On “What Does the Bible Say?”, JR is talking about Chris Knight.
At “The Knight Shift”, Chris Knight is talking about JR.
Here, they are both talking about each other.
Chris and JR:
I acknowledge that this blog has played a part in the inflaming of your differences, and I apologize for that. As I’ve said, I have no personal stake, financial or otherwise, in this blog gaining readers. I admit that I have been wrong for letting this be a place where that flame has been fueled – although I’m not sure exactly how I could have stopped it.
Chris and JR, both of you men consider yourselves to be Christ-followers, even if one may not consider the other to be. Please prayerfully consider your actions and words. And remember what Paul encourages those who follow Christ…
“Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts…” Colossians 3:15
Incidentally, the interesting thing in all of this is Charles Roark. Knowing both men, he was in a position, sitting directly in the middle of Chris and JR, to mediate things. Instead, he chose to inflame things, apparently for the sake of attempting to gain more viewers to his TV station. That’s not surprising, but it is disappointing.
Charles, if you read this blog (and I don’t know if he does), it’s not too late for you to be an agent of healing and reconciliation rather than division.
time will tell if you’re sorry
Lol …I hope you can explain what all this means – I don’t watch the show, so I have no idea what was said or wasn’t said. Lee, I will say that if I were allowed to have the Lords Supper with them at Martinsville each Sunday ( while maintaining my position ) I would be there right now with them. But, Johnny made it clear that participating each Sunday wasn’t good enough…I also needed to understand it and believe it just as they do. Lee, a year ago, I honestly considered leaving my job to be part of the preaching school, because I think most of what they teach is right….and I admire them for digging so deep in scripture and devoting so much of their time to the work of God. Honestly, I probably have said many things toward them that I shouldn’t have….the folks there at Martinsville were great and the teaching and SINGING was great. I prefer singing now, because of them…..its the most beautiful sound there is – hearing Christians singing. Having said that, I know I will never be part of them again, because I cant make myself believe something that I do NOT see and understand their way. I have examinee the Lords Supper teaching, Music teaching, and denominational stance they have in the church of Christ and I just do NOT see it their way. I guess the bad thing is that I was willing to still sing only, and willing to partake in the Lords Supper each Sunday, but my lack of understanding this their way, prevents me from being there with them…..sad, but true
Thanks
Excuse my repost of the following.. I posted in under the wrong thread..
You know, it is often a defensive reaction to attack an individual’s character, personality and intentions when “strong” debate of and disagreements on opinions are being engaged. A person’s expression of their opinion is a rather sensitive and well..personal thing. Having your opinions along with your character, personality and intentions strongly attacked can bring out the “ugly” side of your personhood.
The aspect that deepens this differing of opinions expressed here, in my opinion, is what appears to be a dissimilar acceptance of one another. The prevailing perception of our local coC leaders is that they view the rest of us as heretics, as false teachers, as the unsaved damned by God because of our differing views of interpretation of Scripture. While on the other hand, I beleive, that a majority of us who post here consider the local coC leaders as brothers in Christ who err primarily in their approach and less in their doctrine.
The use of hatred, disdain and spitefulness towards others often pull out the same. It is not a pretty picture for any of us. And the greater sadness is that although I may pray for God’s forgiveness of my attitudes and reactions to those who oppose me and seek a more positive approach I am not so sure the opposition will do the same. None-the-less I shall take the higher ground.
So Rick the fact that you teach a plan of salvation that we can’t find anyone following out of all the conversions in the book of acts and you promote a church that we can not read about in the bible in name , organzation, or worship practices , does n’t qualify you as a heretic? Then what would?
PS: again we don’t hate anyone , but in fact love youall enough to go through this with you in hopes of seeing even one of you obey the true gospel should speak volumes
See what I mean..Is it not as I said?
Faithful, give the Scripture reference where I will find the “Danville Church of Christ” or the “Martinsville Church of Christ” or the “Reidsville Church of Christ” listed BY FULL NAME in the Bible.
All of the conversions at Vandola Baptist were by the Book.. they beleived in Jesus, repented of their sins, confessed Christ as Lord and Saviour and was baptized. What’s not Scriptural about that?
“Obey the true gospel”?
You mean come to your side and condemn others like you do?
I have obeyed the true gospel of the Bible-you can rejoice in that!
Yes, you speak volumes-but without any portrayal of love. Coming on here and saying you love us all after you have belittled, attacked, been rude, and unloving for months will certainly not convince anyone. You have to love people first-then tell them the truth. You cannot come at it the other way.
Rick those are locations , you continue to show your ignorance. Go ahead and show the scripture in acts that lines up with what you had them dod what they did. You know good and well you had them pray a prayer that wasn’t heard and then you had them baptized for a nonscriptural reason. How can one have faith in the work of God during the baptism if they have been told they are already saved? They can’t . I guess if by the book you mean the baptist faith and message then you would be right . But not by the bible
Katherine I guess you would condemn the speaker here:
Mt 3:7 ¶ But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Mt 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Mt 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Lu 3:7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
(KJV)
Faithful, what kind of faith did you have prior to being baptized? Dead or living ?
What is your point, “faithful”? Are you trying to compare yourself to Jesus?
You have done nothing on here but try and tear down ANYone who does not agree exactly like you instead of focusing on our commond bond in Jesus. If you think you have shown love through that-you might want to take a look at the Bible again. Jesus even told us to love our enemies, turn the other cheek, walk the extra mile, give them our cloak-did you miss that part? Or the part about loving our neighbors, doing unto others as we would want to be done to us, or how if we have not love we are only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal? Are you ever taught or do you read those verses, or just hone in on the ones that you feel can justify your need to debate and fight with everyone?
In acts 2 did the men there have dead faith prior to baptism, since they were sinners unable to please God? Can a sinner have living faith? Living faith “acts” so explain how a dead man has faith in God when a man in the flesh can not please God?? If a mans stony heart is dark, how can he turn to baptism where forgiveness lives, seeing nothing in man is good and nothing in man pleases God in his dead state of sin?? Does the bible state that its impossible for a man in his flesh to please God? Yes or no? Is a man in his flesh prior to baptism? Yes or no ?
For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Question: is man in a carnal state prior to baptism? Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. How can man exercise saving faith to act in obedience while he is yet carnal and is enmity against God? So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. Is man in the flesh prior to being baptized?
Faithful, your doctrinal view has dead men, which Paul says are at enmity with God and unable to please Him…you have them exercising acts of obedience while dead ! Alien sinners cant pray to God per your theology because they are dead in sins…but you have them doing acts of faith while dead in their sins…..seems the men in Acts 2 had their hearts changed prior to baptism….as evidenced by them being pricked to their hearts…..
put Johnny back on here faithful, you arent answering these too well…you could just ask him, if he is there
well, I have a long drive guys….got to go. Faithful, please address this after you ask somebody there.
faithless,
lovest thou me?
show me where jesus said to anyone be baptized for the
remission of sin. i cant find it. and if you find it please show me. because if jesus said it then i know
the gates of hell would have fallen off the hinges
before anything would have kept his disciples from keeping that command. they would have grabbed the first
sinner (coc tenant ) and got baptized right.
no jesus said be baptized only but thats not good enough for you and johnny. i mean straight from the lords lips
and still not good enough. now what are you going to say to the lord when he asks you about placing a stumbling block in front of his little children?
what size millstone do you take?
lee
On August 11, 2008 at 1:19 pm faithful Said:
Rick those are locations , you continue to show your ignorance.
My Point, faithful, is that those locations are part of the Church of Christ just like Vandola Baptist is part of the Church of Christ (the Church of Christ being made up of all born again baptized believers in Jesus Christ).
On August 11, 2008 at 2:37 pm lee Said:
faithless,
lovest thou me?
show me where jesus said to anyone be baptized for the
remission of sin.
- Mark 16:16
randy,
i am highly unqualified to give you advice. but thats
never stopped me before.
there are things in just about any religon that are good.
and as i sit here ill bet you that i am closer in agreement on most basic issue with you than you may think. but try to remember the saying “the devil is in the details”.
johnny is right in that he believes he should have no fellowship with us. how could he do that?
where it is enough for us to say that as long as a group meets certain basics in the faith, we can still have fellowship even though we dont agree on all issues. johnny finds us actually to be worse than the
ones who havnt even heard of god.
we should not seek to change one who believes that way. only god can do that.
i said all that to say this, be careful. what you mean for good may lead you to a place your not looking to go.
your friend
lee
lee
no randy it does not.
re read my post
I know where you are coming from Lee, I know Jesus didn’t “specially state” for remission of sins. But it does say belief + baptism = salvation. I would think forgiveness to be tied to being saved.
Far as Johnny position of “everybody is headed to hell who don’t believe just like he does” I don’t buy that at all….I don’t agree with Johnny on this.
So Rick if I bring you sign that says church of Christ will you post it outside your building. Or it could say the church of Christ meets here. Would you post that?
faithful, what DVD was you talking about that I could get access to ?? I didnt watch last nights show…dont live near cable
“put Johnny back on here faithful, you arent answering these too well…you could just ask him, if he is there”
I thought this was answering the church? Why are you asking me for answers . I thought you were here to answer us?
“faithful, what DVD was you talking about that I could get access to ?? I didnt watch last nights show…dont live near cable”
Sunday night program.
faithless,
hows that millstone fit?
lee
“Rick those are locations , you continue to show your ignorance.”
faithful, cut out this sort of remark. This is insulting.
And lee, you too. “Millstone” comments aren’t helpful. I know faithful brings out the desire to make comments like this, but as Rick said, let’s take the higher ground.
No faithful, I would probably not post your sign primarily because folks would become confused and think that we were associated with your denominational church of Christ
I have thought about everything that makes what Johnny does so wrong. It all comes down to the rights and freedom we have to choose our own beliefs. Both God and America our country gives us the freedom to choose. And Johnny Robertson has no right to force his beliefs on anyone.
Our country we live in gives people the freedom to choose what they want to believe so that no one person can force their belief on us. And because we have this freedom we are able to worship and follow Jesus as christians and we should thank God for that.
Above all God gave us free will and the freedom to choose whether or not we want to accept His mercy and grace in the free gift He gives to us in Jesus. God does not force any of us to believe and we should not force others to believe. Though we should want others to believe and pray for others to come to Christ and as christians we should tell others about the gift God offers to all of us in Jesus, but it is their choice whether they want to believe and accept Him or not.
People have the right to choose what they want to believe along with what church they want to attend without being harassed or feel threatened in any way by anyone else. A church someone chooses to attend is their choice, not my choice, not Johnnys choice or anyone elses choice it is their choice. And the freedom given to all of us by both God and our country should be respected.
So when Johnny goes around and attacks people by harassing and trying to provoke other people in his arrogance and makes people and their families feel threatened he takes away peoples rights to privacy, their rights to feel safe in their homes, and in all he takes away their freedom. But most of all I believe it shows that Johnny has no faith in God or Gods word. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. God tells us to speak His word to others not to force it on others.
And I don’t believe there is anything wrong with praising God with music nor has God ever said there is. If a person chooses not to go to a church because of the kind of music, that is their choice, and I would encourage them to find another good church to go to and there are other good churches. I think we as christians should encourage those who don’t go to church to find a good church to go to.
And as I said I don’t believe there is anything wrong for someone to be able to rejoice and praise the Lord with music. At church whether we are giving praises to God with christian music or a cappella we should be there to hear the teachings from Gods word and being there people do hear.
And if Johnny Robertson had the best christian music around I would not go there because I don’t believe he shows anything that is of Christ or shows people the real love God has for them and I don’t believe Johnny shows or speaks the truth of Gods word.
But I definitely do believe that the word of God and Gods love for people are a lot more powerful than Johnnys arrogance and his egotistical lies.
“On August 11, 2008 at 11:08 am faithful Said:
PS: again we don’t hate anyone , but in fact love youall enough to go through this with you in hopes of seeing even one of you obey the true gospel should speak volumes”
The feelings are mutual Johnny!
Johnny have you studied Saul and David or Noah and his nakedness and how those were handled? Teach on God’s authority please, I would like to see how you handle those actions in comparison of your own against other authority in the local area. I recall you asking the question of a member of one church if they thought something was fair, thus attacking the pastor of that church and sowing rebellion in that body.
Compare that action to Saul and Davids relationship and also how Noah’s sin was covered and revealed and what happened to those who hid and revealed that sin?
All authority comes from God!
Amen, Truth-GREAT thoughts!!!
Nathan and all
I have no problem with this site
Chris is not a christian so it is not th case as you say
he is just as the jews of Jesus days
He is being exposed and it causes him to be filled with wrath Jn 15:222ff
I have no regrets for your site and in fact am glad it is here so people can see how futile it is with some people.
Our folk have seen that no amount of “sugar” vs “honey” will bring folks around if they are not honest. You all are not honest and most who read this site know it.
Go to it fellows we have all watched and read with great satisfaction!
We use your post to demonstrate the dishonesty.
you have been a great asset to my work.
Thanks again!
Up early this morning JR?
Thank you for giving your permission for this site to continue. That means so much.
1) Your comment about Christ not being a Christian… I refer you to Matthew 25:31. Jesus sits on the throne and gets to judge who is and who isn’t a Christian. Not you, not me, none of us. We can say, “by their fruits you shall know them” Matthew 7:16, but only the One on the throne really knows. Otherwise the goats of Matthew 25:31–46 wouldn’t be so shocked.
2) If it’s so that you have “no regrets” for the site, then go ahead and give out the URL on your program. Let’s expand the conversation in the community! You can take that opportunity to show more people how “dishonest” we are.
3) Speaking of which, you wrote, “You all are not honest and most who read this site know it.” Can you explain this comment? How have “we all” been dishonest? What evidence do you have that “most who read this site know it”? I thought we only had seven of us coming back repeatedly.
I’m so appreciative that you give us your personal blessing and endorsement. I’ll look forward to seeing you give out the blog addie on Sunday night. Or, you could go ahead and get JO or NF to do it Thursday night.
Meanwhile, care to have a doctrinal discussion? There are many folks here who would enjoy discussing an actual Biblical issue with you here. We’ll conduct ourselves civilly.
Sorry, btw, that this post seems to be jumping around. I’m having trouble with the clock on my computer – trying to get it to set.
Well Rick , How about I bring you a sign that the says the church of Christ does not meet here? Would you post that?
We have 4 tv programs and different meeting time and personal bible bible studies to have discussion on bible doctrine. We don’t need to keep “feeding the pigs ” here with that
Thank you, faithful, for admitting to all of our readers that you don’t have any desire to take part in actual useful, doctrinal discussion. Apparently, all you want to do is come onto my blog and harass people who do want to engage in useful discussion.
Well, just to let you know, that’s not permitted.
If it’s so that you have “no regrets” for the site, then go ahead and give out the URL on your program. Let’s expand the conversation in the community! You can take that opportunity to show more people how “dishonest” we are.
- Johnny, this is a good point. If this site doesnt mean anything and not a threat to what you believe, then allow the community to join…why wouldnt you do that if this is such a weak site??
On August 12, 2008 at 5:09 am faithful Said:
We have 4 tv programs and different meeting time and personal bible bible studies to have discussion on bible doctrine. We don’t need to keep “feeding the pigs ” here with that
- so when you have bible studies with others you cinsisder sinnners, I guess they are pigs too. Why are you guys so afraid to study on here…maybe you fear people will see the weakness of your arguments. Again, like Nathan stated, we are here to discuss bible, so enough with the names and such…if your views of scripture can hold up, bring them on…we are waiting.
nathan,
having just read your reply to old johnny boy,
my millstone ref to faithful sounds like it flowed
from the same vein.
my post to faithful was scriptural. he is throwing stumbling blocks in front of the children.
and he just like johnny wont answer me when i give them
scripture. so if i take the “high road” and not goad him
to get an answer, ill find that im the only one on that highway.
You’re not going to be alone on the high road, lee. The regular contributors to this blog are up there with you.
On the matter of Mark!
((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))
9When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.
12Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.
14Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
15He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
19After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.
I would not put a great deal of weight on passages that may have been added later!
The same goes for Mathew 28’s baptism in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost!
It appears they both were revisionists work! I found this while doing my study on baptism!
http://www.dimensionsoftruth.org/great_commission.html has some interesting details of why Mathew 28 should not be considered valid text!
Please read it and then consider Mark also and tell me about the great commission after you are done? Please don’t fall back on what has been drummed into you, read it with an open mind and consider the possibility that both were changed or added from the originals!
I almost fell out of my chair when I realized this!
well im just like that famous guys dog………
when my best friend faithless feeds us pigs i just cant
help but eat.
lee
“On August 12, 2008 at 4:23 am Johnny Robertson Said:
Nathan and all
I have no problem with this site
Chris is not a christian so it is not th case as you say
he is just as the jews of Jesus days
He is being exposed and it causes him to be filled with wrath Jn 15:222ff”
Actually you want John 15:23 not 22 on the matter of wrath? As for him being a christian, he may be making wrong choices at the moment because he was tempted by you to sin but you are not Jesus and thus are not able to correctly/perfectly judge a mans heart!
“On August 12, 2008 at 4:23 am Johnny Robertson Said:
“I have no regrets for your site and in fact am glad it is here so people can see how futile it is with some people.”
Actually I watched your program the other week and you seemed to regret that he had exposed past sin in your life at least for your children’s sake so this statement is not completely true! I regret he did this also as it does not glorify anything!
“On August 12, 2008 at 4:23 am Johnny Robertson Said:
“Our folk have seen that no amount of “sugar” vs “honey” will bring folks around if they are not honest. You all are not honest and most who read this site know it.”
Main Entry:
1hon·est Listen to the pronunciation of 1honest
Pronunciation:
\ˈä-nəst\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin honestus honorable, from honos, honor honor
Date:
14th century
1 a: free from fraud or deception : legitimate, truthful
b: genuine, real
c: humble, plain
2 a: reputable, respectable bchiefly British : good, worthy
3: creditable, praiseworthy
4 a: marked by integrity
b: marked by free, forthright, and sincere expression : frank
c: innocent, simple
John why do you confuse disagreement with you as a lack of honesty? I would think some of the members of your church may fall into this category if they are unwilling to speak out on anything they disagree with for fear of what you might to do them. The love that you express is not the Agape that walks carefully with weaker brothers, but a Philia that loves because they do as you wish! This is not love nor of God John!
“On August 12, 2008 at 4:23 am Johnny Robertson Said:
“Go to it fellows we have all watched and read with great satisfaction!
We use your post to demonstrate the dishonesty.
you have been a great asset to my work.
Thanks again!”
I find it interesting that you pick the weakest comments to expose as opposed to some of the harder things that have been written here, for instance you were challenged by a fellow CoC teacher and have refused to debate on a forum, are you going to cover this in a sermon on how you are always ready to give an accounting for what you believe?
Dishonestly comes in many forms, it takes many subtle paths into our hearts and we fall into its trap through pride!
When are you going to debate on the forums to give an account of what you believe? If not then please no longer state that you are ALWAYS ready to give a response it would be dishonest to do so!
some also argue that the verse above were taken out of older/early manuscripts, because the men then seen the age of Miracles to be tied only to the apostles…so some early manuscripts have these verse missing because some didn’t like what was written….so it was removed….two ways to look at the , aint it
Johnny is more than welcome to use the WHOLE comment I put on here last night the date showing August 11,2008 and the time showing 10:12pm, about the rights and freedom people have to choose their own belief and what church they want to go to without being harassed in any way by anyone. But I think he is too scared to show it to his congregation and on TV because it will show just how wrong he is.
On August 12, 2008 at 5:06 am faithful Said:
Well Rick , How about I bring you a sign that the says the church of Christ does not meet here? Would you post that?
Wouldn’t need to do that faithful. When folks see our current sign they know immediately that the denominational church of Christ doesn’t meet at our church building.
On August 11, 2008 at 1:19 pm faithful Said:
How can one have faith in the work of God during the baptism if they have been told they are already saved?
Faithful take a look at John 3:5-6: Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’ That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.’
“The word “and” can also be translated “even”, which in light of the rest of Scripture it probably the way it should be translated. Therefore water with all of its cleansing power is a symbol of the Holy Spirit. A strong argument for this is in verse 6. The new birth is spiritual, apart from any natur4al phenomenon. It has nothing to do with any physical substance, including water. It is not of the flesh, not of any material thing. It is of the Spirit. ”
How can you have faith in the work of God before water baptism? Romans 10:9 gives the answer, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (baptism of the Holy Spirit)
Although I hold “partly“ to a church of Christ view of baptism, I tend to think Romans as well as other passages may not be talking about water baptism, but Spiritual baptism done by the Holy Spirit, placing one in Christ. Water baptism would mean nothing without Spirit baptism. Is there one baptism, yes. It is the work of God Col. 2;11-12. Water has no power to place one in Christ, only God does. Having said this, when is the point one is placed, planted, identified, connected, immersed, baptized into Christ? When I read Acts 2:38, I would have to say the Jews were placed, planted, identified, connected, immersed, baptized at the point of water baptism. At least it seems that way to me. I also believe something changed their hearts prior to baptism and their faith was a living faith prior to baptism, seeing they obeyed/preformed acts of obedient faith, but then I keep wondering how can a dead man in his sins, who can not please God “please God” prior to baptism, if baptism is the place he is made alive….something doesn’t jive here. Either he is alive prior to baptism, thus able to please God with acts of obedience, or we have unsaved, carnal man, somehow pleasing God with acts of obedience….which the scripture says man can not do without God changing his heart. I noticed faithful didn’t touch this yesterday…
Walkinginlove, do you care to add to this ??
