Well, someone over there has finally acknowledged that our blog exists. I appreciate Norm not ignoring us (as Johnny did), and I think he was pretty wise to mention that we are here, even if he did misrepresent us a bit.
Norm, we aren’t “dedicated to try and discredit” the Church of Christ. If you read through our past entries, you’ll see that the opposite is true! We’re just trying to do what you say you are trying to do, and that is, have a place where conversation can take place. The difference is: 1) I’ve chosen a different medium than you; 2) I don’t have the money to go on television three times a week, and so I have my free blog.
I’m also glad to hear that Norm mentioned us to the Danville Church, and hope that he gave out our URL, so that the folks over there can come online with us and discuss what we are saying about their pastor’s teachings. You are all welcome here!
Norm’s main focus was on baptism tonight (I wonder if our blog conversation this week had something to do with that?), but he started out defending their use of Romans 16:16. I have just a couple of comments on that.
Norm referenced a conversation he and I had on his blog, which you can read if you follow this link and scroll down the page:
http://blog.bibleqna.org/2007/10/10/response-to-lls-false-charges.aspx#Comment
In the broadcast last night, he said that the Church of Christ in Danville “fits the description” of the New Testament church, and that’s why they have the authority to call themselves the “Church of Christ”. Now, contrary to what brother Norm says, I don’t have a problem with this. My problem comes when he (and others) uses Romans 16:16 to justify the name of their church while denying others the right to have a name.
In the link I provided, you can see how on a past episode, Norm was discussing this topic with a caller. In that program, Norm challenged the caller to look up “Baptist church” and said it wasn’t there. Then he looked up “churches of Christ” and pulled up Romans 16:16. He then made a big deal that “churches of Christ” got one hit. So, I made the point that if you look up “Baptist church” (singular), and look up “church of Christ” (singular) you get an equal number of hits, which is ZERO. So, Norm, Johnny, and James should stop using the argument I gave above, because it’s not a genuine argument, and I am glad to see that Norm didn’t argue it that way last night.
Incidentally, I’m also waiting for an adequate response to the question about why the Churches of Christ, who are such advocates of following the Bible, refuse to obey the Bible in Romans 16:16 where Paul commands the reader to “Salute one another with an holy kiss.”
Answering the Church of Christ 
The whole “name of the church” discussion strikes me as beside the point.
Neither the universal church nor a local church in the Bible is given a name. The designation “church[es] of Christ”, “church of God”, etc. aren’t names. They’re descriptions showing who the church[es] belong to.
To use an illustration, my name is Jeff. You might call me “Rebekah’s husband.” I might even answer to it since I understand who you’re referring to. However, it’s not my name; it’s a description.
In the same way, “church of Christ” isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be) a denominational or sectarian name. A “church of Christ” should simply be a nondenominational church belonging to Christ, not some church showing a denominational affiliation. It’s a description – hopefully an accurate one.
Are you saying that only a non-denominational church can be a “church of Christ”?
What is a denomination? A division.
Is it from God or man? Man.
Why would anyone want to be part of a man-made division?
I agree that Christians should drop their party names and just be called Christians. If a denomination is a division, and we have many sects-divisions within the church of Christ, how are these not denominations under the banner or name “church of Christ”? Matter of fact, many of these sects-divisions within the church of Christ do not even consider each other memebers of the body and disfellowship the other. The division within the church of Christ is man-made also, so who wants to be part of a division that claims unity, but is not in unity with its own members?
“I agree that Christians should drop their party names and just be called Christians.”
Then we’re basically in agreement as to the ideal.
Re: the divisions between churches of Christ, fair point. However, it seems to me that we’re talking about two separate things here. Modern-day denominationalism is divided due to differences in doctrine, but generally then turns around and says those differences don’t really matter – while remaining divided. Divisions between the various groups of nondenominational churches of Christ occur for doctrinal matters because those differences are perceived as mattering.
It’s the difference between being voluntarily divided over things you all agree don’t really matter vs. being divided because someone teaches/practices something that you find incompatible with the Christian’s life. Does that make sense?
Jeff says: It’s the difference between being voluntarily divided over things you all agree don’t really matter vs. being divided because someone teaches/practices something that you find incompatible with the Christian’s life. Does that make sense?
Trust me, I know where you are coming from. But the truth is that the church of Christ are just as split as our denominational folk, maybe more. We split over smaller things and even disfellowship with each other over one cups vs many cups and too many more things to even name. We use scriptures out context to support our views of denominational folk, calling them false teachers among other things. Show me a person in the NT that honestly desired Christ and was called a false teacher because he misunderstood something. Today, we think if someone doesnt understand something as we, that they are false teaches…this is prideful on our part…acting as if we have some perfect understanding of all scripture. No perosn who honestly desired Christ was called “a false brother or false teacher” these were wells without water, men who wanted to depart from the faith, some called anti-christ…these were not people like our denominational folk, who honestly desire Christ, but are lacking some understanding you or I may have or think we have. Do I think some in the denominational world are lost?? Yes. I think there are some “actors” -people who desire money and fame and do not desire Christ, people who are wells without water, people who do not care for Christ, but act the part to gain wealth and fame. But to say ALL denominational folk are lost because they lack understanding or still drinking the milk of the word and not meat, I can not be so prideful to say such a thing.
