the John Haggees, the T.D. Jakes and others cut from the same cloth. They don’t have to me big-time televangelists to be like the ones I mentioned. They exist in almost every town in our country. They are perverting the gospel to get rich. They are taking advantage of good, honest people. They are willingly teaching error because it is what they like and want.
Now look at Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well. Jesus taught her the truth. He exposed her sins. Yet he was kind and firm. He told her to go her way and sin no more. He didn’t excuse or dismiss her errors, He insisted that she change. He never called her a “whore”, sort of like Jo mentioned above. Certainly He could have, but He didn’t.
The honest, sincere person who worships/lives in ignorance should be treated differently from the willing sinner who openly defies the God of Heaven. I don’t know if I can make it any more plain to Jo.
The bold part should say “willingly” not “willing”. Sorry.
Well…Amen to what Katie and Corey have said this morning
For those of you here who are saying Johnny is just being honest and doing things like Jesus just really blows me away! Jesus didn’t go around trying to convert other Christians, only the lost. Jesus didn’t try to embarrass a greivng family with a letter to the editor.
Also, for all the talk about who is a liberal c of c and who is a conservative c of c, I feel this is relative.
Jo, you feel you are a conservative c of c, but wouldn’t a “one-cupper” c of c think you were too liberal because you used more than “one cup” during the Lord’s Supper and that you aren’t worshipping correctly?
See, once you go down that road, there will be always someone who isn’t doing something right.
Just like the old ’60’s song said: “Nobody is right if everybody is wrong”.
Gail, I like that “nobody is right is everybody is wrong”… never heard that
And I agree conservative and liberal are very relative terms and are irrelevant to the cause of Christ for sure.
There are absolute truths that I think all of us would agree to and those are the things that form the foundations of the Christian faith so those should be the things we are focusing on for sure.
This could be a good start, Katie.
Jo and Corey (and anyone else who finds that they agree with these two folks doctrinally) - what would you consider to be absolute truth with regard to the Christian faith? In other words, knowing that you draw the line in the sand at a different place than the rest of us, what would we share before that line was drawn?
Nathan,
That is a question that is nearly impossible to answer. There are so many similarities, yet so many differences. I know Katie & Rick are Baptists, so I can say with some confidence some of the things we all hold to be true. I believe you are a Presbyterian. I don’t know a ton about Presbyterians, but I know some of the things we have in common.
I think we all agree on these things:
*Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God
*He lived a perfect life as a man
*Jesus was both a man and diety
*There are 3 distinct personalities of the Godhead - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
*Jesus died for the sins of all who will accept him
*I think most of us here reject the idea of predestination in the sense that God has chosen some to be saved, some to be condemned, and there is nothing we can do to alter His decision
*We agree that God is worthy of praise and permits us to do so
I guess there are other things that we would agree upon. It would be impossible to list all of the areas where we differ since there are so many differences between the various denominations. I would agree with the Mormons that baptism is for the remission of sins, but I would disagree that Joseph Smith was inspired.
I would agree with the Baptists that baptism is by immersion, but I would not agree that one is saved prior to Baptism. On and on I could go.
Amen to what Gail has said, too. Jo keeps talking about not sugarcoating the gospel-but no one needs to sugarcoat what Johnny is doing, either. What he is doing is not creating glory for God, but only continuing to create more division which he speaks again. It is a far FAR cry from Jesus’ prayer for unity.
I meant “speaks against”…
i believe the bible teaches that all who are born after adam and eve were born in sin. johnny has never been
able to show me that isnt true. and if i could give my
understanding on predestination. each one of us will make a decision concerning christ, god knows the choice we will make. bear in mind he knew this choice before the world was ever created.just because he knows the end from the begining dosent mean that he is responsible for the outcome. he is also completely just and right to
punish us for rejection of his son which btw is the sum and total of all sin. why do some treat with contempt the people christ died for. a decision he made before the foundation of the world that he should suffer and die for. let him decide who are his children.
amen
It’s pretty easy to trp them up on original sin. They will deny that ALL are sinful and come short of the glory of God, even little kids, saying they are free from sin and it’s wages and will be so until they reach the age of accountabilty. Ok, keep in mind that these men also teach “speak where the bible speaks” so ask them to show the so-called age of accountabilty in the bible. Even more for them to explain is why would Jesus have to die for sin if we had so many sinless kids around, who could have paid the wages of sin. Either they are born in sin, or they are sinless and could have paid the wages of those who are sinful.
yes randy, all have sinned and come short.
and of course children arent held accountable as also
those who are mentally handicapped. there had to be one spotless lamb.praise god. amen
lee
If children are born in with sins inherited from their parents then Jesus was born with sins. The Bible says that Jesus was without sin.
Ezekiel clearly shows that sons will not bear the sins of their fathers, nor fathers for their sons. Everyone’s righteousness or sinfulness is dependent upon the individual. You say that they can’t show you that sin isn’t inherited - can you show where it is?
And no, a child would not be the sacrifice that Jesus was. Jesus was able to live the ADULT life, being tempted in all the same ways we are without sinning. That is not even in the same realm of living a child’s life without sin.
As to God knowing what we’re going to do - that is true. Without that knowledge He would cease to be omnipotent. However, just because He knows what we’ll do doesn’t mean we’re not free moral agents who get to make our own decisions.
i would say first of all jesus had no earthly father
thats where the difference is. i have been told that at no time during the gestation period does the blood of the child and mother mix.jesus blood was without spot
or blemish the only blood that would be acceptable.
yes we are free to decide but that dosent interfere with
god already knowing your choice. there is no news to god.amen?
lee
Is lying a sin? Do children lie? Please note that I am not suggesting children go to hell.
Corey, you proove first that lying isnt a sin and then prove that kids dont lie. This cuts deep at the heart of “our” position on baptism. You dont want to admit that kids sin, because then you also must confess that God saves some without being baptized or else you take the position of baptizing infants.
Nathan,
Sorry I got caught up in commenting on here and didn’t mention to you thank you for posting these quotes by Alexander Campbell. It really got me thinking: “Who is responsible for this conservative c of c mindset that I grew up with? You know the teachings: we are right and we are not a denomination, everyone else is doing it wrong, The Lord’s Supper must be done a “certain way” or it is wrong, IM is wrong, dancing is wrong etc. etc etc. Obviously from his writings, Campbell wasn’t responsible for this narrow view of Christianity. Who was? Who are the fathers of the conservative c of c? Oh, sorry, maybe considering the conversation the other day around calling people father, maybe I should say forefathers. In other words, who hard-wired this thinking? Anyone know? Maybe a bible major could comment? Campbell talked about getting back to the purity of Christianity not this narrow-minded I’m right and you’re wrong mentality.
Lee - from a genetic standpoint, Jesus would have shared Mary’s genetic makeup. Surely He had some of her physical features. We are made up of far more than just blood.
As to your second point, I com