I’m not saying that it is right for anyone to bring up someones past, but it seems that Johnny doesn’t like someone to do unto him what he has done unto others. I don’t think Johnny considers other peoples children that are around when he goes to peoples homes and harasses them and tries to provoke them into an argument, and I don’t think this is behavior children should have displayed in front of them especially by adults. And seeing this kind of behavior can make some children feel unsafe, especially when it takes place at their home or near their home.
I’m still processing when the original believers at Pentecost were baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. It suddenly struck me today that they would have been under Johns baptism (maybe since it is not recorded in detail) and that they do not appear to be re-baptized as was done for those who were found to be under johns baptism as in Acts 19, why were the Pentecost believers not re-baptized or did I miss that somewhere?
And if they were not re-baptized are they not unsaved according to CoC teachings on Acts 2:38?
Coc said:
“Walkinginlove, do you care to add to this ??”
Well I don’t have anything to add to it but I find the following interesting, Eph 4:5 states one baptism, yet in Acts we see people baptized by water without the Holy Spirit and by the holy spirit without water so how can their be one baptism? I don’t have an answer for this question, only the question itself!
Jesus says we must be born of water/flesh and of spirit. I know the CoC see this as confirmation of Acts 2:38 process but Jesus used the term flesh when he states it a second time so I I consider this to not be about water baptism but of being born of flesh or into this world. Except for this and John’s baptism being done by Jesus followers where else does Jesus talk about baptism himself?
John the Baptist said Jesus would baptize with fire or the Holy Spirit, he did not say he would baptize with water, and he personally did not do that.
Acts 2:38 gives us the process of being baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins and then the Holy Spirit will come, Acts 10 the process of Acts 2:38 is reversed, and in Acts 8 the process does not bring the Holy Spirit as was stated in Acts 2:38, and at Pentecost Acts 2:38 has not been stated and they have the Holy Spirit but I do not see them being re-baptized for the remission of sins, so there are three examples of things happening differently then Acts 2:38
I find I have more questions then answers and some of the potential answers bother me greatly considering the questionable texts of Mathew 28 and the end of Mark.
I have only stumbled upon this site in the last few days, and it drew my attention primarily by the title. I’m not sure how much I will participate in the future dialog on this site. I just wanted to share how sad I have felt as I have taken some time to read through some of the comments. I hope the day will come when the inspired instruction of Peter shines evident through this conversation:
“Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.” 1 Peter 4:8
As we all do, Roger.
Rodger, we do try to show these guys that to tell others about the love God has for them and He wants us to love each other is what Jesus Himself has shown us to do. But they don’t seem to want to have anything to do with that and they try to make us stumble, which we do, and we shouldn’t let these men make us stumble. It breaks my heart that there are people who intentionally try to make others stumble and I pray for God to forgive me when I do stumble. I am not perfect but I know I love the Lord.
well roger while your waiting on that light from
heaven to shine down, roll up your sleeves and get in here with us pigs.
its feeden time any second now. i think i see faithless
with the slop bucket now.
soooooooeeeeeeeee! (southern ref)
lee
hi truth,
just so you will know.
im not stumbling. anything i say, have said,
will say in the future i take full responsibility for.
these guys arent THAT good.
lee
On August 12, 2008 at 11:41 am walkinlove Said:
I’m still processing when the original believers at Pentecost were baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. It suddenly struck me today that they would have been under Johns baptism (maybe since it is not recorded in detail) and that they do not appear to be re-baptized as was done for those who were found to be under johns baptism as in Acts 19, why were the Pentecost believers not re-baptized or did I miss that somewhere?
- good points, and I dont know the answer. Let me know when you do
hello
is this thing working on my end?
ive brought out that point on several occasions
but no one seemed to pick up on it.
lee, these men do try to bring the worst out in people and I want to take the high road like you had talked about earlier. And no matter for what reason I feel like I have stumbled it is me who stumbled. And I need to check myself sometimes and give it over to the Lord so I won’t tear myself down because of it. I know these men show absolutely no respect to any of us here, but we still should try to approach them in a better manner than what they give us.
And lee your comment about about pigs and soe I couldn’t help but laugh. It was funny.
Honestly guys, are we using this blog as a place to discuss biblical issues, or is Johnny our target? We should guard our speech and actions when talking with these men and not fall prey to their attacks or traps. They have no desire to discuss biblical issues on here but just pop in and out to work us up in hopes somebody will have some loose lips – makes for good ratings to pull our comments out of context and they could make us out to be the “attackers” and serve it for lunch to their supporter… and I bet they eat it up too. When faithful, TD, and the rest jump in here……..keep the target on the bible, and don’t fall for their traps.
Offense is the Bait that Satan uses to get us out of the will of God, it is interesting that they also use that very trap, is it planned or purely by accident? One has to know if you study the Greek at all that Offense translates to
skandalon – 1) the movable stick or trigger of a trap, a trap stick
Thus we see they are laying a trap for you by insulting you, it is planned and its effect is large, by falling for the trap you render yourself blind like the pharisees of old who knew about the messiah but allowed their offense at Jesus to blind them from seeing the truth, thus if you are offended at what they say to you, then you are less likely to be able to see the truth!
So as a Christian why would you want to use a tactic of the enemy? I noted this tactic attempted by the “sheik” in his debate with James where at one point he called him an ignorant man. I can’t recall if I noted any reaction from James but if he was offended it gave the “sheik” an opening.
go back and check my comments.
i stand by them.
if the southside three want, they can take
“jesus loves me” out of context. so dont think
by hedgeing your bets and not saying anything to
rile them up you will be safe.
they are much too determined to put us in a bad light
and whatever you say will be used against you.
so just say whats true even if it hairlips the devil.
yes i almost inserted someone elses name………..
i cant help myself.
lee
Churches of Christ they were not baptized under Johns baptism
“Acts 2:38 gives us the process of being baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins and then the Holy Spirit will come, ”
That’s not what the bible says
Ac 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The gift of the Holy Ghost is salvation
faithful, did you mean to adddress walkingonlove? I think you missed walkinginloves point. Are you saying that every single person that was baptized of John were baptized into Christ ( I mean into water where one is baptized into Christ ) when Peter preached?
Rick, we have faith in God from hearing the word. Not your baptist faith and message word , the bible word. Not some dreamed up plan you say.
Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
“I know these men show absolutely no respect to any of us here,”
Respect is earned by giving repect. Did your mother not teach you anything?
“On August 12, 2008 at 1:54 pm churchesofChrist Said:
On August 12, 2008 at 11:41 am walkinlove Said:
I’m still processing when the original believers at Pentecost were baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. It suddenly struck me today that they would have been under Johns baptism (maybe since it is not recorded in detail) and that they do not appear to be re-baptized as was done for those who were found to be under johns baptism as in Acts 19, why were the Pentecost believers not re-baptized or did I miss that somewhere?
- good points, and I dont know the answer. Let me know when you do”
no
On August 12, 2008 at 5:01 pm faithful Said:
“I know these men show absolutely no respect to any of us here,”
Respect is earned by giving repect. Did your mother not teach you anything
- maybe you shouuld chew on what you just said faithful. Lets stick to the bible, can we do that?
“faithful”, he was talking about the Word of God-he has never said otherwise, but always quoted scripture!! Just because you have labeled him and stuffed into a Baptist box certainly does not mean you can know what he believes. Good grief. Is there really ANYone you accept as your brother or sister in Christ besides Johnny? You are missing out on so much of God’s love by taking this path which only leads to sadness and destruction within the body of Christ.
No joke-all you guys have ever come on here and have done is attack, make fun of, and condemn us for not believing like you. You have shown no ounce of love or grace to any of us, and you want to demand our respect? That is a two way street.
Didn’t your mama teach you anything or do you just listen to Johnny, now?
churchesofchrist I can’t repond to a comment? Why was the person that made the comment not told to stick to the bible. More double standard?
churchesofchrist will you tell katherine to stick to the bible or more double standard
I would love to just stick to the Bible, but when I decide to do that-you guys turn a deaf ear, ignore me, or dissapear. Except for T.D.-I will give him props-he is actually the only one from your group who engaged me in Biblical discussions and I appreciate that…but he has not been around in awhile.
ntfk
ntfybk
no double standard, he was acting out and you was. You always end up name calling or something, thats why I said stick to the bible. If you have read enuf of what I say on here, you would know that I have taken a dif view from KAT,Lee, walkinginlove, truth, and others, but I dont resort to name calling, nor do I play God in the judgement seat. All I ask is that if you are serious about wanting to discuss the bible, why the need to act out? Lets just talk bible…k
we all here desire to engage in honest biblical talks – if you are down for that faithful – then lets do that. I disagree with Kat and others on here on things we have discussed, but not once have I ever even thought to act out as you have. Why must you do that – could it be yu dont want to talk about the bible? Do you just like to fuss or something. Pick a topic and I bet KAT will gladly talk to you about it from her POV
hello faithFUL,
caught you off guard didnt i ?
lets see if we can talk like grown folks,
you first.
lee
faithful, go visit Coreys site and see how well he treats those he disagrees with –
http://coreydavis.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/the-curious-case-of-cornelius-conversion/#comment-168
this is the kind of bibical talks we are wanting from you guys. Also CT, Scott, and many other church of Christ sites will engage in real talks and never do these men name call and act out…
well, since faithful doesnt want to talk “bible” I am signing off for tonight. faithful,CT,Kat,Lee…have a good evening…ttyl
ntfl
On August 12, 2008 at 4:58 pm faithful Said:
Rick, we have faith in God from hearing the word. Not your baptist faith and message word , the bible word. Not some dreamed up plan you say.
Faithful I quoted earlier from John 3:5-6 and Romans 10:9 both of which are found in the Holy Bible. I did not quote from the Baptist Faith and Message, which by the way is a statement of what most Southern Baptist believe the Holy Bible teaches about major doctrine. The Baptist Faith and Message is not and I repeat is not the “bible” of the Southern Baptist Church. God’s Word as found in the Holy Bible is our Bible. (which of course you already know but refuse to acknowledge.)
no time for meeeeeeeee……….
i tried
I say this:
“I would love to just stick to the Bible, but when I decide to do that-you guys turn a deaf ear, ignore me, or dissapear. Except for T.D.-I will give him props-he is actually the only one from your group who engaged me in Biblical discussions and I appreciate that…but he has not been around in awhile.”
…and “faithful” answers with this:
ntfk
Point proven. If you ever want to discuss Biblical topics, I would be more than happy-but as it is, you just want to pop in every once in awhile, make off the wall comments about how everyone is wrong and you “love all of us” to do what you are doing-but then you don’t have time. You need to ask Johnny what it means to ALWAYS have an answer for the faith that you have.
I do have an answer and am more than willing to discuss it with anyone who asks-especially when they are WILLING to learn.
So, when you get to that point-I would love to discuss with you. Until then, I wipe my feet because you are not welcoming me in the name of Jesus.
Man, isn’t this true?!
Leave your simple ways and you will live;
walk in the way of understanding.
“Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you;
rebuke a wise man and he will love you.
Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still;
teach a righteous man and he will add to his
learning.
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.
For through me your days will be many,
and years will be added to your life.
If you are wise, your wisdom will reward you;
if you are a mocker, you alone will suffer.”
~Proverbs 9:6-12
Whoever said the Scriptures were not relevant was foolish.. these verses that Kat quotes are very relevant..very indeed.
churchesofchrist I seent the apology Cory gave to Johnny and what he said about the other folks here. Did you see that?
Ro 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Inthe first verse it says unto meaning moving toward salvation. Not into Christ or slavation
In the second verse it refers to baptism yet you would tell us that it’s not a must. Then you teach 2 baptisms.
Rick it’s so sad you can’t see this\ or maybe you do and get pleaseure out of teaching a false gospel
Which us true Rick?
Mr 16:16 He that believeth and is saved shall be baptizd;
or
Mr 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved
faithful wrote:
“ntfk”
Okay, faithful. That’s it. You are suspended from posting on this blog for three days. I’m tired of the disrespect you show to Katherine, who shows others nothing but respect.
If you ever write that “ntfk” garbage here again, you will be banned for a much longer time.
Mr. Answer.
Here’s the whole verse in Mark16:16 “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”
So it says if you don’t believe you will be condemned, it does not say if you don’t be baptized you are condemned.
Also the bible says “That whosoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
So it says that ANYONE who turns to Jesus to save them from their sins will be saved.
So God tells us that anyone who believes will be saved. To say God can’t save anyone who believes, seems that would be calling God a liar. I believe God is all powerful and I believe it is by His grace we are saved.
Amen again, Truth!
Thank you, Nathan
On August 12, 2008 at 8:16 pm faithful Said:
churchesofchrist I seent the apology Cory gave to Johnny and what he said about the other folks here. Did you see that?
- now will Johnny be as kind as Corey and opolgize for calling him liberal??
You hear the church of Christ preachers saying they use the right name…but, do they use the right name?? The word church should not even be in the Bible! It has been mistranslated from the Greek ekklesia which means called out. God’s called out form his community, congregation, or assembly in both the universal and local sense. The English word church is derived from the Greek kuriakos which means of the lord. No such usage is made of it in the scriptures.
Our people have persistently maintained that the community of believers is named Church of Christ, Churches of Christ, or church of Christ. They make the claim while ignoring that a part of that name has no basis for being in the scriptures.
So, the correct name on the lawn should read “Call out of the Lord”…..
ekklhsia
Definition:
1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
1a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
1b) the assembly of the Israelites
1c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
1d) in a Christian sense
1d1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
1d2) a company of Christians, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake
1d3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
1d4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
1d5) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven
While I strongly disagree with their claim of the name as a simple word game they are playing with an uncapitalized “churches”, I don’t see an issue with them using church as it is defined since it does have the root meaning above.
May I ask you walkinginlove what denominational background you come from – your writings/statements/questions remind me so much of someone I know. I like the conversations you and Corey had as well. Not trying to change subjects, but do you think Noahs flood was worldwide / local or just an allegory?
Nathan said…..
I’m still processing when the original believers at Pentecost were baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. It suddenly struck me today that they would have been under Johns baptism (maybe since it is not recorded in detail) and that they do not appear to be re-baptized as was done for those who were found to be under johns baptism as in Acts 19, why were the Pentecost believers not re-baptized or did I miss that somewhere?
- good points, and I dont know the answer. Let me know when you do
Johnny says…
and you guys are suppose to be teachers?
boy have you just let everyone know how ignornt
kathrine please give them the answer
Johnny, sometimes you play dumb to get a reply…now since youre here…teach us something ! btw, Nathan didnt make the comments, it was walkinginlove…whoever he/she is…
walkin love? said
On August 12, 2008 at 8:11 am walkinlove Said:
http://www.dimensionsoftruth.org/great_commission.html has some interesting details of why Mathew 28 should not be considered valid text!
Please read it and then consider Mark also and tell me about the great commission after you are done? Please don’t fall back on what has been drummed into you, read it with an open mind and consider the possibility that both were changed or added from the originals!
I almost fell out of my chair when I realized this!
johnny said
u just realized this deabte has been going on since 1800s?
wow we are dealing with some real winners here
how about I loan you some debates so you can see what the real issue is
or maybe you go online and read Burgon john William
wow we are dealing with some real winners here
how about I loan you some debates so you can see what the real issue is
or maybe you go online and read Burgon john William
- think you might have picked up on something, havent you Johnny ?
MAYBE YOU ALREADY HAVE LOANED THESE BEFORE TO _________
stumbling in love wrote
((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))
how much of the book of Rev. do these “most reliable” have there
if they leave that out will you go one over to the RT and still read it
pathetic boy just pathetic
look that up in Websters i will do it for you
Arousing or capable of arousing sympathetic sadness and compassion: “The old, rather shabby room struck her as extraordinarily pathetic”
Johnny says…
“and you guys are suppose to be teachers?
boy have you just let everyone know how ignornt
kathrine please give them the answer”
Well, this isn’t actually a fully coherent statement, and I know you are just doing your usual fly by.
Teachers are always in the learning process, Johnny-you should know that. If we stop asking questions, we will never learn, and eventually run out of wisdom to impart. That is the cycle of knowledge. We learn from each other when we study together-not by attacking and proving each other wrong.
“Wise men store up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool invites ruin.” ~Proverbs 10:14
“The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to the discerning.” ~Proverbs 14:6
Why don’t YOU answer and actually contribute something rather than insults, since you call yourself a teacher? Do you have it in you?
By the way, it is Katherine
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. ~1 Corinthians 13:1-3
Johnny, do you have any DVD’s on the following topics?? Lords Supper, and Music? If so, I would like to purchase a copy of each. I really would love to view a debate on the two if you have that available.
how about I give you some time today on it?
and I dont sell my dvds just yet
I really dont think the deabte should be on the two you ask about
the issue we have is authority
how does one decide what is actually “binding”
now I have some really good books on this
Katherine, you hit the nail on the head.
I think one of the keys to being a good teacher is humility – I know it was one of Christ’s calling cards (visit http://www.bible-topics.com/Humility-of-Christ-The.html to see a pretty good list in the ways he demonstrated his humility) and he was the Ultimate teacher.
I wonder if we’ll ever witness humility coming from our friends at the hyperconservative churches of Christ? As you said, so far all we get is insults and incoherence.
Johnny wrote:
“I really dont think the deabte should be on the two you ask about
the issue we have is authority
how does one decide what is actually “binding”
now I have some really good books on this”
That’s great, Johnny! That’s the kind of comment we’re talking about. Not insulting, and to the point. Well done!
Why don’t you unpack that a little and tell more about what you are thinking.
On August 13, 2008 at 9:25 am johnny Said:
I really dont think the deabte should be on the two you ask about
the issue we have is authority
how does one decide what is actually “binding”
now I have some really good books on this
- Sure, Johnny I would love to read the books that you have on authority-whats binding.
Nathan before we get started did you in fact post this?
On August 12, 2008 at 5:00 am answeringchurchofchrist Said:
Up early this morning JR?
Thank you for giving your permission for this site to continue. That means so much.
1) Your comment about Christ not being a Christian… I refer you to Matthew 25:31. Jesus sits on the throne and gets to judge who is and who isn’t a Christian. Not you, not me, none of us. We can say, “by their fruits you shall know them” Matthew 7:16, but only the One on the throne really knows. Otherwise the goats of Matthew 25:31–46 wouldn’t be so shocked.
On line four did you spell Chris name wrong?
now do I have to chide you on spelling
or we going down that road
did any of the boy s on here who cant answer me but spend lots of time on my spelling … correct you?
no
that is why I say you all are not honest
or fair
you either kath
you corrected my on martyr
but let nathan slide
is this a pick johnny to pieces site english class?
On August 13, 2008 at 9:24 am johnny Said:
how about I give you some time today on it?
and I dont sell my dvds just yet
- how about Saturday ??? I would love to read the books on authority-whats binding.
you said
how about Saturday
are you saying discuss on Saturday?
As you know Johnny my beef is with your view on the Lords Supper being binding and Music too….plus there is the issue of denominationalism…..lets start with the Lords Supper, can you tell me briefly on here why the Lords Supper each Sunday is binding??
I said read the books…we can discuss on here.
Ha! Yes, I made that mistake. Oops. I think everyone has added the “t” to Chris’s name on this blog at least once. I guess it’s because we’ve all got Christ on our minds!
Thank you for showing me my mistake. I don’t like to make typing errors.
As to people on this site not being able to answer you, you’re yet to give us much to answer here! That’s what we’re talking about. Tell us more about your thoughts on authority.
Johnny, I know I cant win a debate/discussion with you – you can spit out verses like a walking bible. But, I can take what you say on here and then examine it from every angle. Let me ask you something Johnny: when are biblical examples binding ? How do we determine if an example is binding? What makes the account in Acts 20:7 binding? And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight
No, Johnny-you are not the victim or the martyr-I did not “let Nathan slide” as you think-just missed it. After we all, we talk about Christ a lot-I have helped Nathan out before, so no worries there
I don’t like to make typing errors either and honestly cannot stand bad spelling or grammar, and I just think we can all take the time-as adults-to make our statements coherent and complete. Just my opinion. We can make our English teachers proud 
As to answers, you aren’t really answering our questions and have mainly provide insults. If you can actually put that aside and discuss Biblical topics like grown-ups, then that would be beneficial and great.
Nathan
again you didn’t own that mistake you just told why
just own it
admit that you all pick my spelling
and not others
I could care less about spelling when I am up at 2 am making a comment on some blog
do it or we don’t go on
and tell kath not to bother posting to me I don’t read here ACC stuff
I commend you guys for your spelling/grammar, but frankly….I don’t care if Johnny misspells a word or not….I just want some honest answers to some of the questions….big deal if he, I , or anyone has bad spelling/grammar. I do want to discuss this issue of authority Johnny, can you at least address the questions I ask….can we have some dialogue on here?
And, I still would like to read the books you have
Now to the questions
in order to answer this Nathan
I need to know if you will be consistent
this is how Jesus helped people see themselves a well as see the honesty or lack thereof of the leaders
just look at this
I am typing the response to you
I would ask you to compare these two statements
1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
Heb 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
if you can tell me any differences in them I would like to just hear your take
“the assembling of ourselves together”
“this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.”