But, the root of the divisions found in denominationalism were over things that were seen as incompatible. That’s why Calvinists drowned Anabaptists, why Catholics burned Protestants, etc. I’m pretty happy that we aren’t at that point anymore.
Subjective time:
I wouldn’t say the differences don’t matter, but for me, its more that I’ve realized that Scripture can be interpreted differently from person to person.
For example, I am a life-long Presbyterian, but I attended to an inter-denominational seminary. I was taught by and learned beside Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, and others. We had notable differences in our doctrines and polities, but we all worshiped the same Lord. It was a fantastic experience!
But I do think that denominations are on the way out. A generation or two ago, it would have been hard to find a seminary that would have had students from all different backgrounds studying together. And the rise in non-denominational churches is the trend of the future, because the younger generations aren’t as interested in those sorts of things as the previous generations were. The mainline denominations are dying out (with the exception of the Southern Baptists) are losing members like crazy each year.
Churches of Christ may be the wave of the future! Not the hard-liners like we’ve got here, but folks who are willing to be a bit more flexible.
Most speculation on someone’s motive or heart is worthless. There have been people I’ve thought were sincere (but wrong) who I later learned weren’t, and vice versa. I believe that if someone sincerely wants to learn the truth, God will make a way for them to do so. Therefore, I teach what I believe the truth is and support it with Scripture; I then try to consider what someone else says with an open Bible, an open mind, and an honest heart. I can’t do much about someone else’s motives, but I can with my own. The rest is up to others.
As I’ve said before, “my church can beat up your church” triumphalism doesn’t appeal much to me. I’m more interested in learning and teaching what the Bible says.
As far as imperfection in understanding, isn’t that exactly what Paul wrote about the Jews of his time? Zeal for God, but not according to proper knowledge. As a result, they hadn’t attained salvation (10:1). Isn’t that exactly what Paul had before his teaching and baptism? A good conscience, but in ignorance about the truth?
Jeff, I appreciate the way that you put that posting. I’m with you, my man!
Yes, we can interpret different passages in different ways, but there’s only one correct meaning: the one God through the Holy Spirit assigned to it (II Peter 1:20-21). If I understand something different from what God intended, then I misunderstand.
Yes, this flies in the face of our postmodern, relativistic, and subjective culture. Oh, well. Too bad for it. 🙂
I understand this, but what about after one has been saved, but lacks understanding on doctrine? Many people have zeal before being saved…Im talking about people who have come to Christ thru faith and then lack understanding on doctrine. Will God send someone to hell because they dont understand that they can not have music in the church?? Will God send someone to hell if they dont follow one example of the Lords supper-the first day of the week each Sunday?? If so, you are addrssing two men whom you may consider hell bound. I know Nathan and I both do not “understand” this as many do in the church of Christ, are we hell bound because we do not understand this as you??
“If I understand something different from what God intended, then I misunderstand.”
How can you be certain that your understanding (or interpretation) is what God intended? For example, the passage you reference – one person might read it the way you did; another might take it more in context and point out that “prophecy” comes from the Greek “prophēteia”, which is a very specific action, and not related to general Scriptural interpretation.
I’m not trying to throw a curtain of haze over your convictions, just show that we have to approach our interpreting of Scripture with humility, and an open mind towards other interpretations. Otherwise, we are dooming ourselves to being militaristically dogmatic, and not very helpful to the Kingdom.
1 Peter 5:5: “be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.”
Come on guys, you know we can’t be wrong with our Scriptural interpretation-lol. We church of Christ folk as you call us tend to think this way and forget we could be wrong. You are right, it can be prideful indeed to claim that our view is right and yours is wrong. That’s why we love debating so much:) You make some interesting points regarding the false teachers and anti-Christ being people who didnt desire Christ, and I must confess your interpretation may be on point. We tend to call people who disagree with us, false teachers, and yes this includes those in denominations. But as you noted, these verses are never directed to people who desire to know God. Look at all of the problems with the early church and their misunderstandings, were they saved? You may need to know that most of us THINK the gospel is the entire bible or at least the NT. So, when you hear us say one must obey the gospel, we might mean “every doctrine” or what we believe every doctrine is within the NT. But, again, we have used this wrongly. The gospel is simply the good news about Christ-his work on the cross. The pattern we should be following is Christ. Well, guys-it is late and time for me to go asleep.