\nathan wrote
On August 13, 2008 at 9:57 am churchesofChrist Said:
I commend you guys for your spelling/grammar, but frankly….I don’t care if Johnny misspells a word or not…
johieys said
“thank you”
Johnny,
To me “owning” the mistake, I’ll be glad to. I made a spelling error. I’ll even admit that most of the regular commenters here (myself included) have picked on your spelling errors from time to time. Personally, I haven’t done it in quite a while, because as you say, we all make mistakes from time to time, and some people are just better typers than others – just as some are better debaters than others, and some are better drivers than others.
In that same spirit, it would be a nice gesture for you to own your mistake from several weeks ago, where you told me that it was your goal to “defeat destroy” me. You didn’t own that mistake – you just told what you meant to say.
Finally, we’re not excluding Katherine from anything. She’s as much a part of this blog as anyone. That’s just the way it is.
Okay, I’m comparing the two statements. Back in a minute.
nathan
I said “defeat destroy” me.
this was posted in 2001 in the newspaper here in martinsville
whether you all know it or not I have said many many times
that I believe 2Cor 10:4 is talking about this
in regard to physical I have never been heard to say “destroy physical” in 25 years since I started trying to be a Christian
no mistake
you heard it right
no more presbyterian faith
that is my goal
My quick response to those two verse without deep thought Johnny would be that neither of those verses have a command for an observance every 7 days.
Johnny,
It’s not a surprise that your goal is to destroy denominations, but that’s not what you wrote that day. This is part of the issue of the importance of taking time with what you write – because what you wrote could easily have been perceived as a personal threat. Go back and look at it again. You didn’t mention that passage of Scripture when you wrote it – you just didn’t.
But anyway, I’m looking at those two passages in context, btw. I’ll be back.
Nathan
Ok
now if the system to which you adhere sees Heb 10:25 as why they assemble and require their own to do so each week
will you secede from them if they hold binding that the first day of the week is in fact to be held in reverence
every first day?
Okay, I’ve looked over the two verses. The first one has Jesus telling us that whenever we take the Lord’s Supper we are to do so in remembrance of him. The second verse is the writer of Hebrews to not forsake assembling together.
What do you mean “hold binding”? Unpack that, please.
Johnny, what makes Acts 20:7 binding? Its one group of Christians meeting on one weekend in an upper room at night, how can we know that they done this every Sunday, and if so, was it binding as law or could it be they done so out of love? I honestly do NOT understand how this can be seen as something binding, please explain Johnny. When does an example become binding and why? Its very obvious that Acts 20:7 isn’t a command, but a mere example of one group meeting on one weekend. They met daily too…why isn’t that example binding? I will back off so you can address Nathan.
Nathan
I am really working on what is binding right now
I believe it can be established that your faith system holds a particular set of rules
How did they come to those
this is exactly the same with Rick for instance
they have a scripture that is the reason for why a thing is done
In your system (at least if you are Presbyterian) they have used Heb 10:25 to make first day worship binding
not that they find the 1st day in Heb 10:25 but they find that else where… but the binding of it every first day is from Heb 10:25
my point is coming if we can move on this
yes you can say Baptist “binding” of Sunday worship (not forshaking assembly) stems from the Ten Commandments amended by the Resurrection Sunday.
Nathan
are you baptist
i only want to know so I can make arguments that suit the faith system
no need to spend time on trying to undo Presbyterian if yo are Baptist
sorry..didn’t realize I was interrupting…
sorry rick I didnt even know it was you
i was not looking at who was posting , i thought it was nathan
that was to nathan about what system
Nathan?
Okay, but I should warn you that I don’t subscribe to a certain denominational way of doing things. In other words, I don’t have a checklist that has to be placed up against some sort of book other than Scripture.
As you said, Heb 10:25 doesn’t bind us to a certain day of the week. Paul is encouraging believers to not give up meeting. I assume that the other passage you are talking about is Acts 20:7. This verse also doesn’t bind Christians to a certain day of the week – but it does say that the early church met on the first day of the week while Paul was with them.
Nathan is of the Presbyterian background…still comment on whats binding and why
Nathan please don’t read ahead on me.
If we are going to have a discussion we are going to have to stay with a topic
I am not trying to tell you what to do
but I was trying to get to a point
now that I know you don’t adhere to any “rule”
I really think I am not going to accomplish anything
I thought you had something you defended as absolute?
for rule I mean
Php 3:16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.
guys
have you ever tried to discuss with every one throwing in at the same time?
my post to Nathan is now about 10 back
I have been on here over an hour and we have only really gotten to
Heb 10:25 and 1Cor 11:25
and I dont think anyone knows why I brought them up
I now have to go to an appointment
class tonite on Acts is waiting
I also do TV tonite
and I was hoping to use me and Nathan on TV to demonstrate how persons can have discussion
guess not
sorry nathan got to go
On August 13, 2008 at 10:07 am johnny Said:
nathan
in regard to physical I have never been heard to say “destroy physical” in 25 years since I started trying to be a Christian
no more presbyterian faith
that is my goal
Johnny do you mean by this you were raised a Presbyerian and converted to c of c 25 years ago? Just trying to get some historical context here. Thanks.
Nathan I really tried
I didn’t say I don’t adhere to any “rule” – I adhere to Scripture. My absolute is found in Scripture. I’ve worshipped in many different kinds of Christian assemblies in my day, and listen to what they say against what Scripture says. It’s the same as how I listen to you and your fellows on WSGR.
While my denominational background comes later in personal importance, Randy is right – my background is Presbyterian. You can go from there.
Please, continue.
Well, Johnny, please come back again and try again. I appreciate your attitude today.
no gail
I was not
I was raised up 9 by parents both in c of C
dad left the faith
mother stayed but was not really faithful to the word but went along
i left the faith at about 13
when i got married (after prison thank you Chris) i knew we had to raise our kids in some faith
i started searching
JWs got me studing for myself
i have to go
thanks
i talked to faithful
you could let him back in please
That depends. Will he behave himself? He was getting pretty rude.
Johnny?
“On August 13, 2008 at 8:38 am johnny Said:
walkin love? said
On August 12, 2008 at 8:11 am walkinlove Said:
http://www.dimensionsoftruth.org/great_commission.html has some interesting details of why Mathew 28 should not be considered valid text!
Please read it and then consider Mark also and tell me about the great commission after you are done? Please don’t fall back on what has been drummed into you, read it with an open mind and consider the possibility that both were changed or added from the originals!
I almost fell out of my chair when I realized this!
johnny said
u just realized this deabte has been going on since 1800s?
wow we are dealing with some real winners here
how about I loan you some debates so you can see what the real issue is
or maybe you go online and read Burgon john William”
Mathew 28’s big issue is that it does not conform to the later calls of baptism in Jesus Name. And that is missing in some texts and some historical books that are not biblical quote it differently.
In Mark the issue is it ending on the word “because” in verse 8, some consider that to not be a proper way to end it, it is translated into English and not seen by us today since the sentence structures are different in the languages.
John, your offense generating tactics will not work with me, since I am not a teacher of the word at all, I am very flattered that you would even consider me an ignorant teacher! Considering how gifted a teacher you consider yourself to be!
Secondly, where can I get your teaching on those passages and why they are or are not considered valid? I would like to view them since they are not something you would see touched on in an average Sunday and most churches! Or is this knowledge only for the teachers themselves?
Third, perhaps you can answer this simple question, since the followers of John were re-baptized in Acts 19 because they had not been baptized in Jesus name, and those in Acts 10 were baptized after receipt of the Gift of the Holy Spirit, why is it that Peter and the followers at Pentecost are not re-baptized? Since I am just a humble student and not a teach of the word as you are who is held to higher standards and you consider yourself the perfect divider of the word, I know you will have a honest and just answer for me.
Oh, also since those passages are in question, doesn’t that bode ill for those who believe that “The Perfect” is the Bible in
1 Cor 13:9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
How do you consider the Bible to be the perfect when you need the original Greek and Hebrew to fully understand it and parts that are in print are suspect to some because not all the early texts include them?
Conversely when we are with Jesus face to face will we need anything else to understand him and should he not be considered the perfect that Paul is talking about?
Finally since you have stated you are always ready to give a response for what you believe, when are you going to defend it against the CoC teacher who challenged you to a forum debate? Or are you going to allow yourself to be called dishonest when you make that statement again?
Thanks!
wil
Easy, walkinlove. Johnny actually had a good conversation. It started rocky, but it started to settle into a real discussion until time ran out.
to faithful:
If you’ll make a comment here that lets me know that you will engage in serious discussion like JR started doing today, and if you’ll promise not to be so disrespectful to Katherine, I’ll undo the blog ban.
I think you guys would be surprised to see the kinds of conversation that can go on here. Real discussion can happen, if we all follow the blog’s civility rule. It’s actually more the way Christians are supposed to behave. And after all, we all consider ourselves to be followers of Christ (not Chris, Christ).
“On August 13, 2008 at 10:44 am johnny Said:
no gail
I was not
I was raised up 9 by parents both in c of C
dad left the faith
mother stayed but was not really faithful to the word but went along
i left the faith at about 13
when i got married (after prison thank you Chris) i knew we had to raise our kids in some faith
i started searching
JWs got me studing for myself
i have to go”
John I have found that by sharing the really bad parts of my life I can build up others who are under the bombardment of the enemy over their pasts, by seeing that God can restore even the worst we have done, they gain a sense of hope that was not there before!
I personally have had an affair with a married woman (before I started my walk with the Lord) was involved with drugs and alcohol and hated God if he really did exist before seeing the truth! Yes I know you would disagree that I see the truth!
But do not hide your faults, we overcome by the blood of the lamb and the word of our testimony! Your prison past is part of that testimony, and God has forgiven it as you know! Your children will gain by knowledge of your mistakes if used as tools to teach them!
nathan are you there still
Johnny wrote:
“do it or we don’t go on
and tell kath not to bother posting to me I don’t read here ACC stuff”
This just seems like a need for control.
Why, Johnny-why is it that you do not read my stuff? Can you at least give me an honest answer? Would someone else mind asking this-maybe Nathan so we would know? Johhny and the crew seem to not think any of us are Christians, especially Chris-yet he will discuss with them and not me. There has to be a reason for this.
It is rather frustrating and disheartening when I am honestly trying to shine light and Biblical truth on the subject, and am just written off. I wonder if I am wasting my time.
…and Randy, Johnny, others-I know we all make grammatical errors-and I have to look past my pet peeve (yes it is mine)-but we can at least make coherent statements to actually have a discussion, and that was my main point. When you are not having a discussion in person, and it is online-it does make people look more credible when they are trying to persuade you one way or the other if they can put coherent thoughts together. I did not mean to come off as self-righteous or anything-that was never my intention.
On August 12, 2008 at 9:58 am Rick Said:
How can you have faith in the work of God before water baptism? Romans 10:9 gives the answer, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (baptism of the Holy Spirit)
Rick:
What about these verses,
Jas 2:14 ¶ What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Jas 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
and you are right “and” and “even” can be the same and even “also” “wherein also ye are risen”
I just was saying I see no need to attack Johnny for misspelling….why even bring it up?? Anyways, lets get back to the issue of authority – binding examples
On August 13, 2008 at 10:25 am Rick Said:
yes you can say Baptist “binding” of Sunday worship (not forshaking assembly) stems from the Ten Commandments amended by the Resurrection Sunday.
Rick:
Would that not be a “WORK”?
Johnny,
I’m here, but not for long. Did you talk to faithful?
nathan why dont we go to chat and then you post it all on here later?
There is no such thing as the “Presbyterian faith”, or the “Presbyterian religion”.
There is no such thing as the “Baptist faith”, or the “Baptist religion”.
There is no such thing as the “Pentecostal faith”, or the “Pentecostal religion”
There is no such thing as the “Methodist faith”, or the “Methodist religion”.
There is no such thing as the “Roman Catholic faith”, or the “Roman Catholic religion”.
There is no such thing as the “Eastern Orthodox faith”, or the “Eastern Orthodox religion”.
There is no such thing as the “Mennonite faith”, or the “Mennonite religion”.
There is no such thing as the “Quaker faith”, or the “Quaker religion”.
There is nothing wrong with being a Presbyterian, a Baptist, a Methodist, a Pentecostal, a Roman Catholic, or any other so-called “denomination”.
All these are, all these ever were to begin with, are aspects of something that is not even proper to call the “Christian religion” to begin with.
That there exist so many aspects should be considered a good thing. It means that for all of our intellect and reasoning, none of us can comprehend the fullness of God’s wonder and majesty, or the depth of His mercy and grace. It is as much an admission of human frailty as it is an acknowledgment of the incomprehensible nature of God.
And we don’t have to try to fully comprehend Him, either.
The only thing there was ever supposed to be, is faith in Jesus Christ.
How do we “be obedient” and “remain faithful” to Christ? Nothing more is required of us than what is succinctly given in Galatians 5:14…
“The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
That is how we demonstrate to the world around us that we possess the greatest possible truth in a world replete with lies and folly: that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that we might live despite our fallen nature.
Not by baptism. Not by communion. Not by anything else that does not matter. Such are things that ultimately, if they are absent of love, are to be bound and thrown into the fire to be consumed with everything else that will not stand the test.
To say that one’s mission is to “defeat destroy” an aspect of that faith is in many ways a worse thing than to say that one’s aim is to “defeat destroy” by act of violence. Because such a notion has already been at the root of much of the murder and violence that has marred the history of man for six recorded millenia.
Who are any of us to say that if another is earnestly seeking Christ, for sake of Christ and His glory, that the perspective of that person is wrong and must be “defeated” and “destroyed”?
Does not stating such a thing declare to all that the perspective of the very person who is intent on “defeating and destroying” is anathema to Christ and what He has done for us?
Who is this person, that his or her own perspective is not also likewise subject to judgment?
Christ did not die for Baptists or Pentecostals or Catholics, and Christ did not die for the so-called “Church of Christ” either. Christ died for all. The only requirement left is that we might believe on Him and accept His grace.
If we sincerely seek to “love one another” then that alone is sufficient testimony of our life in His grace.
We don’t have to change our nature to be perfect for God. We need only to let Him begin. God is already working to change our nature. It won’t be finished in this earthly life… and we don’t have to expect it to be.
Let’s chat here, and just ask everyone else to read and not post until we’re done. But again, just a warning, that I’m not going to be able to be on much longer. Maybe another 30 minutes max.
our thread
On August 13, 2008 at 10:21 am johnny Said:
Nathan
I am really working on what is binding right now
I believe it can be established that your faith system holds a particular set of rules
How did they come to those
this is exactly the same with Rick for instance
they have a scripture that is the reason for why a thing is done
In your system (at least if you are Presbyterian) they have used Heb 10:25 to make first day worship binding
not that they find the 1st day in Heb 10:25 but they find that else where… but the binding of it every first day is from Heb 10:25
my point is coming if we can move on this
if you find somewhere that the first day of the week is the worship day and historically the command has been Heb 10:25 don’t forsake it?
don’t forsake has been able to keep church goers faithful for years but it does not say every week yet the preacher is there week in week out
1cor 11:25 says as oft as you take it
Historically first day of the week has been the Communion day whether ever 1st day or not depending on what system you were brought up in
why does Heb 10:25 bring them out every first day
but 1Cor 11:25 does not?
I know the answer to this, I am asking you to tell me from your vantage point
Randy, I was not attacking anyone for misspelling. I did not bring it up today-he did. I was just stating that it is helpful when ANY of us in a discussion complete their thoughts in a coherent mannerso that the discussion can continue. There is nothing wrong with taking the time to do so. That is merely logical and in the broad sense. I will back off on the spelling issue.
I would love to discuss Biblical issues if they will actually read what I say. Otherwise, I am out.
But Heb 10:25 doesn’t “bring them out every first day”. It says that they shouldn’t forsake the assembly of believers. The person who says that this is every first day is bringing his assumption into that based on the earlier passage of Acts.
Or am I missing your point?
Katherine,
As far as I’m concerned, you are welcome to participate. But, I think we should hold the conversation to a maximum of three, so that it wouldn’t get confusing.
Johnny?
On August 11, 2008 at 2:49 pm Rick Said:
My Point, faithful, is that those locations are part of the Church of Christ just like Vandola Baptist is part of the Church of Christ (the Church of Christ being made up of all born again baptized believers in Jesus Christ).
Rick:
The community is loving this.
next sunday you can tell all the folks at vandola that they can assemble with the catholic church, methodist church, jehovahs witness church,or where ever they choose, you can even tell them they can go to “faith memorial” which I dont understand why you all dont merge any how, They have a much larger entertainment hall, but I am sure the jehovahs witness would say you have to call it the kingdom hall.
Ac 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Mt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
I know that Nathan,
I said they establish 1st day assembly from other passages
you said that above so did I
the question
how is it Heb 10:25 has kept them coming every week
it does not say every week
yet it IS the verse that has kept them coming to the assembly once they figured out what day it was
be it as Rick said from “amending” the 10 commmandment
which I disagree that is not how it was established
yet Heb 10:25 does not say every
yet it is the verse that keeps them coming
I am working on consistency here
“tithes” is not commanded every week but what keeps it coming every week?
my point is that religions have worked out a weekly observance of things they deem and without CLEAR commands,
they have reasoned to it and adhere zealously to tithes and Sunday assembly
There is just as much reason to adhere to 1st day, “every first day” communion as there is to 1st day assembly or tithes
yet 1st assembly and tithes gets adhered to and we are off for saying that communion is as easy to bind as the other two
i am not through i am just letting this go out to you
If Johnny wants to keep this conversation between the two of you, that is fine.
I would just like an answer as to why they choose not to engage me over everyone else. I have shown no reason to be a “false Christian” yet that is what I have been labeled. You typically need evidence to back up such a statement. If it is because I do not line up with their beliefs or condemnation of others-neither do most of the people posting here, yet he will engage with them. What is the difference?
I don’t disagree with you, Johnny. Where our point of disagreement would come would be with what happens to a person that doesn’t adhere zealously to the idea of the Lord’s Supper being observed each first day of the week – ESPECIALLY when there isn’t a clear command.
I say this because it is my understanding that you would teach that a person could lose his or her salvation if they don’t take communion every first day of the week. Am I mistaken with this understanding?
That’s a good question, Katherine. Maybe Johnny will take a moment and answer.
“Ac 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
Yes, T.D.-great verse! Salvation is ONLY found through Jesus Christ-not through the “church of Christ”. We can only be found and saved through HIM, and THEN we are added to His church, the body of believers.
The gates of hell will never prevail against the CHURCH-which is God’s people, but that is simply not limited to and never will be tied up in a church that has the name “church of Christ” outside the door.
Rick is actually speaking the truth-people who are in Christ are IN CHRIST. People gather at different “locations”, but they are still Christians saved by the blood and grace of Christ. Period. You can choose to accept them as your brothers and sisters or you can choose not to-but that does not change the face that God has saved them. You just cannot boil that down to a denomination-it is not logical or Biblical.
Nathan
before I answer that… am I wrong then that tithing would not be a requirement every 1st day (with you and others)
and that people who refuse it would be in some form of rebellion
my reason for asking this is to make sure I have clear what you hold as binding
T D
Kathrine is Paul that you all had to follow through with 2thes 3:6
she is from an apostate church of Christ
that is why I don’t answer her
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
tithes” is not commanded every week but what keeps it coming every week?
my point is that religions have worked out a weekly observance of things they deem and without CLEAR commands,
- I will say Johnny has raised a good point here…I never thought about it like that
Tithing is not a requirement every first day. I’ve heard you teach and also I agree that tithing is an Old Testament concept. The NT doesn’t command or teach that Christians should submit to this sort of legalistic system. You know the verses on giving in the NT. It’s actually so much more freeing, because you give what you can out of a heart filled with having received so much. 2 Cor 9:7
And by the way, the churches that I’ve attended don’t bind a person to tithing. They recommend the tithe as a minimum amount to give – based on the teachings of the OT – but they didn’t police it.
Maybe sometime you can also explain what makes the church of Christ where Katherine assembles “apostate”, Johnny.
“Kathrine is Paul that you all had to follow through with 2thes 3:6
she is from an apostate church of Christ
that is why I don’t answer her”
Can you unpack this some more?
Is is because I do not adhere to the “church of Christ” being the one true church? No, I don’t believe that and don’t put my faith in that. I put my faith in Christ and HIM ALONE.
Why do you think I am from an “apostate church of Christ”? You don’t even know where I attend! You need more evidence than that.
Why will you answer and engage with those who are in other denominations, but not one who is in your own fellowship? That does not make much sense.
Is it because you are afraid that those in your church of Christ might actually see the truth I am proclaiming?
my point is that religions have worked out a weekly observance of things they deem and without CLEAR commands,
- I will say Johnny has raised a good point here…I never thought about it like that
…and I will agree this is a good point. I believe there are beliefs and observances in every denomination that have come about without clear commands or inferences. We are certainly not alone in that matter. My main problem lies is when we take those inferences and bind them on others as tests of fellowships and as things that will hinder their salvation if they do not adhere to our understanding or interpretation.
There are definitely clear Biblical commands which we should obey. To ignore them is not right. But, to make Biblical commands out of things that were never implicitly commanded and then bind them on others as “Gospel truth” and condemn them through that is also wrong.
Johnny, I know you may not reply to Kat, nor me. But, she has raised the very questions we all here have ask. The main problem lies is when we take those inferences and bind them on others as tests of fellowships and as things that will hinder their salvation if they do not adhere to our understanding or interpretation. There are definitely clear Biblical commands which we should obey. To ignore them is not right. But, to make Biblical commands out of things that were never implicitly commanded and then bind them on others as “Gospel truth” and condemn them through that is also wrong.
Guess JR had another appointment. Pity! Good start of a conversation. Everyone else, please carry on the conversation if you’d like, we can carry it on.
On August 13, 2008 at 1:04 pm Katherine Said:
Is is because I do not adhere to the “church of Christ” being the one true church? No, I don’t believe that and don’t put my faith in that. I put my faith in Christ and HIM ALONE.
This is the last time Katherine, You cannot be “In Christ” without being in the Church of Christ, just as you cannot legally be in the U.S. Military and be a Russian soldier.
Eph 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
TD, help us understand why the Lords Supper is binding each Sunday. What makes it binding? There are other examples that the early church done, why aren’t they binding?
I do have to point out-it is interesting that Johnny is willing to debate and discuss with people from every other denomination-but when it comes to his own-he doesn’t want to bite. Take Corey who he automatically deemed a liberal even though he agreed with the majority of their doctrine-but would not condemn others, Clint-who offered him a debate which never came to fruition, and then me-who he believes to be a “fake Christian” and in an “apostate church of Christ”-though he does not even know where I attend.
If he really does see us as liberal, apostate, non-Christians-then would he not want to help us, too? Or does it come back to his goal of really trying to destroy denominations?
Shouldn’t our goal be to help people come to Christ and souls won over defeating denominations? What about the one sheep Jesus went after when he had 99 in his care? Why aren’t we looking around for those who are lost instead of those we disagree with?
Just something that popped in my head-food for thought…
T.D. said:
This is the last time Katherine, You cannot be “In Christ” without being in the Church of Christ, just as you cannot legally be in the U.S. Military and be a Russian soldier.
Eph 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
If by this you mean, we cannot be IN CHRIST without the CHURCH of Christ-I agree (as in the spiritual Church of Christ). If you mean that we cannot be in Christ without being in the Martinsville, or 10th and Main, or _________ church of Christ-then no, that is far FAR from true.
God is the ONE who adds us to HIS church. The church IS His body-the one body, made up of ALL of His disciples. You cannot limit that to one earthly church or denomination. We can either choose to accept our brothers and sisters in Christ, or we can not-but if we do not, we are only causing damage to the cause of Christ, Jesus’ prayer for unity, and the spiritual warfare that is attacking us daily-we have enough arrows from the evil one thrown at us for us to be slashing our own brothers and sisters over interpretational differences.
Take Corey who he automatically deemed a liberal even though he agreed with the majority of their doctrine
Please just leave me out of this discussion. I have contacted Johnny personally about the things that were said here. I know I said things I shouldn’t have and I’ve apologized to him for those things. He proved himself to be very understanding & gracious and I thank him for it.
If you have something ongoing with him, you can deal with it however you choose, but I hope people will respect my wishes to not be brought into this.
Corey
On August 13, 2008 at 1:23 pm churchesofChrist Said:
TD, help us understand why the Lords Supper is binding each Sunday. What makes it binding? There are other examples that the early church done, why aren’t they binding?
Ac 20:7 ¶ And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
How many weeks have a first day?
I’m sorry-Corey, I was not trying to bring you in or make Johnny say anything towards you. I was just thinking about the people Johnny had not engaged on here that were part of the church of Christ, and you were one who came to mind.
I did not mean to cause any problems, and will leave you out of the discussion from now on.
I hope you are doing well.
“46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people.” (NIV, Acts 2:46-47)
Here is an example where the early church met daily – shall I infer this to be binding?
Acts tells us that the early primitive Jerusalem church practiced a form of communal worship that included shared ownership of property:
“32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. 36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.” (NIV, Acts 4:32-37)
“44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.” (NIV, Acts 2:44-47)
Here is another example – shall we make this a command for the churches today?
“On August 13, 2008 at 12:51 pm johnny Said:
T D
Kathrine is Paul that you all had to follow through with 2thes 3:6
she is from an apostate church of Christ
that is why I don’t answer her”
2 Thes 3:6 has NOTHING to do with Apostate Church, its about idleness!
2 Thes 3:6In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”
11We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. 13And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right.
14If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. 15Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.
John how do you attach the two????
Often it appears that churches pick-and-choose the “approved precedents” that best fit their circumstances.
“Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts.”
This is an explicitly stated example with apostolic approval. These Christians assembled every day in the temple courts. Yet few if any churches of Christ today consider this practice binding on the modern day church. If there were counterexamples where the scriptures stated a different frequency of meeting, it would be understandable that the Acts 2:46a example would not be binding. But that is not the case. Apparently either there are more subtle clues that tell us which cases should be taken as binding and which should not, or else the principle of examples has not been applied consistently.
I think all would agree that it is at least permissible for a church to assemble every day, based on Acts 2:46a.
Heb 3:12-13 might suggest that daily assembly is not merely optional. This passage contains a command to encourage daily (not merely an example) but it does not indicate that the encouragement must be performed in an assembly of the church. Heb 10:25 does indicate that encouragement should happen in the assembly, but not that it only occurs there. So the Hebrews passages at most would provide a possibility to infer daily assembly.
So a requirement for the church to meet daily would stand or fall based on the merits of Acts 2:46a alone, depending on whether or not examples with apostolic approval are binding.
TD, FAITHFUL…WHERE ARE YOU
Answer the above, please.
On August 13, 2008 at 1:29 pm Katherine Said:
God is the ONE who adds us to HIS church. The church IS His body-the one body, made up of ALL of His disciples.
Joh 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
Joh 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.
Joh 14:15 ¶ If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Katherine:
Did Jesus ever anywhere authorize us to use mechanical instruments in worship?
Did Jesus ever command us to tithe?
Does Jesus authorize a woman to preach?
Does Jesus authorize us to take the Lords supper on sat?
Does Jesus give the qualifications of Elders or does Joseph Smith?
Did you ever hear Jesus say worship at the church of your choice?
Mr 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Did Jesus say He that believeth is saved and may or may not be baptized?
Katherine, if you cannot answer these questions honestly, theres not much use in continuing.
Gotta Go
our thread
(my bank just made a big error i had to go)
On August 13, 2008 at 12:49 pm johnny Said:
Nathan
before I answer that… am I wrong then that tithing would not be a requirement every 1st day (with you and others)
and that people who refuse it would be in some form of rebellion
my reason for asking this is to make sure I have clear what you hold as binding
then randy said
On August 13, 2008 at 1:00 pm answeringchurchofchrist Said:
And by the way, the churches that I’ve attended don’t bind a person to tithing. They recommend the tithe as a minimum amount to give – based on the teachings of the OT – but they didn’t police it.
and made my point exactly
some churches do bind this and they will not let you into their fellowship but you can go to heaven
we say this is petty.
everyone bunches up according to what they see as binding and it seems OK to you all
but we all will be in heaven this way?
or God will work it out then?
NO!
nathan lets get going again if we could I am writing the 2nd part to post this morning
Maybe Johnny is right about there being a pattern for the church…but do we take our assumptions and inferences and make them part of Gods pattern. What right do I to take an example and bind it upon others? Either we take every example of the early church or we pick and choose. My question Johnny is what examples are binding and what examples are not….who gets the play God and make that call ?
Here is where we were
we were discussing that
Heb 10:25 is used to keep them coming
they all figured out somehow (Rick says amendment theology of 10 Comm.) that Sabbt. is not binding and 1st day is.
SO they are coming week in week out, and the preacher dare not act like the laity.
Yet ….. 1Cor 11:25 says as much as Heb 10:25 but everyone says it does not matter if you have it every week
be honest (I am not saying you are not) what if some preacher says “Heb 10:25 does not have frequency, so come whenever you want to!”
where would 1st day worship be? Where would your finances be
you see… you all have made 1st day binding and everyone knows it. You may claim it is not but I challenge Rick to get up and say come every quarter as is said about communion.
The exact same thing you all are saying about communion can be said about 1st day assembly
so what do we do?
We do with communion what someone in your system before you were born did with 1st day
we figured it out
but you reject one part while accepting the other with the exact same amount of scripture
Randy you are wrong on this
there are examples in the NT that no one would agree upon, but were done
Jesus told his disciples to go untie an animal and if the owner said anything just say the lord has need of it
would you try this?
no!
why because common sense tells us that it was not really an “example” rather it is an account of action.
All accounts of action are not examples that are bound upon every one
Randy,
I think that most things must be looked at on a case-by-case basis, and then weighing them with the rest of scriptures. You pointed to Acts 4 and Acts 2 specifically.
Look at Acts 4. Should the selling of one’s property be a binding example? Let me ask this – if that is a binding example, which apostle’s feet will you lay your money at? You see, this is impossible as there is no apostle living to take and distribute the money, meaning this cannot be a binding example.
Now look at Acts 2. Are we bound to meet daily? The rest of scriptures that give us specific details about worship show us that 3 things are shown to be done specifically on Sunday – preaching, giving and taking the Lord’s Supper. This would mean that when the other passages refer to acts of worship (praying and singing), that they would logically be done on Sunday as well. If worship is to be offered on Sunday, then other times of study, sharing a meal, or simply spending time with one another could be done on any, or every, other day. We have an example of such in Acts 2, as you pointed out.
Is this too simplistic? Not clear enough? I’m just trying to help out, but I’m sure Johnny can explain it better.
Randy
since you spoke up let me ask you then
would you think anyone who does tithe (Rick for instance) would agree, since it is not binding, that it can be a quarterly event or bi-annual?
I know no one will adhere to this.
someone please answer if Rick or anyone would preach that since they have no “binding” example nor command as to which 1st day is to be assembled upon , would it be OK to go to bi annual assembly as is done with communion?
T.D. said:
“Joh 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
Joh 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.
Joh 14:15 ¶ If ye love me, keep my commandments.”
Absolutely!!! We obey God because we love Him. We love others-even our enemies-because we love him, and because He first loved us.
Read the verse again: By this all men will know you are my disciples, if ye have love to one another”.
How is attacking and trying to prove you are right showing love? Loving one another means just that-loving each other-even in our differences.
Many of the questions you asked are not direct commands. We ARE to follow His direct commands. It is when we make examples or inferences into commands that God never placed where it becomes very tricky-especially when we take them and judge or condemn others for their beliefs.
I can answer your questions honestly-but just because we do not agree does not mean we cannot discuss. EVERYthing I believe is based on the WORD of GOD…NOT man, NOT woman-but what God has said. If that does not fall in line with “traditional beliefs” of my faith heritage-I will always ALWAYS go with what God has said over anyone’s interpretation.
The truth will always be truth. Nothing we can do or say can or will change that. That is why we have to constantly be seeking and searching for it-not furthering our own agendas, not setting out to prove everyone wrong so we can somehow puff up our pride-but getting down to the simple, beautiful message of Jesus Christ and His free gift of salvation offered to ALL who will believe. We cannot place stumbling blocks in the way of people trying to get to Him-or we bring condemnation on ourselves.
randy rick are you still there
T.D said he had to go
I know, I was just responding to him so when he does come back. When he comes back, I will answer his questions.
Randy
My question Johnny is what examples are binding and what examples are not….who gets the play God and make that call ?
I believe you all let others play God with people.
you demonstrate how 1st day assembly can be bound and I will use the same to bind communion while there.
No one on this site will advocate bi-annual assembly.
there is as much proof for every first day communion as there is for every 1st assembly.
if every 1st day assembly is not binding then bi-annual is accepted since there is really NO bound frequency
the preacher can show up if he wants to or not
well lets leave him out he is paid to be there , and he would nt miss that would he?
Johnny, I understand your point. I will even ask those on here about the mode of baptism, where is it commanded to dip one in the water, or do we infer from examples that one is dipped not sprinkled. After all there are scriptures stating “much water” and “walking down into the water.” We all here deem these to be examples of the proper mode of baptism….right? I do understand where you are coming from Johnny.
OK it s Wed and class (not binding) and TV at 9 (also not binding) but important to me
have a nice rest of day
Johnny (Jekyll)
I even understand where you are coming from, and agree that we should assemble weekly and take communion together weekly. It is a blessing and honor to do so, and I am grateful for those times.
Where I don’t agree is that is the ONLY time this can take place. If they met with each other and communed daily, why is that so wrong for today?
Katherine
I just can’t stay
obligations call
I think the difference is – Kat says we “should” and Johnny says we “must” take the Lords Supper, meaning if we do not adhere to it being binding i.e., a must, then we are doomed to hell. Kat, can you explain why it’s a “should” and not a “must”?
Actually Randy
I think Rick says we must and not we should on tithe and assemble
or at least he would not digress to bi-annual assembly and tithe
so who is being consistent?
we are
we are saying that giving (1Cor 16:1-2 style) assembly and communion are all found to have the same importance
ask anyone you can find to affirm
Bi annual assembly or tithe
and they will be out of business
yet we have all agreed today there is as much authority for every 1st day Communion as assembly and tithe
btw the reason I am still here is I am using this tonite so I saw your post
randy said
MAYBE YOU ALREADY HAVE LOANED THESE BEFORE TO _________
think you might have picked up on something, havent you Johnny ?
randy I never loan reference books\never
could you help me on this?
I knew this might be used for the show…I am sure nobody here minds.
it will be fair
not trying to make fun
create interest
help some see what is going on
did you see rick contradict you all?
well i sure missed a lot this afternoon.. will take a while to read and absorb all of this. I came in on this last post by Johnny:
On August 13, 2008 at 5:24 pm johnny Said:
it will be fair
not trying to make fun
create interest
help some see what is going on
did you see rick contradict you all?
so what is this (did you see rick contradict you all?) in reference to?
in all sincerity i wish that what i have been reading
is the shape of things to come. but alas i know that
the truce will be short lived. as soon as the guards are
dropped and something is said that can be used as fodder
for the cannon, all bets are off.
johnny already showed his hand as he said he is trying to undo a presbyterian.
when he realizes that he is participating in a discussion and not a new christian class he will change
into his former self. i wonder how long it will take.
lee
You might be right, lee, but meanwhile, we can have a discussion without letting it descend. In other words, if it is going to descend, let it come from someone else.
Anyone get a chance to watch the program?
yes obie wann.
and it aint no might.
lee
By the way, reading over the posts since I was here last, I see where Johnny is coming from to a point. I can understand why he teaches that the Lord’s Supper should be observed each first day of the week. I don’t think that it is “binding”. And I cannot understand how it gets turned into a salvation issue.
theres the rub. it could be any difference and that
would be a salvation issue.
as you would be rebellious.
lee
On August 13, 2008 at 10:25 am Rick Said:
yes you can say Baptist “binding” of Sunday worship (not forshaking assembly) stems from the Ten Commandments amended by the Resurrection Sunday.
I am assuming that this is what JR is referencing to when it said, “did you see rick contradict you all?”
So I should expound it..
I will admit I expressed that too loosely, guess I will need to be more direct and explicit in my responses to JR. Noticed I put quotation marks around the word binding. I did so because it was a word that JR was using in his discussions today and not necessarily mine. I personally think that the desire to worship God comes from a heart that has a love relationship with God and a respect for His Holy Word.
Baptist observance of Sunday Worship has its roots in God’s command as found in the 10 Commandments to remember the Sabbath Day (most accept Saturday as the Sabbath day). Sunday worship came to pass as the day of worship because of the resurrection of Jesus on Sunday (thus I loosely used the word amended).
I can see where JR is coming from as well, but I must ask Is it the pot calling the kettle black? If his ultimate point is that denominations adhere to some “bindings” and not others, I would say it appears that He does the same on some issues.
Is “binding” a word used commonly in the church of Christ? It’s not a word used commonly in my experience outside of the cofC. I’ve always heard more about the freedom we have in Christ, then in the ways that we are bound by Christ.
I just did a quick word search of the NT, and looked up “bound”, “bind”, and “binding”, and didn’t find any references about Christians being bound by doctrine or the “law of Christ”.
I did find, however:
Jhn 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free
Jhn 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. [being "bound" to Christ could be extrapolated from this]
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. [again, "bound" to the law of Christ could be extrapolated from this]
1Cr 7:22 For he that is called in the Lord, [being] a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, [being] free, is Christ’s servant.
1Cr 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. [This one is very bad for the proponents of being "bound"]
Good quick research
rom 14:22 hast thou faith? have it to thyself and before god.
johnny leaves us no room to make any decisions.
he wants to make them for us.
lee
In regards to JR’s, TD’s and faithful’s attitude and treatment of Kat… I would have to agree with Kat’s estimation of it. you read it above On August 13, 2008 at 1:24 pm Katherine Said:
On August 13, 2008 at 8:17 pm rick Said:
I can see where JR is coming from as well, but I must ask Is it the pot calling the kettle black? If his ultimate point is that denominations adhere to some “bindings” and not others, I would say it appears that He does the same on some issues
- I agree, and this is why I ask Johnny to explain what is “binding” and what is not…and why. Clearly there are more examples of the early church, even within the very context of Acts 7. And, who gets to decide what is “binding”? I could just as easily read that the early church met daily and call that binding; same thing people are doing in regards to Acts 20:7.
oops meant Acts 20 above….
Johnny, let’s assume that the early church did partake of the Lords Supper each Sunday – did they do so because of some binding law? Or, did they do so because of their love for Jesus? Did they forbid the Lords Supper on another day ?? If so, prove this. Did they condemn others to hell who didnt keep the sabbath…oops, the day of Sunday-the Lords Supper? What is sin? What law/command would be broken if I honored Jesus Thursday by partaking the Lords Supper ?? Can I partake of the Lords Supper each Thursday and each Sunday?
Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. These Christians assembled every day in the temple courts. Okay, I infer that since they met daily, we should too, and I deem this example as binding. ( stay with me a minute )
I think all would agree that it is at least permissible ( per the example ) for the church to assemble every day, based on Acts 2:46. But, do I really have the right to make it binding upon everyone?
And on the first of the week, the disciples having been gathered together to break bread…
I think all would agree that it is at least permissible ( per the example ) for the church to break bread on the first day of the week, based on Acts 20:7. But, do I really have the right to make it binding upon everyone?
Heb 3:12-13 might suggest that daily assembly is not merely optional. This passage contains a command to encourage daily (not merely an example) but it does not indicate that the encouragement must be performed in an assembly of the church. Heb 10:25 does indicate that encouragement should happen in the assembly, but not that it only occurs there. So the Hebrews passages at most would provide a possibility to infer daily assembly. BTW, this card was pulled yesterday, attempting to make a connection, so I will pull out the same card and “infer” that we meet daily.
The use of the word “binding” in matters of doctrine comes from this verse:
Matthew 16:19
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
Jesus said that whatever the apostles BIND as teaching would have already been BOUND in Heaven. In other words, they would be guided to bind teachings that God had already decided to bind from Heaven.
If there is a direct command or example from the apostles we know that we are bound to follow it because it came to them from God.
On the Lord’s Supper:
1 Cor 10:17Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
Is the above a literal statement, meaning the crackers that are served today are wrong? Meaning, Jesus body was broken before we could take part of it, we broke his body because of our sin, if our breaking of bread is to symbolize that process and also symbolize our unity should we not be breaking the bread into parts as was done at the feast of passover instead of buying crackers that are already broken? That would seem to lose some of the symbolism would it not?
1 Cor 11:17In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!
Conversely in the above passages there appears to be something else going on, he speaks of some being hungry, does that indicate that people brought their own bread to break or that some were using the bread as regular food and not leaving enough for all?
And finally since the breaking of the bread and the cup were given after a meal was eaten should we not be eating together as a body of believers and then break the bread to give thanks for the body etc.?
In verse 33So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.
And when I come I will give further directions.
It would appear that the practice was not a meal but perhaps some were using it as such and that is why this was written.
Anyone care to shed some light on this?
Also how does the following factor into this process if at all:
1 cor 10:23″Everything is permissible”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible”—but not everything is constructive. 24Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.
25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”[c]
27If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28But if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience’ sake[d]— 29the other man’s conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience? 30If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?
31So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.
Thanks!
WIL
Thanks Corey. Here is my problem with this – who decides what is “binding”? Who has the right to take the example at Troas and assume it was “law binding” much like the Sabbath? The real beef I have is when we go as far as making this an issue of salvation. Sin is transgressing the law of God, how would honoring Christ through the Lords Supper …say each Thursday and each Sunday, be sinful? I see no clear command to have the Lords Supper each Sunday, from a legal code viewpoint. I see a group at Troas honoring Jesus on a particular weekend out of love, not because it was commanded. I also see no problem if a group today honored Christ each day partaking the Lords Supper, if they so chose. I cant call it a sin ( transgressing the law of God ) if I from love chose to honor Christ more than Sunday.
Walkinlove,
You are exactly correct about what was going on with the Lord’s Supper. Some were treating it like a common meal and not sharing. Some were gluttonous while some got nothing.