Hi David,
Keep in mind, that at the root of our discussion here is a trio of Church of Christ television hosts here in Southern Virginia and North Carolina, and what they teach, and the way they do so. I realize that there are many different churches who claim the title “church of Christ”, and so I don’t want you to think we’re lumping everyone into one little box.
I do realize, though, that many folks would agree with these men, and so I’m happy to have the discussions of doctrines be with any and everyone!
That being said, I appreciate your POV, and the reasonableness of your post.
While our English word “prophecy” usually denotes predicting the future, the Greek term indicates someone declaring a message originating from God. This encompasses, but is not limited to, prediction. In context, he’s talking about the written Scriptures.
Thus, the point Peter is making here applies perfectly to us today. The inspired Scriptures come from God and thus are not subject to a (valid) personal interpretation. We’d better match our understanding to God’s.
How do we do this? Study, study, more study – for the purpose of discerning the truth, not of justifying ourselves. Brutal honesty with ourselves. Prayer. Lots of prayer. A willingness to acknowledge truth and change.
In short, an honest heart, an open mind, and an open Bible.
Does anyone in the church of Christ have a PERFECT understanding of ALL doctrine? Does everyone in the church of Christ have a PERFECT understanding of ALL doctrine? Will those who lack a perfect understanding of ALL doctrine be lost?? Since we must Study, study, more study, I would guess that nobody has come to such perfection. So, how close must one get to a perfect understanding of ALL doctrine to avoid being lost-hell bound. What about the babe in Christ who is on the milk of the word, what if he were to die unlearned or unable to reach a perfect understanding of ALL scriptures? Please address each question. I agree, we must study, but we must be honest and admit that we never come to such a place that we understand ALL doctrine PERFECTLY.
Jeff,
I agree and disagree with you. I agree that the key is our studying and spending time in the word and prayer seeking the meaning of what we’re reading. And I agree that we all have to have an open mind that we might be mistaken in the conclusions we come to while reading Scripture.
However, I do disagree with your assessment of the Greek word for “prophecy”.
You wrote:
“While our English word “prophecy” usually denotes predicting the future, the Greek term indicates someone declaring a message originating from God. This encompasses, but is not limited to, prediction. In context, he’s talking about the written Scriptures.”
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4394&Version=kjv
“b) Used in the NT of the utterance of OT prophets
1) of the prediction of events relating to Christ’s kingdom and its speedy triumph, together with the consolations and admonitions pertaining to it, the spirit of prophecy, the divine mind, to which the prophetic faculty is due
2) of the endowment and speech of the Christian teachers called prophets
3) the gifts and utterances of these prophets, esp. of the predictions of the works of which, set apart to teach the gospel, will accomplish for the kingdom of Christ”
In context, Peter IS referencing the Old Testament prophecies – not the entire written Word.
And how can you NOT have a personal interpretation? It’s pretty arrogant for a person to say that his interpretation “matches God’s” at all times.
Certainly, some verses are cut and dry. However, the fact that there are so many people reading the same Bible but coming to different conclusions shows that personal interpretation is the rule, not the exception.
answering, I’m afraid you left out 1a (i.e., the primary definition) to jump to 1b when quoting Thayer above:
“a discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of God, whether by reproving and admonishing the wicked, or comforting the afflicted, or revealing things hidden; esp. by foretelling future events”
Which is exactly what I said.
As W.E. Vine wrote in Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:
“Though much of OT prophecy was purely predictive… prophecy is not necessarily, nor even primarily, fore-telling. It is the declaration of that which cannot be known by natural means… it is the forth-telling of the will of God, whether with reference to the past, the present, or the future.”
In context, Peter was referencing specifically Messianic prophecy. However, in verses 20-21, he turns from the specific to the general. And please note that Peter’s definition of Scripture is not confined to merely the Old Testament (cf. 3:16-17).
To the “tojeff” writer above (if it’s not too much to ask, could y’all please sign your notes if you want a reply? Thanks!):
I would agree that no one has a perfect understanding of all things that are. I would also agree that there are some things that are difficult to understand. However, Scripture also notes that those who are “always learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” stand condemned (and in pretty start terms – cf. II Timothy 3). It also notes that things that are difficult to understand can also be twisted to our own destruction if we are ignorant and/or unstable (II Peter 3:16).
In truth, I have very little respect for this line of argumentation. I’ve never met anyone (outside of the most liberal denominations, perhaps) who takes this argumentation to its logical end. If we can never really know the truth, we can never really know we are saved. If ignorance means excuse, then we should remain in ignorance and thus be forgiven. That’s a curious inversion of the gospel, where those who learn the least truth are better off than those who learn the most – assuming anyone can learn anything!