As far as the loaf and the breaking of it – the “crackers” (matzos) are unleavened bread. A “cracker” is a “loaf” of unleavened bread. At my congregation we do break off our own portion, mindful of leaving enough for others. I think that is a simple way of trying to follow the given example.
As to sharing a meal before, I think that was part of the original problem. Paul wrote, “don’t you have homes in which to eat and drink?” In other words, I think the eating of a meal should not occur around the Lord’s Supper as it adds to the confusion and problems that Paul was addressing. We have an example of such, but we see the inspired apostle rebuking the problems associated with it, so it isn’t an example we should follow.
As to the last passage you posted, it has nothing to do with the Lord’s Supper, but the dietary restrictions that were prevalent in that time. If you’ll read two chapters before (1 Cor. 8), Paul sheds more light on the subject. It is the same subject addressed in Romans 14, so it is clear that it was much more of an issue then than today. That said, if you had a convert from Islam, you might have to be careful what you ate around them until they are strengthened in their knowledge that all foods are permissible today.
Here is my problem with this – who decides what is “binding”?
According to the passage I posted, God decides.
how would honoring Christ through the Lords Supper …say each Thursday and each Sunday, be sinful?
Can you find a clear example of someone taking the Lord’s Supper on a day other than the day they all came together? I know that the generic “breaking of bread” causes some confusion, so we should balance that with the clear passages that refer to the Lord’s Supper, like 1 Corinthians 11. That will show us what the “breaking of bread” in Acts 20 is.
I also see no problem if a group today honored Christ each day partaking the Lords Supper, if they so chose
This is where the church of Christ differs from so many groups. Without a scriptural example or command I find no authority for such. Let me go back to what some pioneer preachers called “the way that is safe and sure” – I can find clear examples of Sunday observances of the Lord’s Supper. I can find no example of it taken on another day. I can be certain that a Sunday observance is acceptable, while I can have no certainty on any other day. Why now would I want to go beyond what is written?
I cant call it a sin ( transgressing the law of God ) if I from love chose to honor Christ more than Sunday.
No one is saying you can’t honor God every day. We are commanded to honor Him every day in the way that we live. As you have no command or example to honor Him by taking the Lord’s Supper on a day other than Sunday, we must do that only on the acceptable day – Sunday.
I will point out that there are plenty of unbiased, historical, non-biblical sources that show us that the Lord’s Supper was taken each Sunday and that it was an important part of the early Christians worship. While these sources have no authority, they do reinforce what we can already see in the scriptures. There is no source, biblical or otherwise, of the early Christians taking the Lord’s Supper on a day other than Sunday that I know of.
Corey, I am not denying that the Lords Supper was taken on Sunday by other groups than the ones at Troas, nor am I saying we shouldn’t. Please address the part about it being sinful to partake the Lords Supper each Thursday and each Sunday, you came short of calling that sin. You basically are saying we should “play it safe” by following example of the group at Troas. Could not I say we should play it safe and meet every day, seeing its also an example of the early church? Okay, back to the sin connection – you deem from the example of Troas that the prescribed day for the Lords Supper is Sunday – if I were to take the Lords Supper each Thursdays and each Sunday, you would say I am adding to the bible and not following the prescribed day, right ? So, can you honestly say it would be a sin if I honored Jesus via the Lords Supper each Thursday and each Sunday? Please explain how that would transgress the law of God – and be sinful. Will I be sent to hell for honoring Jesus each Thursday and each Sunday by partaking the Lords Supper both days each week? I know you cant play God, but if this is truly sinful, I would say it would send one to hell, seeing I rebelled against the example of Troas…which I assumed/inferred to be the prescribed day one should partake of the Lords Supper.
You basically are saying we should “play it safe” by following example of the group at Troas
I don’t want you to get that impression that I simply think we should “play it safe”. I’m just trying to give a simple way of looking at it.
if I were to take the Lords Supper each Thursdays and each Sunday, you would say I am adding to the bible and not following the prescribed day, right ? So, can you honestly say it would be a sin if I honored Jesus via the Lords Supper each Thursday and each Sunday? Please explain how that would transgress the law of God – and be sinful. Will I be sent to hell for honoring Jesus each Thursday and each Sunday by partaking the Lords Supper both days each week? I know you cant play God, but if this is truly sinful, I would say it would send one to hell, seeing I rebelled against the example of Troas…which I assumed/inferred to be the prescribed day one should partake of the Lords Supper.
Why would you want to take it on Thursday (and not Sunday) when you have no example of such? That is really what is at stake here – why would we want to take it on a day for which we have no example? Just to change things up, for convenience, to just be different? This is what I’m talking about – the heart of one who wants to change it, yet for no discernible reason. Why is it so important?
This is the same for those who don’t take of the Lord’s Supper each first day of the week. Why not? As often as we do that we remember the Lord in His death according to Paul. Is that not worth remembering but monthly, quarterly or annually? Where is the heart of one who would do so? Like Johnny pointed out, that collection is going to be taken every Sunday no matter what. Why would we insist upon that but neglect remembering the death of our savior?
Is that a sinful attitude? Yes, I think it is and I can’t even begin to understand it. Is it sinful to want to add to the biblical example and take of the Lord’s Supper anytime we wish? Yes, I think it is and again, I just don’t understand why anyone would want to do as much.
I feel like you want me to say that this will send you to Hell so people can say, “look how absurd! He wants to send people to Hell over how often they take the Lord’s Supper!” Then I can be vilified and the point is lost. The fact is that sin separates us from God and it is sin that sends us to Hell. To view the Lord’s Supper as insignificant (by comparison) and to want to go beyond the word for the sake of pleasing self is sinful. I’ll let you do the math on that. I know this sounds harsh, and I don’t mean it to be so, but I simply can’t understand where people are coming from in the instances you’ve laid out.
What fallible being has the right to take their inferences/assumptions from an example and use the “play it safe” card and call it something one MUST do, or be lost?
What is sin ? Transgressing the law of God
Where are we given a law or command to meet daily? No where
Where are we given an example of the early church meeting daily? Acts 2:46
Where are we given a law or command to partake the Lords Supper each Sunday? No where
Where are we given an example of the early church partaking in the Lords Supper on Sunday? Acts 20:7
If anyone has the right to pick Acts 20:7 and make it binding or a command, I have the same right to take Acts 2:46 and make it binding.
Well, I have to step out a bit. Thanks Corey for the input…too bad others do not take note.
Kat, Lee, Rick, Walkinglove, Truth…any of you guys want contribute to this conversation with Corey? I need to step out for an hour. Kat, you’re pretty familiar with the “law of silence”…care to address this ?
Corey said: “Is that a sinful attitude? Yes, I think it is and I can’t even begin to understand it. Is it sinful to want to add to the biblical example and take of the Lord’s Supper anytime we wish? Yes, I think it is and again, I just don’t understand why anyone would want to do as much.”
Because they love God. Plain and simple. You can’t even begin to understand why someone would want to participate in communion other than Sunday, and I cannot understand why they would not (unless it would violate their conscience somehow). How do you get communing with God anytime a sin?
Corey, you also said:
“That is really what is at stake here – why would we want to take it on a day for which we have no example? Just to change things up, for convenience, to just be different? This is what I’m talking about – the heart of one who wants to change it, yet for no discernible reason. Why is it so important?”
I agree that this is a sinful attitude, to do something just for the sake of “This is how I want to”. But, I don’t think that is what is at stake here-though that is how you often see it.
It is the heart that matters. I cannot possibly imagine how God would look down and condemn someone who desires to commune with Him and His people on a day other than Sunday. That is going back to the letters of the law.
Yes, we have an example of them gathering to “break the bread” on Sunday, but they also met daily. Who are we to assume that we can only take communion on Sunday and any other day would be a sin?
I have to say I have not heard the Law of Silence used before, but then I am from a liberal church being that is pentecostal in it’s beliefs. But I read this and while it certianly is anti-CoC in nature since the author has stopped the pratice I was wondering if it held up key points of the issues:
http://www.freedomsring.org/86feature.html
Read this WIL – this is from a Church of Chrit preacher in Tx. He and I have emailed each other a bit…he and Johnny have talked too.
http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx228.htm
http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx269.htm
Hey walkinlove,
I wanted to address some of your questions about the meal being mixed in with the Lord’s Supper.
“When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!”
Before partaking of the Lord’s Supper, they would take part in what was typically called a “love feast” or Agape. The problem in Corinth was that the rich were bringing bountiful amounts of food and were not sharing with the poor, who had little or nothing to bring. Some were even participating in the large feast and then returning to their homes before everyone else had even arrived. Drunknenness and gluttony were prevalent, while the poor and needy were being ignored. Each group was eating their own provisions, therefore were not sharing in the “one bread” (1 Cor. 10:7). If they were eating and then going home, some were probably partaking in communion on their own, therefore having no fellowship with the others and ignoring the purpose of the Lord’s Supper.
Paul was not condemning a congregation’s eating together when they came together for worship, nor eating in any building or location where such meetings were held. What he did condemn was their intemperance, disregard of the need of others, and their shameless mixing of the Lord’s Supper with a common meal. He wanted them to know that the kind of eating and drinking they were doing belonged properly at home and not at church.
Hope that helps
Yes, wil it does. Cecil Hook has a great take on these issues because he once preached this view of legalism, but found freedom in Christ and was a vocal proponent of it-much to the chagrin of many church of Christ preachers.
This is SO true:
Our “law of silence and exclusion” was devised out of our legalistic mindset and, like most of our simplistic attempts to interpret God’s revealed will as a code of law, has resulted in divisive debate and constant confusion.
“On August 14, 2008 at 7:54 am coreydavis Said:
The use of the word “binding” in matters of doctrine comes from this verse:
Matthew 16:19
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
Jesus said that whatever the apostles BIND as teaching would have already been BOUND in Heaven. In other words, they would be guided to bind teachings that God had already decided to bind from Heaven.
If there is a direct command or example from the apostles we know that we are bound to follow it because it came to them from God.”
The word dhshv and dedemenon is used in the greek covering “you blind” and “shall have been bound”. What I wonder is my reference gives the tense for dhshv as being Aorist that means:
The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations.
And it says that dedemenon tense is perfect meaning:
Tense – Perfect
The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.
Jesus’ last cry from the cross, TETELESTAI (”It is finished!”) is a good example of the perfect tense used in this sense, namely “It [the atonement] has been accomplished, completely, once and for all time.”
Now the example given of Tetelestai breeds questions again on the beginning and ending of the covenant time lines, but that is another subject.
How does the translator determine if it has already happened or if it is once and for all time? Certainly Jesus comment is seen as once and for all time as the meaning of already happened would not fit the situation, but in the binding verse I could see both applying. Meaning if you bind it, there is no need to bind it again as opposed to already have been bound.
If the meaning of the passage was only the things already bound in heaven would be bound on earth why would they say it that way. We go from a “I will give” (it will happen in the future) to the current “you bind” to an already happened “has been bound” verb tense!
One interesting thing is the KJV has incorrectly added “shall be” that is based on esomai to the translation when taking about binding and thus is incorrect apparently and was most likely driven by the conflicting verb tenses.
Paul was not condemning a congregation’s eating together when they came together for worship, nor eating in any building or location where such meetings were held. What he did condemn was their intemperance, disregard of the need of others, and their shameless mixing of the Lord’s Supper with a common meal. He wanted them to know that the kind of eating and drinking they were doing belonged properly at home and not at church.
- I agree completey. What many dont know is that some Churches of Christ have split over this…
WIL, you impress me at times……..sure you havent studied theology or ever been part of the church of Christ…
I know-and I find that heartbreaking…that something like a kitchen or “fellowshipping as a family of God over a meal in a building that has no sacred meaning” can split churches and families.
Truth,
I received your message and have responded to your previous query.
One thing that bothers me is the dishonesty of some in the church of Christ in regards to how they have broken into many sects, and some will not fellowship with another Church of Christ church, if they have Kitchens in the church buildings and Cecil Hook gives a list of over 100 things he has seen splits over. I think we need to stop playing like we are so unified and be honest with folks. The only true unity we have is in Christ, because none is without error.
If a family at home during a home bible study partakes in communion, does anyone see anything wrong with that?
“I read the Door once it’s pretty funny.”
I dont, but some will comdemn you to hell, if its on a day other than Sunday.
The day of the week doesn’t matter. A congregation could worship the Lord on Tuesday or Thursday if it wanted to, and it wouldn’t be a sin.
Absolutely not-they are sharing in the death, burial, and ressurection of Christ as a family.
And, we have to remember that the early church mainly met in homes, not always in a gathered assembly.
I think that is where so many have gotten church, religion, denominations, and everything else we have tied into and tagged as Christianity or the church confused with what the Church really is and was intended to be. The Church has always been and will always be God’s people. It was back then and it is now. Of course, it was a lot simpler then-though they were not exempt from division-as is obvoiusly seen in many of the letters Paul wrote. We have just taken that a couple of giant steps further and have divided even more into our groups and sects-and then those have divided, and so on.
When we have a basic understanding that the Church is His people-I think many of these divisive issues would fall away.
I agree Kat, and the very ones seeking unity with their false hermeneutic ( CENI ) are the ones causing many of the divisions we have today within the churches of Christ.
Ac 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
“They, continuing daily with one accord” were Christians, breaking bread here refers to eating a meal as they could not have fellowship with unbelievers. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Ro 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
To take the Lords supper on any day without a “Thus saith the Lord” cohld not be of faith.
Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
It is strange indeed that some come together every first day of the week but only want to remember Jesus in the way he perscribed every fourth month or whenever is convienant.
How about those who cannot assemble with others and attend Church at all because they are homebound, and there are lots of people who are homebound for differnt reasons or even those who are in prison say for life who come to Christ, which some prisons may offer services to inmates. I believe that is a good reason to leave judgment in Gods hands and also that God tells us that we are not to judge others that is only for Him to do.
Amen, Truth.
Ac 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house
TD, is this an example of the early church?? I could infer that since they “continued” daily meeting house to house, that we too, should do the same. I can take your logic and treat this verse the same as you treat Acts 20:7.
T.D. said:
To take the Lords supper on any day without a “Thus saith the Lord” cohld not be of faith.
But, there is not a “Thus saith the Lord” that says “You must only take the Lord’s Supper on Sunday and not on any other day or you will be condemned to hell”. Can’t you see this has to be applied consistently?
Yes, there is an example to gather on Sunday and yes there is an example of breaking bread together on Sunday. So, we follow that example-great-there is nothing wrong with that. BUT, when we decide to take it upon ourselves to play God and put words into His mouth by saying “I will only accept it when you commune with me on Sunday with these cups, and these people, and NO other time-I don’t care where your heart is or that you are partaking in my body and blood”-and claim it is a sin or not in faith, then that is SO very wrong.
This is where we try and make God small and put Him in a box THAT HE WILL NOT STAY IN. We don’t have that power. Why do we try and exercise it? Let God be God, and just worship Him with all of your heart, mind, soul, and strength-wherever you are.
On August 14, 2008 at 1:35 pm Truth Said:
How about those who cannot assemble with others and attend Church at all because they are homebound, and there are lots of people who are homebound for differnt reasons or even those who are in prison say for life who come to Christ, which some prisons may offer services to inmates. I believe that is a good reason to leave judgment in Gods hands and also that God tells us that we are not to judge others that is only for Him to do.
- this is where we throw in the Sabbath day card….go for TD, throw in the card. Johnny will tell you if you dont know.
“I agree Kat, and the very ones seeking unity with their false hermeneutic ( CENI ) are the ones causing many of the divisions we have today within the churches of Christ.”
EXACTLY.
I am not going to be able to do much posting and commenting. For those interested in hitting this same topic..head over to Scotts blog. Katherine, please go there and see if you can add some insight from your POV. Walkinglove, you will find Scotts blog quite a challenge. I really like talking with , even though I disagree. Hope he doesn’t mind, but I would call him hyper-conservative….check him out @
http://godsbreath.wordpress.com/
http://godsbreath.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/misunderstandings-of-the-first-day-of-the-week/
http://godsbreath.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/more-attacks-against-the-lords-day/
Matthew 16:19
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
I don’t believe that this verse is promoting the compulsory authority of the apostles’ teachings to bind us but rather that Christ is telling us that the church been given the gospel, the keys to the Kingdom of heaven and it is the church’s (every believer’s) responsibility to use the keys … to proclaim the gospel and thereby open the doors to heaven (loose). By not proclaiming and not teaching we shut (bind) the door to heaven.
“On August 14, 2008 at 11:19 am churchesofChrist Said:
WIL, you impress me at times……..sure you havent studied theology or ever been part of the church of Christ…”
The power of the pc and a somewhat analytical mind can get you into all kinds of mess!
I’ve only started studying theology on my own the past month or two or at least am attempting to.
And I am in the church of Christ, the building just isn’t called that! But then again the building is just a building, it’s not the body!
The end result of literal legalism combined with my personal rights will be each of us serving in a Church of one as all others will eventually be seen as false because of some part of the text we disagree with them on.
Submission to authority only starts when you disagree with that authority! Living with each others faults and weakness only begin when you are differing on something Like a Biblical nuclear chain reaction it will run its course till it has spent its fuel, and that fuel unfortunately is the church of Christ itself! Meaning all of us!
well nuclear fission is a wonderful thing,
i love electricity.
but lets not forget fusion, it runs no course but
is itself a sudden brilliant light…………
it requires only a small amount of fuel.
” i am become death, the destroyer of worlds”
or in some one else’s words the destroyer of denominations.
lee
Sunday night I will be using the post from here to represent the conventional wisdom on this subject.
best stuff so far have come from rick
And rick at the price of being thought mean , let me say that the “amended” 10 comm. just is not accurate
That argumentation is not Baptist
but i am glad you put it that way
Is it me Chris?
or does it seem folks have decided you are just totally outside their realm of what a Christian is to be?
from reading yesterday, it just seems that people are letting you post but not taking you serious.
Your Light saver may need recharging
?????????????????????????????
Kathrine
is this your post on topix
Katherine
Dallas, TX
Reply »
|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#280
3 hrs ago
Amen. I was born and raised and still claim membership among churches of Christ, and have never believed we are the “one true church”. It is simply arrogant for any physical church on earth to claim that, and it is because people confuse the physical and the spiritual-and then some are just stubborn and want to believe that. The Church is His people-which cannot be boiled down to one particular denomination-no matter how badly anyone wants that.
God did send His Son because He loves us-not to condemn us. He loved us, and we follow and obey Him out of love. His yoke is easy, His burden is light, His commands are not burdensome and His gift of salvation is made possible for ALL because of the sacrifice of Jesus. That is the Good News of the Gospel of Christ
Johnny, I would guess that to be Katherine, seeing she, Nathan, and myself have had the pleasure of dealing with Shawn – I would guess that comment to be of Katherine
I gather you are pulling comments for an upcoming “show”. I’m sure Katherine doesn’t mind at all, seeing she is part of the church of Christ too. I wonder if you plan to tell the viewers she is part of the church of Christ, or will she be made to be part of the apostate church of Christ? I think we all know where this is headed; not a hard one to figure out. I find it rather amusing that you are having to resort to pulling comments from a blog to make a “show”, or make some point that we all have heard “thousands and thousands” ( A.C. Smith’s old saying ) times. If you want to attract flies-throw out some dung, if you want to attract sinners-you preach the good news of Christ – what did Peter do in Acts 2 ?? What will Johnny do Sunday night ?
I was wondering, if I lived during the time of starvation and there was nothing to eat at the time of the first day of the week, would I go to hell for not breaking bread on the first day and if so would I be better off not assembling with others since there was no way to keep the Lord’s Supper?
churchofchrist wrote this is response to Johnny and I missed this before:
Alien sinners cant pray to God per your theology because they are dead in sins
If that is true how does Cornelius have his prayers heard as part of Acts 10:1At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. 3One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, “Cornelius!”
4Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked.
The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God.
Now this is a Roman Centurion and a gentile as Peter confirms in verse 28He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.
Now Peter is not to call any man impure or unclean how can any of that be?
First that a Gentile and Roman who is not “saved” even talk with God and be heard? And how does that effect the original statement?
still taking orders on scourges of chords.
anyone?
In some countries, they use rice cakes and other items because of this very reason. Try that here and you will be condemned to hell by some. I do think we should use what is commanded – btw, was Welch’s Grape juice around when the early church partook the Lords Supper? I have a feeling they drank real wine before Welches was born.
i thought robert oppenhiemer was more
widely read.
lee
I do think we should partake the Lords Supper each Sunday, but I don’t think we should view it from a legal standpoint. I cant honestly condemn someone if they wanted to have the Lords Supper each Sunday and each Wednesday, if they are honestly doing so out of love for Christ. I do think its sad that many groups only do this a few times a year…it seems to be a lack of love on their part, which does concern me…
Questions that aren’t honestly answered:
1. Who (fallible being) has the right to take his inferences and bind on others as law?
2. Who decides which examples are binding and which are not?
3. If Jesus didn’t say “you MUST partake My Supper each Sunday or be lost” where do we get such approval to make it a law?
4. Where in scripture does it state or even suggest that taking the Lords Supper twice weekly is a sin?
5. Where are we commanded to observe days?
6. If Troas is our example, why didn’t they take up the weekly offering?
7. Where did our invitation song come from, bible or tradition?
8. What did they drink at the Lords Supper before Welch’s?
Lee,
Oppenheimer was quoting from the Bhagavad Gita. He said many times that it was one of the most influential works that he had ever read. Bhagavad Gita itself is a part of the Mahabharata, the national epic of India.
The full verse that it’s taken from reads thus, properly translated…
If the radiance of a thousand suns
were to burst into the sky,
that would be like
the splendor of the Mighty One—
I am become Death, the shatterer of Worlds.
Quite fitting.
And then there is test director Kenneth Bainbridge’s famous reply to Oppenheimer, after the Trinity bomb went off…
“Now we are all sons of bitches.”
No comment.
I’m pulling off of this blog until some filter or something blocks swearing/cussing. I’m not gonna be associated with a place where this is allowed. Chris, why do you continue to use profanity? Even if it’s a quote from someone, why bother posting something that could offend other people/Christians? You guys have at it – I’m out !
Randy
Randy,
1. It’s a historical quote. Made about what some consider to be the greatest (albeit most destructive) technological achievement of humanity alongside landing man on the moon.
2. The word itself is not evil. It’s the thought behind the word, the context, that makes it evil.
There was nothing wrong with what Bainbridge said regarding his choice of words. I even think that his point has been woefully ill-considered…
…namely, that it is a far easier thing to destroy than it is to create. It is easier to take life than to nurture it.
And when fallible man comes to wield the power of God, without God’s wisdom to guide him, there can come from it only evil.
I know/understand the message behind the quote, and understand what you’re saying. I still see no need to use profane words to make a point. Nor, do I see a place for such on what suppose to be a Christian blog. And, to be frank with you – I am only interested in biblical topics/conversation on here and could care less about what Bainbridge said…
I much rather Johnny come on here and discuss “authority of scriptures” and things pertaining to the bible. I am not a bit interested in anything Bainbridge had to say. My goal is to discus the bible, in hopes that I learn more and also understand the positions of those I disagree with – I think Johnny was right about the issue of authority being a topic that I need to address, and my hopes was to get his POV, but that has seemed to fall to the wayside.
I will jump off of here until I see topics pertaining to the bible being addressed.
So as two who believe is Jesus, what does the Bible tell you to do to resolve a conflict?
WIL, I have no ill will against Chris personally – my goal is to discuss doctrine/bible. If that is the conflict, which it is…I will simply look past it and move on…meaning when I see the bible being discussed…I will comment. I don’t think Chris will be mad or upset with me, neither will I at him… I personally would rather him leave the swearing aside, even if its some quote, but that will not turn me anti-Chris. I will forget it and move on and not hold it against him…like I said, I understand where he was coming from.
Yes, Johnny-that is me-saying the same thing I have said here many times.
I think I can answer for myself in whether it is ok or not for him to use my quotes. I am not particularly fond of it because I am afraid they will be used way out of context and in a sense of mockery to somehow prove they are right and I am clueless.
I don’t live in the area, though-and I stand by my statements.
It is sad that you have to take quotes from us instead of simply preaching pure Biblical truth. There is plenty there just in the Bible to teach and preach on. Did you run out of topics? Why is it so hard to not just preach Christ instead of trying to destroy everyone else and their beliefs? I just don’t get it.
“On August 15, 2008 at 10:03 am churchesofChrist Said:
WIL, I have no ill will against Chris personally – my goal is to discuss doctrine/bible. If that is the conflict, which it is…I will simply look past it and move on…meaning when I see the bible being discussed…I will comment. I don’t think Chris will be mad or upset with me, neither will I at him… I personally would rather him leave the swearing aside, even if its some quote, but that will not turn me anti-Chris. I will forget it and move on and not hold it against him…like I said, I understand where he was coming from.
I agree but I don’t want to see his weakness cause you to leave the iron sharpening process, I believe you have insights that no other brings to this blog and if you left it, we all would be less for it, same goes for Chris, yes I cringe at some of the things I read, and I do from John and some others at times as they do with you and I. But there is to much truth to be gained by this process to allow the weakness of others to shut it down. Now that you have voiced your concern I pray that Chris will be mindful of it and post accordingly.
On the other hand I was not offended by what he said, he was quoting historical references. I grew up in the language of the current common man, unfortunately that involves the use of colorful word choices. I personally have worked hard to remove that part of my former life but a hammer to a thumb or a near miss with a tractor trailer can still reveal what is still in my heart of the old, sad as it makes me I to fall to this at times. I don’t believe he was trying to offend anyone with his post, but I acknowledge that the purpose of this thread was not served by it.
I posted a couple of questions I would really like input on above from all sides of those who are here!
WIL
I personally have worked hard to remove that part of my former life but a hammer to a thumb or a near miss with a tractor trailer can still reveal what is still in my heart of the old, sad as it makes me I to fall to this at times
Certainly you see the difference in what you described for yourself (and it applies to me as well) and what Chris did, and has done multiple times now. It isn’t a slip-up. It is deliberate. He could censor it, or better yet, avoid it altogether, but he doesn’t. He doesn’t have to hit “Submit Comment” with that type of language in his posts, but he does.
Even sadder still is that only Randy and Rick (of the “regulars” here) have made a point of calling him out on it. Take that and the endorsement of profanity and blasphemy laden sites like the ex-coC board and the sites featured in the latest post and I get a clear picture of what I’m dealing with here – many individuals who won’t confront wickedness as long as the person spewing it disagrees with Johnny. It is sad and pathetic.
This is a blog that is used by people who call themselves Christians, yet so few will stand up against that which is blatantly sinful.
“I get a clear picture of what I’m dealing with here – many individuals who won’t confront wickedness as long as the person spewing it disagrees with Johnny. It is sad and pathetic.”
If this is what you think I am like, I am sorry you have gotten that impression-because that is not true for me. I do not just agree with what everyone says because they are against Johnny.
I do agree it is not necessary and can be left off-especially on a Christian site.
chris,
thanks but i already knew who he was quoting.
and as to the rest of you. you strain at knats and
swallow johnny ahem…. a camel.
i will go on record and say the whole point was that
john wants to be the destroyer. and you guys cant handle
a historic ref. and this is where iron
is getting sharpened?
i must be the dullest tool in the shed.
lee
and corey,
there is nothing wrong or sinful about the quote.
grow up men.
where supposed to be big pants people.
lee
Katherine,
I didn’t say everyone, I said “many individuals”, but if your conscience bothers you…
I guess one of the problems I have with you (doctrinally, not personally) is that you talk about your “faith heritage” in the churches of Christ, but I don’t know of a single point of doctrine we find unscriptural in the denominations that you DON’T agree with. We’ve discussed things like “original sin” and “once saved, always saved”. You’ve never come out against any of those things. Do you believe in those doctrines? Are they sinful and wrong?
Perhaps you felt those were discussions you didn’t want to be a part of, which I understand. It isn’t like I participate in all of them either. I’m just wondering why the only thing you seem to have a problem with is Johnny’s teaching and never the other matters.
Lee,
If there is nothing wrong with that quote then I must have misread my bible. Aren’t we to bridle the tongue and avoid corrupt communication? How about we throw out some profanity-laced quotes from George Carlin or Richard Pryor? Would that be okay if we could make some loose connection between that quote and the topic at hand? Would you read that quote from the pulpit at your church? I would ask the same of Chris, but I already know the answer as there doesn’t seem to be anything he finds wrong religiously (other than anything Johnny says).
You say “grow up men”. I say that only little children snicker at and excuse sinful language, and that it is the men who have the backbone to stand up and call it what it is – wicked and corrupt communication.
Here’s a question for you Corey or anyone else,
1 John 4:13We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.
Acts 10:44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.
The above scriptures talk about his spirit and I consider that to be the Holy Spirit shows that we live in him and he in us, Acts 10:44 shows the Holy Spirit falling on and them receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit shows that they are in him and he in them, how does that apply to Acts 2:38’s message to us?
At face value they would seem to be opposite of each other!
This is all basically rehashing what we’ve discussed on my blog, but I’ll try again.
The above scriptures talk about his spirit and I consider that to be the Holy Spirit shows that we live in him and he in us, Acts 10:44 shows the Holy Spirit falling on and them receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit shows that they are in him and he in them, how does that apply to Acts 2:38’s message to us?
You say that Acts 10:44 shows them receiving the “gift” of the Holy Spirit. I don’t believe this to be true when balanced with all of scripture. They received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I would hope you would acknowledge that the apostles had the Holy Spirit prior to Acts 2. Assuming you do, hopefully you can see that the baptism of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost was different – it served as a sign to the Jews there and gave them miraculous powers that Jesus had promised them.
In that sense only Cornelius did have this happen in reverse order – he first received the baptism of the Holy Spirit (like the apostles, as a sign). He would have received the gift (the indwelling of, sealing of salvation) the Holy Spirit when he submitted to the command to be immersed in water, just as the Jews in Acts 2 were commanded to do.
I would not agree that they were sealed with the Holy Spirit upon being baptized in the Spirit. The Holy Spirit was not “in” them in the sense that He is in Christians then and now when they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
As I’ve pointed out before, there is no other case like this in the New Testament. If we are to seek the harmony of the scriptures we would have to see this as a unique case. Once we acknowledge that it was unique, we must ask “why”? The answer seems obvious based upon info in chapters 10 and 11 – it showed the Jewish Christians that the Gentiles were to be accepted into the church as brethren.
On August 15, 2008 at 3:58 am Johnny Said:
“And rick at the price of being thought mean , let me say that the “amended” 10 comm. just is not accurate
That argumentation is not Baptist”
Johnny, as I stated in an earlier post (after the post you are referring to) I admitted that I used the term “amended” loosely. At no point was I suggesting that Baptists had changed God’s Ten Commandments but rather that the faithful observance of worship (which in the case of the Church is held on Sunday not Saturday due to Jesus’ Sunday resurrection) had its roots in the commandment to honor the Sabbath.
“Katherine,
I didn’t say everyone, I said “many individuals”, but if your conscience bothers you…
I guess one of the problems I have with you (doctrinally, not personally) is that you talk about your “faith heritage” in the churches of Christ, but I don’t know of a single point of doctrine we find unscriptural in the denominations that you DON’T agree with. We’ve discussed things like “original sin” and “once saved, always saved”. You’ve never come out against any of those things. Do you believe in those doctrines? Are they sinful and wrong?
Perhaps you felt those were discussions you didn’t want to be a part of, which I understand. It isn’t like I participate in all of them either. I’m just wondering why the only thing you seem to have a problem with is Johnny’s teaching and never the other matters.”
You are right-there are many discussions I choose not to participate in-which does not necessarily mean I am for or against. Some I don’t agree with, some I am still studying about it, and some I do not know much about. That is why I am constantly learning. If there is something I am not very educated about, I try to keep my mouth shut (or in this case my fingers from typing).
This was originally a blog discussing Johnny, his co-horts, and the ultra-conservative branch of the churches of Christ…so yes, that is mainly what I have discussed. Part of my beef is with some of their doctrine/teachings, but most of it is the way they go about it in their behavior and condemnation. The majority of my knowledge is from churches of Christ-so I have not studied extensively about other denominations or why they believe what they believe to be able to “go to battle with them”. I don’t think that is what we are called to do, so yes I stay out of that discussion most of the time. Silence on a subject does not always mean condoning or condemning.
walkinginlove said
First that a Gentile and Roman who is not “saved” even talk with God and be heard? And how does that effect the original statement?
I dont see how you could say he is not save WIL?
According to all these folks Cornelius would be saved before Peter even got there
Act 10:2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house
HE FEARED GOD
He Knew Jesus was Lord
Ac 10:36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)
37 That word, I say, ye know,
Put it all together and read it below
Ac 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)
37 That word, I say, ye know,
So according to you all he was already saved before Peter came… fear God & accept that Jesus is the Lord???? Right
Explain that and I will explain the problem you think we have with prayer.
Chris, Actually I have two concerns with your recent posts: First is that of your use of the Bhagavad-Gita which is considered to be a concise guide to Hindu philosophy to argue points of Christianity, even if it is thru the use of quotes from another author. I believe we would be more influential if we argue Scriptural interpretation with quotes from the Bible or other writers who have a Christian viewpoint.
And second, of course, is your use of profanity (even if is thru the use of quotes from a historical writing) to make a point. If I wanted debate that make use of profanity to get a point across I would go to the thousands of secular blogs, but this is a Christian based blog. And as we have insisted a “thousand” times to Johnny about his use of vicious attacks on area churches, what positive influence are we giving to those who stumble across this blog when they see profanity used in the dialog?
I think you have a unique viewpoint worth sharing and I certainly respect your bravery of direct skirmish with JR but maybe you need to watch your approach.
Now that wasn’t mean either was it Johnny?
On August 15, 2008 at 8:31 am churchesofChrist Said:
Questions that aren’t honestly answered:
Randy you all submit to theology too. Who makes the Methodist God. They have their own rules (ever changing) and erect walls to keep Tim White heart out with his once saved always…
Are we playing here?
At least we are willing to defend it.
Every single one of you has a faith statement whether it is in the head of the pastor (things tolerated or not) or on paper.
Who made you God that ” the pentecostals ” can’t roll around the floor in every assembly in town.
Ya’ll just need to get off that high horse as if you are different. I mean no disrespect but the dishonesty is thick here
and don’t play that game “oh we are not judging them” either.
You won’t welcome the behavior and you know it.
And Randy I Like you too
but
this no rules stuff you are throwing out will get you put of Rick’s chruch real quick
why are ya’ll pretending
You just don’t like it because we say we can defend ourselves and ready and willing
just not on this slow out dated format
TV is still ahead of typing in a room and hand the paper to someone who then has to type an answer when we could talk
Johnny,
walkinlove said this on my blog:
Cory, Peter was talking to Cornelius and his friends, when he said “as you know” because they knew about Jesus. Cornelius has a talk with Jesus who appeared as an Angel of the Lord, who was called Lord and did not correct him for the statement. He has a relationship with God already, what is missing is the Holy Spirit, that is what Peter allowed to come about. They know already who Jesus is. Or Peter’s statement in verse 37 is false. It may have been preached to the Jews, that is not the issue here, what the issue is, did they know about Jesus and based on Peter’s statement they did!
So he states that:
*Cornelius already had a relationship with God & Jesus, and just needed to know about the Holy Spirit
*The angel of Cornelius’ vision was actually Jesus
I think he would have to contend that Cornelius was already saved if belief and a “relationship” with God is all you need to be saved.
Even if he doesn’t respond to you, I hope you’ll address the matter of God hearing Cornelius’ prayers for the benefit of everyone here.
Johnny said:
Ya’ll just need to get off that high horse as if you are different. I mean no disrespect but the dishonesty is thick here
and don’t play that game “oh we are not judging them” either.
You won’t welcome the behavior and you know it.
And Randy I Like you too
but
this no rules stuff you are throwing out will get you put of Rick’s chruch real quick
why are ya’ll pretending
You just don’t like it because we say we can defend ourselves and ready and willing
just not on this slow out dated format
TV is still ahead of typing in a room and hand the paper to someone who then has to type an answer when we could talk”
Who is being dishonest? Just because we don’t choose to attack everyone else who does not believe like us or proclaim it loudly we are somehow dishonest? Who is pretending? You need to unpack that a bit instead of just making random claims.
You say you can defend yourselves and are ready and willing…but that is certainly not evident on here. There have been many questions unanswered, topics abandoned, or fly bys-but rarely a real discussion until the other day. God did not tell us to just be willing and ready to answer when it was convenient, or on our turf, or only in the format we would like. Our answers should also not be twisted to mean something they did not or be used to make someone look bad.
You could actually probably reach more people here because it is WORLDWIDE (as in worldwide web) over a TV station that only goes out to a few counties in the country. If it were on a larger format-I would agree TV could be more effective, but as is-it is not. It is true that talking is a more effective way to talk or debate because it is quicker, you can recognize body language, and know more about the person when you are eye to eye…but most of us are spread all over the country (or world) so it is not convenient for all of us to do so at this time.
May I first present information that is very needful.
Several have been in Caesarea before Peter. Philip made his home there see below. All were commanded to to preach to Jews first. Cornelius was a supporter of the Jewish system…
Ac 8:40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.
Ac 21:8 ¶ And the next day we that were of Paul’s company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.
Even Paul was in town…
Ac 9:30 Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.
Peter tells us that he was chosen to preach to the Gentiles first…
Ac 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
He says specifically that “hearing and believing” was a choice of God that he was to carry out.
He also said that “believing in him would bring about remission of sins”
Ac 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Let us recount
Others preached
Cornelius Knew about Jesus
Peter came and preached so he could hear what he needed to know in order to have proper belief so he could in fact be saved
if he was saved before Peter Got there, then Peter did not know what he was talking about in Act 15:7 above n
Later Peter defends his actions of going to Gentiles, and in his defense He says that WIL is mistaken…
In Act 11:14 the angel whom WIL says is Jesus says that Cornelius still needs words spoken whereby he can be SAVED!
He was not saved, even though he knew who Jesus was, accepted him as Lord and feared God
Now WIL can say what he will but the scripture is clear here
prayer of Cornelius is next
hi chris,
well how about that some here are offended with frank
quotes. and rick, he was only trying to put in context the oppenhimer quote i used earlier. and randy, if your going to be offended and high minded, be offended by the
man who gets on tv and has no resemblance to jesus but
says he the authority on bible. corey,you are a lot like your friend john in that you use exaggeration to prove a point that is not worth proving.
i dont know chris but im sure he dosent believe in the use of profanity in conversation. so much outrage over everthing except whats important,johnny the destructor.
you cant even see the forrest for the trees, johnny dosent want any of your friendship, just your heads on poles so he can bring them on show.
heres mine john make sure its out front.
lee
On Cornelius Prayer
First I need to make sure Randy is clear on MY STATEMENT
I never said alien sinners can’t pray
What I said was
1Pe 3:12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.
basically quoting OT writings
Isa 59:1 ¶ Behold, the LORD’S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:
2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.
In the OT sinners in covenant relation in fact HAD to say the Sinners prayer…
2Ch 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
So hearing the prayer and giving you what you ask for is what we are really talking about
I have no problem saying that God can hear the prayer
but will he answer “save me a sinner” from the mouth of an alien sinner?
when he has said DO something????
Mt 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
the prayer of the alien sinner God answers is
Mt 7:7 ¶ Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
Cornelius was searching
God sent the answer in the form of a man preaching
Ro 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
the message was in earthen vessels then and they had to have it preached
2Co 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
Now you can read it\
Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
can any one show me an alien sinner who prayed and was saved?
Lee,
If that one historical quote has caused such furor, I shudder to think about what would happen if I came to this blog and began quoting Stanley Hauerwas
(I’ve met Dr. Hauerwas, by the way. One of the most profound Christian thinkers you’re likely to meet. And one of the saltiest speakers that you’ll ever hear…)
Chris
I really don’t think anyone is really taking you serious
a class clown is amusing at best but serious?
look at me I have traveled
where was that Chris
Oh you ran out “professional” video tape
you really can’t recall where you said you traveled
maybe your wife could tell us and see if that is what you said
truth check ya know
look at me I know about 40 catholics
oh no Catholic church back then
Oh mistake!
No jurisdiction
look at me I am History major
did I mention my professor praised me?
I am beyond my years
no Chris you are a clown and we all knew from the Odell event and no one will let you lead again
move on
Oh Lee did I mention someones wife
I hope that doesn’t cause him to beat me up
cuss me or whatever you fell like when WIFE is mentioned
can we have a serious conversation
is it really Johnny who is the problem or the folks that come in here who are not really wanting to be spiritual?
corey,you are a lot like your friend john in that you use exaggeration to prove a point that is not worth proving.
i dont know chris but im sure he dosent believe in the use of profanity in conversation.
That’s rich considering the exaggeration’s that people have used here to defend their stances on baptism. Rick has some guy stuck on a desert island. Chris has girls in iron lungs (oops…how did that turn out again?). Please.
You say Chris wouldn’t use profanity in conversation. If a man can’t control what comes from his fingers on a blog why would I believe he controls his lips in conversation? One is a lot easier than the other. After all, there is nothing wrong with the words, just their intent, according to him. He can use any words he likes in conversation as long as he deems his “intent” pure.
This is what I’m talking about. The desire of many here to attack Johnny leads them to accept anything from anyone as long as they oppose Johnny. This is just another example of that.
luke 18:13 now there is your justified sinner
who did nothing but speak to god,never did get wet
did he?
now how bout my money john?
your brother,
lee
and some wont admit that a later retelling of
a story dosen supersede the first account.
you remember peter right?
lee
Johnny said:
can any one show me an alien sinner who prayed and was saved?
The tax collector in Luke 18 was a Jew, in a covenant relationship with God, as Johnny already addressed. This is not an “alien” sinner. Sorry.
Can I ask Rick a question
what if someone comes into the assembly and wants to start having the LS every Sunday since it is so important per 1Cor 11:
Am I mistaken that Paul actually says in the case of the LS , division would be better than to let it continue to be abused?
1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
Such an important event that is said to be a “must” to divide from those corrupting it
Would you all resist them?
Would that be you all playing God?
I know that most Baptist are not going to allow “Holy Spirit” rolling on the floor in their assembly.
Is this playing God?
I don’t think it is.
I think you all do what you say I do.
You all judge me, I know that! I don’t mind because I am set to defend… Philp 1:17
But to say you don’t judge and then do it all the time as in the above instances.
I am saying let us hash it out
what are you afraid of
I will pay for the time
Randy I will ask you to come on and I promise I will only address these issue that bother us both.
The divisions
I will not be critical
I will talk about authority and the lack there of
we could even make fun of Chris
No I am just kidding
I love Chris too
He is just soooo unruly at times
I have met him in person you know?
He is pretty salty
whats the matter john, still mad at how i left
you on air a few weeks ago?
all that praise and then sudden deflation.
your fans will forget the look on your face as you went off air eventually.
you pal
lee
thankyou corey
for answering for john.
but the original offer was a grand for a sinners
prayer.
but feel free to help him out.
still havent been paid yet.
its bordering on dishonesty dont ya think?
theres that word again.
lee
Johnny,
You have hit a new low, even for you.
Are you still ignoring me, Johnny or have you just overlooked my post?
if you love chris,then you must love me.
am i right?
i would wish you godspeed but you know
how god feels about that.
lee
my post lee
On August 15, 2008 at 2:59 pm Johnny Said:
…….
can any one show me an alien sinner who prayed and was saved?
always been “alien”
and the original always said “after Jesus died raised & sent out apostles
which means find someone who became a Christian who prayed
Lee said
your fans will forget the look on your face as you went off air eventually.
you pal
lee
no Lee I don’t remember
but I am used to it after 10 years of this
I just keep plugging along and hope one day this will still be here when you reach a point when you need serious Bible from someone who is in it for nothing more than to help a soul
go ahead and make me look foolish if you like
I signed up for that too
1Co 4:10 We are fools for Christ’s sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.
i must be a prophet……..
i predicted john was only foolin.
and he would return to his former self.
but i did think it would take longer than
a day.
and no this is not the beginning of a world wide
revival tour, i dont have time……..sorry to disapoint.
lee
i cant make you anything your not.
you dont need my help.
but i do love the self deprecating tone……..
nice touch.
lee
“when you reach a point when you need serious Bible from someone who is in it for nothing more than to help a so”
I thought your main purpose was to defeat and destroy denominations?
Now let us back up and take a look
for 3 days I have been trying to have a conversation
with randy, rick, nathan
we can’t have a conversation
all the jumping in and foolishness
or someone has to go
lets get together
if no I am going to only do email
randy we had lots of info passed between us in that format
and just so you all know
Al Maxey will not meet me either
and C Hook is passed on
I have tried
Oops-I hit submit too soon…that should read
“when you reach a point when you need serious Bible from someone who is in it for nothing more than to help a SOUL”
“and just so you all know
Al Maxey will not meet me either
and C Hook is passed on
I have tried”
Clint, a church of Christ preacher offered to debate you way back in the day and it never came to fruition. What happened?
but i do love the self deprecating tone……..
Call me Lee I am there in the light so all can see me and judge my tone, my clothes, hair, deer in headlights looks…
but I am there for all to SEE
you are out there in the dark making cat calls and the like
we all see this you know
courage my good man courage
I really wanted someone you all were quoting
I can find a clint around here
but what would that accomplish
you all would just say “well he was not our man anyway”
Al was the great answer man
if you only want to talk to those three there are any number of ways to do so.
but until im banned im going to post responses to you and those like you.
now if you want to apologize for your personal comments
to me over the phone in front of these witnesses,
i wont mention it on here again. but be plain and none
of your fancy city talk.and then and only then can we really talk.
what ya say pal
lee
sorry Lee
won’t happen again
This is Clint:
http://cthoward.wordpress.com/
It has been a LONG time since this was offered, but you guys seemed to run away from the idea.
Is this really about control, Johnny? It seems that way. It has to be just the way you want it with just the right people-or you don’t like it. Are you going to ignore what I said above? Here, I will help you out and re-paste it:
Johnny said:
Ya’ll just need to get off that high horse as if you are different. I mean no disrespect but the dishonesty is thick here
and don’t play that game “oh we are not judging them” either.
You won’t welcome the behavior and you know it.
And Randy I Like you too
but
this no rules stuff you are throwing out will get you put of Rick’s chruch real quick
why are ya’ll pretending
You just don’t like it because we say we can defend ourselves and ready and willing
just not on this slow out dated format
TV is still ahead of typing in a room and hand the paper to someone who then has to type an answer when we could talk”
Who is being dishonest? Just because we don’t choose to attack everyone else who does not believe like us or proclaim it loudly we are somehow dishonest? Who is pretending? You need to unpack that a bit instead of just making random claims.
You say you can defend yourselves and are ready and willing…but that is certainly not evident on here. There have been many questions unanswered, topics abandoned, or fly bys-but rarely a real discussion until the other day. God did not tell us to just be willing and ready to answer when it was convenient, or on our turf, or only in the format we would like. Our answers should also not be twisted to mean something they did not or be used to make someone look bad.
You could actually probably reach more people here because it is WORLDWIDE (as in worldwide web) over a TV station that only goes out to a few counties in the country. If it were on a larger format-I would agree TV could be more effective, but as is-it is not. It is true that talking is a more effective way to talk or debate because it is quicker, you can recognize body language, and know more about the person when you are eye to eye…but most of us are spread all over the country (or world) so it is not convenient for all of us to do so at this time.
courage…..not bad but your not nearly as accomplished
at one liners as myself. keep at it.
lee
Hey Nathan-80,000 hits!!!
johnny,
now i said be plain, tell what you are sorry for in front of these people and i will be as good as my word.
lee
Now we really were on to the issue on Tuesday
It came down to “binding”
I will use a word you all used “test of fellowship”
binding was scriptural as far as phraseology
Matt 23:4
Mt 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
Ac 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Ac 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
Ac 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Things you are being told you must do
binding\obligated\obliged to remain in good standing with a denomination
still waiting johnny.
Dear Lee
I am sincerely sorry
I used an illustration that you found offensive
I have done this same kind of thing with Brian Edwards.
It seems to inflame more than instruct.
If that is really what has caused you to reject everything I have said since then
I will not use it again.
I honestly have used the same illustrations on others including having the subject be my wife and it didn’t cause the least trouble.
But for you Lee I am sorry
The other day a lady told me that her son was born a homosexual … and she set out to prove her case. she gave me all the arguments that a pedophile makes and I told her so. I said does the pedophile get a pass?
she rushed out crying saying
“my son is not a pedophile”
should I not use any arguments that might make the person angry?
in your case Lee I won’t
I am just asking
Another instance
Jackie Poe’s wife and many others are dancing to the beat in choir
James Oldfield changed the music and asked if it looked like they were dancing to religious or club music
everyone that answered said you could not tell if she was club dancing or church
he said he wanted to whip me for saying it looked like club dancing
said I was talking about his wife
I showed what they aired
I asked people what it looked like
lets whip Johnny
Lee
I will never reference your wife in any conversation
we can change it around and it was my wife
now was my point true?
you said that i didnt know that my wife was faithful to
me. it was used as a retort to a statement i made about
there being differences in the coc.
it was an attempt to inflame me. and was wrong.
if you are big enough to apologize for that then i will
be as good as my word and will not mention it here again. we will still disagree but lets do it civilly .
now if you can get faithFUL reigned in, lets all talk
including katheren .
lee
Maybe I am wasting my time here if conversation will not even be engaged.
give a chance kat
give me a chance kat
what ya say johnny?
I am not talking about you, Lee-I am referring to the many posts to Johnny that have been ignored or gone unanswered.
i thought while i had him on the phone i might make
some headway in that area.
On August 15, 2008 at 4:22 pm lee Said:
you said that i didnt know that my wife was faithful to
me. it was used as a retort to a statement i made about
there being differences in the coc.
I said “that would be like me saying….”
and not being able to prove it
I didn’t say your wife was anything
that is the problem you all have
and in fact Lee
If I am right about the true church
you have have been talking trash about Jesus wife every since this began
but yes Lee
I will not use any “retorts” that involve any reference to any of you family in my illustrations again
I am sorry
Katherine
you are Rom 16:17
avoid you
Titus 3:10 reject you
2Pe 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
these folk on here never knew the truth and you are hindering them just as the worst in Jesus day
why don’t you tell them if you believe any of their peculiar doctrines
that is all I have to say to you
come on johnny lets clear all this up.
kats a human being who at least deserves the respect you would show anyone on the street.
i know you dont agree with her but really what does that matter. you are oblegated to give a civil response.
wouldnt you agree?
and as far as dancing in church, if you dont like it
ok but leave the inflamatory comparisons out of it.
the last thing i want to do is back a man in a corner,
with all sides closed the only way out is through me.
amen?
lee
“If I am right about the true church
you have have been talking trash about Jesus wife every since this began”
Oh my-there really aren’t words for this. I can’t believe this would be used to justify anything.
I can really see what I am dealing with now. I need to wipe the dust off my feet for awhile.
I hope God is glorified through all of this somehow. With God, all things are possible.
A wise man once told me that the definition and essence of evil was “judgment absent of all compassion and mercy”.
thank you,
but you have proven my point if you dont consider me a
christian it shouldnt be supprising if i dont consider you one.
is that fair? be back later
lee
A few verses I thought were appropriate before I depart:
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and then you make that convert twice as much a child of hell as you are.” ~Matthew 23:13-15
‘Go to this people and say,
“You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”
For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’~Acts 28:26-27
“But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.” ~1 Peter 3:15-16
“Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you.” ~Proverbs 9:8
“If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town, as a testimony against them.” ~Luke 9:5
This is my hope and Good News…may you all be blessed by it, too:
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. ~Romans 5:1-8
I was gonna answer you Johnny, but Kat pretty much said what I was thinking “You say you can defend yourselves and are ready and willing…but that is certainly not evident on here. There have been many questions unanswered, topics abandoned, or fly bys-but rarely a real discussion until the other day. God did not tell us to just be willing and ready to answer when it was convenient, or on our turf, or only in the format we would like. Our answers should also not be twisted to mean something they did not or be used to make someone look bad”
Johnny, You say you are willing to debate anyone – we havent forgotten the offer from Clint, have you ? Far as AL Maxey, I think I still have the emails from you guys and he told you more that once to stop chasing rabbits and you wouldnt, but for whats it worth he didnt want to meet with you as you said, but most people on here understand why he wouldnt. BTW, it was Norm who came in and addrssed Al with some real discussion. Another thing you have wrong is saying I say that there isnt any rules or standards – not once have I said that. I know each denomination has sets of rules and standards they adhere to…my beef is with your take on the Lords Supper for one…and dont think that I am saying we shouldnt partake each Sunday. I seem to be misunderstood on this quite often.
Johnny, if you reply, dont think I am ignoring you – I have two sick kids to contend to. btw, they still ask about you and we still watch the DVDs I have from the tent. Thx, ttyl
come on john,
you are on the cusp of being recognized as a man who
will forgive and ask for forgiveness.
dont stop now.
it wont hurt your standing among your own breathren
to be civil to us all.
go for it.
Amen Katherine!
you folks ever heard of “bait and switch”? How about “destroy from within”? Clever little tactics JR is using…seems to be working. Kat, Chris, Lee, Randy, Nathan others..we need to tighten the gap and circle the wagons.
What an day of conversation. I’m involved in something that keeps me away from home from morning to night right now, so I am not going to be able to participate too much.
Rick, you’re probably right. We need to be on our guard.
lee, are the demons ice skating tonight? Now if we can also get an apology for the “defeat destroy” line, we can move on.
Chris, I completely get what you were saying with the quote, and I can imagine that for the man who said it, truer words were never spoken. However, for the sake of peace on the blog, and in the spirit of Romans 14, in the future a bit of asterisk usage will help make such a quote more palatable.
Katherine, you are right. JR’s behavior to you might just show his true colors, even as he has started this new friendly PR campaign.
JR, except for your treatment of Katherine, you’ve been behaving very civilly, and I appreciate that. You still don’t have our trust, because we’ve seen the way you’ve behaved on TV these last several years, but it’s good that you’ve finally started addressing most of us in a more respectful tone. Time will tell if you are being authentic here or if you are attempting to set us up for a fall. Hopefully dialogue and civility will win the day.
But I think you should really take to heart the distrust you bring out in people.
And tell faithful that his ban is over now.
Everyone have a good night.
Two words:
“Molotov-Ribbentrop”.
“Molotov-Ribbentrop”? So what issues will we assign between us for control? (spoken tongue in check JR)
Rick, it was Hitler who pushed for the non-aggression pact. He was the one who suddenly “made nice” and the Russians believed him.
Operation Barbarossa twenty-two months later made them realize that they had been fools to trust Hitler.
yeah, I know. Germany and Russia made a pact and laid out who would control what. Of course we know the outcome…thus the tongue in cheek..
I wonder if my latest publicly-declared “worst enemy” is going to understand the reference at all.
A lot of people have thought that was curious behavior for a “preacher”, going on television and telling the world that he had a “worst enemy” and all…
And a few days ago after seeing The Dark Knight, a friend noted some interesting parallels, making me out to be Batman and Johnny Robertson as the Joker.
“Don’t be silly,” I told him. “For one thing, the real Joker would know how to spell ‘HA-HA’ correctly.”
Hmm.. and all this time I thought that Satan was the worst enemy of all time.
Corey,
1 John 4:13 uses pneumatov for Spirit Acts 10:45 uses the same for Spirit the differences is one uses his and the other Holy. His (in the text I take it as his = God’s) Spirit and Holy Spirit are different? How so?
Explain your differences on the spirits listed in the two passages, where one shows that he abides in us and we in him, and what happens in Acts 10?
dedwken is translated as he has given in 1 John 4:13 and edwken translates as gave. Other then tenses they are from the same word meaning.
Please expand the Holy Spirits roll of both passages in detail with scripture so I may understand what you are saying. If they had the Holy Spirit and thus were saved before Acts 2, sorry I have missed that, please show me!
Thanks!
Thanks,
Something interesting on the way from the Library, it seems that someone left a track in a theology book I checked out that links to this site.
http://icgjcmd.org/main/component/option,com_weblinks/catid,2/Itemid,74/
I hate to tell everyone but, according to that site, anyone here that is not of a race that is brown in skin color they are cursed by God. It would seem we are wrong because we are not the right color!
John, care to go to Washington? Or NC:
North Carolina:
Fayetteville -
907 Hay St. Suite 202
Fayetteville, NC 28304
Phone: 910.323.0220
Goldsboro -
Family YMCA
1105 Parkway Dr.
Goldsboro, NC 27534
Tuesday 6:30pm-9:30pm
Wilmington -
1207 B. Dawson St.
Wilmington, NC 28401
Phone: 910.772.1427
Needless to say when I read the tract I was very amused considering I have been here the last few weeks. Perhaps we should invite them to tell us how we are going to Hell, we are after all used to it!
My apologies for my post that assumes that all contributing are Caucasian of origin. I am part Native American, being that I have seen John on TV the post was geared towards that.
Good night, been a long day!
John said:
The other day a lady told me that her son was born a homosexual … and she set out to prove her case. she gave me all the arguments that a pedophile makes and I told her so. I said does the pedophile get a pass?
she rushed out crying saying
“my son is not a pedophile”
should I not use any arguments that might make the person angry?
Interesting, I usually use the case of NAMBLA when speaking with those who support gay rights, seems they are not willing to take that next step into the darkness.
On August 12, 2008 at 5:03 pm faithful Said:
“On August 12, 2008 at 1:54 pm churchesofChrist Said:
On August 12, 2008 at 11:41 am walkinlove Said:
I’m still processing when the original believers at Pentecost were baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. It suddenly struck me today that they would have been under Johns baptism (maybe since it is not recorded in detail) and that they do not appear to be re-baptized as was done for those who were found to be under johns baptism as in Acts 19, why were the Pentecost believers not re-baptized or did I miss that somewhere?
- good points, and I dont know the answer. Let me know when you do”
no
Faithful since you are allowed back I hope you will expand on this, it was my consideration that they were Baptized under John’s baptism, and you say no.
Then I assume you contend they were baptized in Jesus Name to be filling with the Holy Spirit or something else? When did that happen?
I believe one of Corey’s answers to me are different:
“It seems clear that the Ephesians of Acts 19 were baptized with John’s baptism AFTER the death of Christ. John’s baptism is invalid today.
If you understand that Jesus’ death made good the law keeping of the Jews who died before Him you should be able to understand that it made good those baptisms that occurred while He lived.”
Sorry I am really trying to understand how the CoC sees the Holy Spirit in the salvation process and how the parties of that time fit into that view!
On August 15, 2008 at 2:45 pm Johnny Said:
May I first present information that is very needful.
Several have been in Caesarea before Peter. Philip made his home there see below. All were commanded to to preach to Jews first. Cornelius was a supporter of the Jewish system…
Ac 8:40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.
Ac 21:8 ¶ And the next day we that were of Paul’s company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.
Even Paul was in town…
Ac 9:30 Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.
Peter tells us that he was chosen to preach to the Gentiles first…
Ac 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
He says specifically that “hearing and believing” was a choice of God that he was to carry out.
He also said that “believing in him would bring about remission of sins”
Ac 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Let us recount
Others preached
Cornelius Knew about Jesus
Peter came and preached so he could hear what he needed to know in order to have proper belief so he could in fact be saved
The others that Preached would have been stoned by the Jewish believers had Cornelius been there and received the Holy Spirit. By Placing Peter there, his authority partially cut down on the revolt against the Gentiles being included. There was still grumbling and had the Holy Spirit not fallen on them the Jews might have gone after Peter if he had tried to follow Acts 2:38 in the sequence it was listed.
The circumstances that causes this modification to happen was the Jewish believers who would have reacted poorly had it happened any other way. Thus God was protecting Peter and the other messengers by allowing the Holy Spirit to come on them like they had happen.
Under the scenario that happened 1 John 4:13 appears to me to say that the Holy Spirit was the evidence that you are in the Lord and he in you. Yet Corey says there is a difference in this somehow.
So John how is it that this Holy Spirit in Acts 10 is different then in 1 John 4:13?
As for him needing to be saved
if he was saved before Peter Got there, then Peter did not know what he was talking about in Act 15:7 above n
Later Peter defends his actions of going to Gentiles, and in his defense He says that WIL is mistaken…
In Act 11:14 the angel whom WIL says is Jesus says that Cornelius still needs words spoken whereby he can be SAVED!
He was not saved, even though he knew who Jesus was, accepted him as Lord and feared God
Now WIL can say what he will but the scripture is clear here
Yes John I stand corrected, he needed salvation! My question now is how the Holy Spirit in 1 John 4:13 that seems to show you are saved is different then the Holy Spirit that first appears before water baptism in Acts 10.
To me it seems that because of circumstances that God made an exception to the order of things at least! Based on reading 1 John 4:13 it would appear he was in Christ at that moment.
Before I go on I’d like to know why I was banned for something others including Johnny has done. You didn’t ban him or the others. More Double standard I see.
…Randy said
not once have I said that. I know each denomination has sets of rules and standards they adhere to…my beef is with your take on the Lords Supper for one…and dont think that I am saying we shouldnt partake each Sunday. I seem to be misunderstood on this quite often.
it takes 3 days to get responses
who wants to wait on this kind of stuuf
No one will discuss in public
that is the bottom line
I put up some serious stuff above and not one has commented
all we did is get things clear on Lee’s wife situation
and he didnt even go back and comment
Like Corey has said
Just Johnny bashing
I can get lots done on TV
see ya
WIL said
Yes John I stand corrected, he needed salvation! My question now is how the Holy Spirit in 1 John 4:13 that seems to show you are saved is different then the Holy Spirit that first appears before water baptism in Acts 10.
To me it seems that because of circumstances that God made an exception to the order of things at least! Based on reading 1 John 4:13 it would appear he was in Christ at that moment.
email me at Biblesays81@hotmail.com
please sir if you want to continue with me
otherwise thanks for the chat!
faithful,
You were banned because you were being unbelievably rude to Katherine – with your “NTFK” garbage. I am not at all happy with the way you and Johnny mistreat Katherine, but I’ve been cutting Johnny a bit of slack because he’s seemingly been attempting to discuss and not just insult.
I’m sorry if you feel like there’s a double standard. I try to be unbiased, but it’s not so easy sometimes.
Johnny,
If you’re still around, I’m here for a few minutes. I’ll repeat a question I asked earlier – in a more complete form. Am I right that you interpret Scripture to say that we will lose our salvation if we don’t partake of the Lord’s Supper each first day of the week?
If so, I obviously disagree. I would be interested to know your arguments in support of that idea.
Nathan said
JR, except for your treatment of Katherine, you’ve been behaving very civilly, and I appreciate that. You still don’t have our trust, because we’ve seen the way you’ve behaved on TV these last several years, but it’s good that you’ve finally started addressing most of us in a more respectful tone.
surely you jest!
Trust? we don’t even know who you folks are. You could all be Chris knight for all we know.
Respect?
you must be kidding.
I have about as much respect for you Nathan as a prank caller.
For all I know that is what you are
Now me, the one who want debate????????????
I am on for all to see every week. All to see every Sunday at our place of assembly
for all to question on any phone at any time in real time, real life.
My records are public knowledge
my salary is discussed on TV
you can go and talk to the people I do business with
Trust?
you all are some shadowy under world of who knows what. with one thing in common… you may not even be real>
(except for Corey Chris and Randy) I know they are real from contacts personally
Trust
the joker laughs as he fades into the Light (sorry I know it should be darkness) but I am a creature of light I just can’t help it
light is a wonderful thing
Eph 5:12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
Wonder how long nathan would last if we could see our foe??????????
maybe that is why the darkness suits him better
trust?
please
Nathan said
but I’ve been cutting Johnny a bit of slack because he’s seemingly been attempting to discuss and not just insult.
you cut me slack because I make your website and you know it
Nathan said
If so, I obviously disagree. I would be interested to know your arguments in support of that idea
you didnt deal with 3 days ago
on the subject
Rick put all ya’ll out of favor with just coming to the assembly much less communion
this is why this is not of any profit
hard work from 3 days is dismissed
with discussion on Lee’s problem with being so sensitive
“but I am a creature of light I just can’t help it”
2 Corinthians 11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Well neveranswering, I think you can back and see where I have had dicussions . They just weren’t for your side. Favortism is a sin. Maybe you can get Johnny to tell you about that since he’s the one you really want to talk to
PS : We’re not happy with the way Katherine treats the church , so there you go
Johnny said, “you all are some shadowy under world of who knows what. with one thing in common… you may not even be real(except for Corey Chris and Randy) I know they are real from contacts personally.”
I am offended Johnny, you know I am real also…You, Mark and myself chatted in the parking lot one afternoon…geesh can’t get no respect.
Johnny said, “on the subject Rick put all ya’ll out of favor with just coming to the assembly much less communion”
What the heck is that all about?
Rick,
Do you know of any scripture which commands that if a Christian does not observe the Lord’s Supper every week, that he/she will lose his/her salvation?
I’ve never heard of that one, and cannot find any reference to it after looking through my own Bible for the past good while.
Not in the King James Bible I have.
I did find Matthew 12, however, where Jesus Himself is condemned by the Pharisees for not observing the Sabbath, and Jesus replies with the story of David eating the temple bread.
“I will have mercy, and not sacrifice”, He told the Pharisees.
If Robertson and his cult is teaching that the Lord’s Supper must be observed every week or else it be a dire sin, then he is clearly wrong and violating the teaching of Jesus.
The “Church of Christ” cult demands sacrifice, where Jesus shows that God desires us to render mercy as He also is merciful.
I wonder if Johnny Robertson will quote me on that in his sermon tomorrow morning?
You know, Jesus fought against the religionist of His day because of the burden of rules, regulations and fear they put on the people of God. Not to mention the fact that they considered as unacceptable those who did not think, worship, act and look like them. Sound familiar?
Rick, if Dostoevsky were alive today, he would declare Johnny Robertson to be the living embodiment of the Grand Inquisitor from The Brothers Karamazov.
On August 16, 2008 at 10:29 am rick Said:
Not in the King James Bible I have.
Rick, so you will preach next Sunday that since assembling every sunday is not in KJV you have; people need not come every Sunday?
since tithe is not every sunday (in the KJV) you have no need to tithe every sunday
how about you spell this out for us
How often do you “have to asseble to worshiP”
can you assemble as often as you all commune?
can you tithe as often as you commune
since they are actually all spell out the same in the KJV you have
we will not get anything from this
this is why we have division right here!
thank you chris
On August 15, 2008 at 5:28 pm churchesofchrist Said:
Johnny, if you reply, dont think I am ignoring you – I have two sick kids to contend to. btw, they still ask about you and we still watch the DVDs I have from the tent. Thx, ttyl
Randy
sorry about the kids
hope all get s better soon
I told the congregation about the kind things you have saying toward us lately and they all were appreciative .
We will be happy to pray about the kids
I ask about them on Wed. I hear they are growing like weeds.
Thanks again for the fair words you have put out here.
Come see us anytime!
Rick
I am offended Johnny, you know I am real also…You, Mark and myself chatted in the parking lot one afternoon…geesh can’t get no respect.
sorry!
you are real
Is it a sin, or isn’t it? Does a follower of Christ have to observe the Lord’s Supper every Sunday, on penalty of it being a sin if he or she does not?
Scripture, please.
Rick
did you know Chris is
Home churcher?
will you teach that Sunday?
let us all just assemble in our own home individually
get this right now when you quote it back
each in his own home worshiping
not “the church that meets in a home ”
1Co 16:19 ¶ The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.
Chris
rick and I are having a discussion that you would not understand
so just sit down try to learn
class clowns are really difficult . Rick please go ahead
Rick please try and not laugh at the clown
can we get back to this
You are avoiding the question. Again.
Is not observing the Lord’s Supper every week a sin, or is it not? If it is a sin, where is the scripture proving such?
Rick
should I move on?
If you are busy just let me know
I can see you Chris
we all do
Rick doesn’t agree with you so ask him if you can stay home
the Grand Inquisitor..wow..I hope not
But you cannot answer the question.
Is it a sin to not partake of the Lord’s Supper every week?
And if so, is it sin enough to cause one to lose his or her salvation?
This is supposed to be your church’s doctrine, Johnny. And you have made yourself out to be a teacher who is “wise” in that doctrine.
Where then is your wisdom enough to answer so simple a question?
We are instructed to not forshake coming together.
He’s the Grand Inquisitor all right. If Jesus were to come to Martinsville, Virginia today, Johnny Robertson would be the first to have Him arrested, and then executed. But not before Robertson would tell Jesus that He isn’t needed anymore, since we already have “the Church of Christ”.
And then Robertson would run video of the execution ever Sunday night on his show for six months straight.
And knowing Robertson like we do, he would no doubt be telling his viewers that Jesus was screaming profanity the whole time, too.
If he stays home will he send his tithe?
I suspect some day in the future, if the Lord tarries, folks will be assembling together via live real-time video conferencing from their homes
Now we see that after a few days of niceties, the real Mr. Robertson has returned.
Johnny, understand this – you needn’t ever comment on my blog again if it is so unworthy of your time. At this point, I really don’t care. You say that you have “made my blog” like I am getting something out of this other than a lot of wasted time dealing with a lot of bickering and squabbling.
Well, understand this, sir: I get nothing out of this. Not the limelight of four hours a week on TV, not the rapt attention of a room full of people on Sunday mornings, not a notorious reputation in my adopted community. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Zip. 0.
Well – let me amend that slightly. I do get one thing out of it. I get some satisfaction knowing that somewhere in the blogosphere, someone might stumble onto this little blog, and realize that God loves them – that Christ died for them – and that they can live lives of radical freedom knowing that they have been set free from the bondage of sin. We actually spend quite a bit of time talking about that when you aren’t in here acting nice with one hand and stirring the pot with the other.
So do what you like, Mr. Robertson. Comment or don’t. Visit or don’t. It’s really makes little nevermind to me by this point. Regardless, this little blog will continue to chug along.
“If he stays home will he send his tithe?”
You can’t have my tithe Rick: I’m too busy “Eatting” it, LOL!
What if Chris gathers with 2 or 3 in his home? How many does it take to make an assembly of worshippers?
Rick – the question isn’t if we are instructed to not forsake gathering together. The question is if we can lose our salvation if we neglect to observe the Lord’s Supper each first day of the week. The answer is – no. Scripture is silent on this subject. And yet, the hyperconservative churches of Christ teach that you will lose your salvation if you don’t observe the Lord’s Supper in that manner. What happened to speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent?
Not to mention that the church of the first century didn’t assemble in fancy buildings like the one on Starling avenue. If churches of Christ are really going to be like the church of the NT, they will need to get rid of those properties and meet in homes, like Chris apparently does.
Can God only work among 50, 100, 1000, 10000 gathered together in a stained glass building?
You know, the country in the world today that is said to have the most spiritually vibrant communities of followers of Christ is… China.
But these are not the Christians who worship in the state-approved “churches”. I’m talking about the millions of Chinese Christians who meet secretly in house churches, in back alleys, in remote fields, and wherever else they can find to come together.
Many of them don’t even have a physical copy of the Bible. To be found with one is to risk imprisonment. To belong to a house church is to seriously be flirting with peril.
Are these people any less Christian, because they have no church building and no official organization and nothing else that we in America are accustomed to having as part of “church”?
Hey Johnny, I am teaching on Nicodemus and the New Birth on Sunday..what points would you make?
I sometimes can’t paticipate because working all day and other obligations. I noticed Johnny tried to say we are no different than him. But there is a big difference. There are those of us who accept other people and other denominations as brothers and sisters in Christ. Johnny does not accept anyone to be a christian who is not in the same denomination he is in.
“There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works in all.”
I believe this descibes why Johnny is a person that people should avoid.
“But avoid foolish disputes,geneaologies,contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.”
If you are eating the tithe Chris I hope it is because you spent it on communion.
No, Chris. These people would be less Christian because they may not have been baptized in exactly the way that has been decreed necessary by the hyperconservative churches of Christ’s limited interpretation of Scripture.
These people would be less Christian because they may not observe the Lord’s Supper each first day of the week, even though there isn’t any biblical declaration that not observing the Lord’s Supper each first day of the week will threaten your salvation.
These people would be less Christian because they might use some sort of musical instrument when they worship, even though it is approved in the OT, prophesied as a part of heavenly worship in the NT, and was never de-authorized at any point.
I could go on.
On August 16, 2008 at 11:01 am rick Said:
We are instructed to not forshake coming together.
Now folks am I mean because I push?
Rick does it say every week
you did not answer any of the above
you all do the same thing all over
talk about Johnny
Rick did not answer so we cant continue
the class clown gets all the attention and we cant keep a thread
so again nathan
Rick is a preacher and he would never never trot this stuff out on TV
and I am seriously thinking about sending the dialog from him with my answers to all the Vandola folk via snail mail
and see how they feel about how poor their champ has done
Move over Chris Rick is taking your spot
Great word, Truth. You speak truth!
descibes should be describes.
“If you are eating the tithe Chris I hope it is because you spent it on communion.”
Yes, but the congregation couldn’t agree on whether to use the money to buy Ritz crackers or Premium Saltine to use for communion. Some argued that there was a scriptural mandate that we must use Cheese-Nips or go to Hell.
The “Cheese Nips of Christ” is now regarded as a radical splinter faction, marked down as dividers, and we will have nothing more to do with them.
Careful Chris – you know how well humor goes over here. Where’s James Oldfield when you need him? That man put some intentionally funny comments here the few times he commented. I wish he’d use that sense of humor more on his program. I’m serious about that, he was truly funny here. These funny little one liners as he was leaving conversations. I’ll have to go back and look them up.
truth said
There are those of us who accept other people and other denominations as brothers and sisters in Christ. Johnny does not accept anyone to be a christian who is not in the same denomination he is in.
accept did you say?
that is the joke of the ages
are you willing to accept once saved always saved?
are you willing to let your wife roll around on the floor?
or do you have a building so you can have roll free worship
put up a sign that says “roll free zone”
please all you all do is say “I agree that you can all do what you want to do and call it worship” and we will not say you are wrong to do it if you want to do it. but
Just dont think you are going to do it here in this building unless we think it is right
you all are all dishonest and you know it
will any one let Chris preach sunday?
Johnny, I thought I answered that the other day when you were on that topic.. God in the Old Testament commanded a day of rest/worship every 7 days. Today’s church observe that day of rest/worship every seven days on Sunday.
But don’t forget about Colossians 2:16 16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Trying to correct spelling errors.
“will any one let Chris preach sunday?”
I’ve preached before a congregation before. In “real” church buildings, mind ya.
Want me to come preach at Martinsville Church of Christ sometime?
And what about Romans 14:5-6 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
Careful, Rick – you’re posting a passage of Scripture that is telling us that we have the right to insist that we not be judged for certain things… that’s going to step on some toes.
Well, I’ve got to scoot.
Everyone (including Mr. Robertson), have a great day. Remember, “this is the day that the Lord has made, let’s rejoice and be glad in it!” Psalm 118:24
Adios!
The New Testament shows that the first day of the week became a day of worship. When Paul wanted to collect an offering from the church at Corinth, he asked them to gather the money on the “first day of the week” (1 Cor. 16:2). And when he wanted to meet with the believers at Troas, the gathering took place “on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread” (Acts 20:7).
In Revelation 1:10, the apostle John described himself as being “in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day.” Most have thought he was referring to Sunday, so that our use of “the Lord’s Day” as a term for Sunday comes from this verse.
By the way, Mr. Robertson, will you please pass on to James O that I said that I’d like to see more of his great dry wit on his program? Humor can be a very effective device for getting people’s attention.
Johnny, I may not choose to worship the same as someone else does but I can choose to accept them as a brother or sister in Christ. I have friends who attend different churches that worship in different ways who I accept to be christians. So yes I do accept other people in other denominations as brothers and sisters in Christ.
So JR, does any of that which I have posted above answer your question of me?
But instead of a “roll free zone”, we have a “snore free zone”
On August 16, 2008 at 11:36 am rick Said:
Johnny, I thought I answered that the other day when you were on that topic.. God in the Old Testament commanded a day of rest/worship every 7 days. Today’s church observe that day of rest/worship every seven days on Sunday.
Ok Rick
where is that written in the NT
You see rick you have not answered this
you have taken inferences just as I have for
every Lord’s day assembly
it is law in Baptist faith and you know it
you will not become a 7th day adventist
yo may let them be
but not in your building
that is all we are trying to say
you all have your way and it s the only that is going to be tolerated in your place
you let others do as they please but you do not accept them in your place
once saved always saved is a test of fellowship in your place
We are saying let us get down to the public square and work this stuff out
because if we continue this “you do it your way” I do it mine”
we are opening the door for kooks like —– to come in with Star Wars church
you all can treat him as if he is a serious contender if you like
he is a nut to me and I know you well enough Rick yo all would not tolerate him a minute
He can’t hear ya Rick. He’s off putting stamps on all those letters that he’s going to be snail-mailing to your congregation!
Speaking of which, doesn’t it seem like that’s going to be an awful waste of postage? I mean, how many people are at Vandola Baptist? (Rhetorical question, you don’t have to answer if you don’t wanna.) Multiply that by the current postage rate, to say nothing of the cost of paper and envelopes, and that’s not a small pocket of coin that Robertson is declaring he’ll use against you.
But I guess it’s of no concern to him, since it’s not really “his” money that he’s threatening you with…
Johnny, we all worship with “like minded people”. Why should I be upset if your fellowship observes the Lord’s Supper every Sunday and our fellowship does not? Am I going to come to your fellowship and demand that you stop observing the Supper weekly? Does when or how often you observe the Supper it affect my salvation or your salvation?
“because if we continue this “you do it your way” I do it mine”
we are opening the door for kooks like —– to come in with Star Wars church”
Johnny, you continue to show your monumental ignorance!
You don’t know what a Star Wars church is.
This is a Star Wars church…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2i764rMDfM
Trying to do too much at once. Be back later.
Johnny, would not your quote below spoken to me also apply to you if I were saying them?
“you all have your way and it s the only that is going to be tolerated in your place. you let others do as they please but you do not accept them in your place”
On August 16, 2008 at 11:49 am rick Said:
The New Testament shows that the first day of the week became a day of worship. When Paul wanted to collect an offering from the church at Corinth, he asked them to gather the money on the “first day of the week” (1 Cor. 16:2). And when he wanted to meet with the believers at Troas, the gathering took place “on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread” (Acts 20:7).
In Revelation 1:10, the apostle John described himself as being “in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day.” Most have thought he was referring to Sunday, so that our use of “the Lord’s Day” as a term for Sunday comes from this verse.
Rick the fact is I read from you all in days gone by and I know how you reason. You make the exact arguments I do against sprinkling
but when we take the sprinkle argument and apply it the exact same way to music you all jump off and say you cant see it
just tell us if 7th day adventist can teach Sat (per Rom 14: as you introduced
is it just personal preference regarding Sat?
I think that the New Testament makes it clear that the observance of a particular day was not imposed as a binding obligation.
But the generally accepted day of Worship accepted by the church has become Sunday.
On August 16, 2008 at 12:10 pm rick Said:
Johnny, would not your quote below spoken to me also apply to you if I were saying them?
“you all have your way and it s the only that is going to be tolerated in your place. you let others do as they please but you do not accept them in your place”
you know that is correct!
we are not going to tolerate…
but we say so and you won’t
we think we can establish our position and you can’t that is why you all act like Chris is OK when you know he is not
There is no way would tolerate his theology
You would not either
but you are afraid to tell him
Nathan is 5 pointer
do you tolerate that?
No?
Tell him!
Rick thinks Nathan is wrong and would not tolerate that doctrine to be taught as truth at Vandola B
true \false
now defend it like a man if it is Gospel
1Cor 16:13
Philp 1:17
Why do we all play this game
Baptist are not going to tolerate Lee
You all know that in the Baptist that is called “holy rolling”
but you will say “they are OK”
I have Synond of the Pentecostals saying that
baptist is “a mess of Pottage”
on live TV when attorney general pentecostal John something was being put in by Bush
speak up let us get to the cure of this by putting our cards out there
But Johnny we do tolerate difference of opinion by allowing those who opinions differ from us worship in their own way in their own fellowship. We don’t go out to their fellowship to disrupt it and demand they accept our opinion or way of teaching.
You not only will not tolerate a differing of opinons but will go out to disrupt and demand an acceptance of your opinons and teachings.
There is where we differ.
Would I allow a Methodist to come to Vandola to teach baptism by spinkling..no. Would I allow a Methodist to come to Vandola to teach the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.. yes.
Exactly rick.
“There is no way would tolerate his theology
You would not either”
My theology centers on man being fallen, incapable of redeeming himself, and having to rely completely on the grace and mercy of God. Who loves every person so much that He sent His own Son to take the penalty for our own trespasses. All we need do is desire the grace that He has extended to us.
Mind tell me what’s wrong with that? Why it should not be tolerated?
john,
now why would you say that i didnt respond to you
when i made three posts to you after your last to me?
you choose to look over it.
how can i take your apology as heart felt when YOU have mentioned it in posts to others twice since yesterday?
and yes, i am “sensitive” about my wife.
i would suggest that since you have at least made an
attempt at an apology, that you dont mention it again.
did you read anything i said? why continue with the insults? if your points about anything are valid no
one will be able to deny it.
you know……. the word of god is quick and powerful…….. the word is sufficient and dosent need superfluity of naughtiness from anyone.
lee
Would I allow a Presbyterian to come to Vandola to teach infant baptism..no. Would I allow a Presbyterian to come to Vandola to lead in observance of the Lord’s Supper.. probably.
Rick, did you know that the Amish, perhaps the remnant of the original Anabaptist movement that has survived for the longest time intact, does not practice baptism by immersion? Those who choose to join the Amish church kneel during the worship service, the bishop places his hand on the head of the man or woman being baptized, and water is poured out onto his hand and his/her head. The person is then fully accepted as an Amish.
In spite of how some of us may disagree with the mode with which it is performed, there is no doubt that for the Amish, their baptism is extremely significant in how it represents a turning away from the world and choosing to have a life in Christ.
I met some during my recent trip and these are some of the most humble, loving people anyone is likely to meet. They really do witness for Christ with their lives.
Can’t help but wonder if the “Church of Christ” preachers around here would say that they’re going to Hell anyway…
Would I allow Chris to come to Vandola to give his testimony of how God has influenced and changed his life?.. only if he promised not to reference any dialog from Star Wars or the Dark Knight…
Hey Rick,
I don’t belong to any denomination. That said, I would have no problem at all with and in fact would no doubt enjoy immensely coming to worship with you and your fine congregation, of which I have heard much good about, sometime in the near future.
Even though I beleive that immerson is the proper mode of baptism I am not going to condemn someone to hell because they were sprinkled instead. I think the observance of a lot of issues like that ie mode of baptism, frequency of the Lord’s Supper is more subject to heavenly rewards than to salvation.
“Would I allow Chris to come to Vandola to give his testimony of how God has influenced and changed his life?.. only if he promised not to reference any dialog from Star Wars or the Dark Knight…
”
So in other words I’m free to share my testimony, just don’t pepper it with “The Force is with me” or “I’m just a dog chasing cars”?
Deal
You keep speaking the truth…Truth!!
To Johnny, “faithful”, et al…Don’t worry-I have been INSULTED enough to know when to dust my feet off as Jesus commanded. Some “Christians” you are. You might have had a chance to teach something or learn something, but you chose to ignore it and cast it aside.
If your reasoning really is that I treat the church wrong-that is an inaccurate statement. See, the church is His people and I LOVE His people because God has commanded me to. But I don’t think that is what you mean-I think you mean that I don’t treat the institution of the churches of Christ as you like because I don’t buy into so many of your interpretations and act as rudely as you choose to-so I am not accepted…and I don’t defend it at all costs because I believe it is the only true church
Does that sound about right?
# On August 16, 2008 at 12:42 pm rick Said:
Would I allow Chris to come to Vandola to give his testimony of how God has influenced and changed his life?.. only if he promised not to reference any dialog from Star Wars or the Dark Knight…
# On August 16, 2008 at 12:44 pm Chris Knight Said:
Hey Rick,
I don’t belong to any denomination. That said, I would have no problem at all with and in fact would no doubt enjoy immensely coming to worship with you and your fine congregation, of which I have heard much good about, sometime in the near future.
Ok that does it for me
I thought you were different than you are Rick
With Baptist like Rick there is no wonder we are where we are today
Hey Rick, it got lost a few comments up ‘cuz of a computer snafu, but Robertson asked how would you like for it to turn into a Star Wars church.
I told him that he didn’t know