Instead of arguing and name-calling over whether we can understand God’s revelation in the abstract, what if we spent half that time trying to understand God’s will in the specific?
to Jeff Says:
December 3, 2007 at 10:42 am
Does anyone in the church of Christ have a PERFECT understanding of ALL doctrine? Does everyone in the church of Christ have a PERFECT understanding of ALL doctrine? Will those who lack a perfect understanding of ALL doctrine be lost?? Since we must Study, study, more study, I would guess that nobody has come to such perfection. So, how close must one get to a perfect understanding of ALL doctrine to avoid being lost-hell bound. What about the babe in Christ who is on the milk of the word, what if he were to die unlearned or unable to reach a perfect understanding of ALL scriptures? Please address each question. I agree, we must study, but we must be honest and admit that we never come to such a place that we understand ALL doctrine PERFECTLY.
I didnt know we were arguing and name calling. I must have missed something Jeff…I dont see any name calling. I dont recall doing that. And sorry about my name not being there…I am familar with what you stated and agree for the most part. Back to the questions, this time more direct. Do YOU have a perfect understanding of EVERY doctrine? Do people who attend the church of Christ have PERFECT understanding of ALL doctrine?? If not why? Are there gray areas in the Gospel-Jesus died, buried,rose the thrid day. ( clear as day ) Are there gray ares in how you might see the Lords supper as a must each Sunday?? Are there gray areas in other dotrines that you might believe one way and someone else in the church of Christ believe another, can you both be right??
Hi Jeff.
Go to the link I provided, go down to the section that is taken directly out of Strongs, and look for 2 Peter 1:20. You’ll see that it says:
“used in the NT – of the utterances of the OT prophets”.
The other verse given where the word is used this way is Matthew 13:14, which says, “And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive.” (which is pretty ironic considering the subject of this blog…)
I left out the primary definition because it didn’t apply to the usage of the word in the context, as given by Strongs.
From that, you must conclude that Peter’s context was OT prophecy. And if you look at the other translations you’ll see that it’s really not correct to consider that as our interpreting scripture. It is that no prophet made prophecy of his own accord, but from God.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/versions.pl?book=2Pe&chapter=1&verse=20&version=KJV#20
It has nothing to do with our own interpretations.
Jeff: However, Scripture also notes that those who are “always learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” stand condemned (and in pretty start terms – cf. II Timothy 3).
Randy: What is “the knowledge of the truth” here?? Does this mean every doctrine in the bible?? Come on now, we know this does not mean every doctrine as I was making mention to.
Jeff: It also notes that things that are difficult to understand can also be twisted to our own destruction if we are ignorant and/or unstable (II Peter 3:16).
Randy: I couldnt agree more. We tend to take scriptures like II Timothy 3 and make them say more than it does.
Nathan, maybe you can start a section called context, for an area to list of Scriptures often used by some in the Church of Christ. You will learn quickly that many preachers in the church of Christ ( not all ) often use scriptures out of context, often taking them from their context to benefit their doctrines. I will list a couple, but not list all of them that they use.
Gal. 1:6-9: church of Christ preachers often use these verses against denominational folk, stating they are preaching another Gospel because they are ignorant of some things in the apostolic letters, or misunderstand some things as they( CofC ) do. One must ask “What is the Gospel? Simply put, it’s the good news about Jesus and his finished work.( Cor. 15:1-4 ) Those who Paul was addressing were people who wanted to be justified by law and teaching people to reject justification by faith through the finished work of Christ. Sadly, the church of Christ yanks this verse from its context and uses it quite often to say that denominational churches are preaching another Gospel.
2 John 10,11: This verse is one of the favorites to again turn people away from denominational folk. This time its not the gospel but the word doctrine that has been pulled from its context and used at will to divide people in the church. The verse states “if any come to you and not bring this doctrine, receive him not, neither bid him God speed”. Our church of Christ friends love this verse, here they say ” you aren’t teaching the right doctrine” and they might point how you believe various things they do not. But what is the doctrine that John was referring to?? If our friends in the church of Christ would keep reading it would become very clear what John was referring to. John was writing to counteract the effects of Gnosticism. The Gnostic’s taught many things, but here they were denying Jesus came in the flesh and John was speaking to people that bring this doctrine to receive them not, nor bid them Godspeed. Sadly, again, the church of Christ pulls this verse apart and tosses it upon the denominational folk and their doctrine they disagree with.
These are just a couple, there are quite a few more. Context ! Context ! Context !
Randy, though it seems you think we disagree on principle, I don’t think so. You listed some things that you say are clear and obvious. I’d agree. Obviously, you think there are some things that are necessary. I’d agree. Furthermore, you also appear to agree that something being difficult to understand doesn’t mean we get a free pass on it.
It would seem we’re in agreement over most of underlying principles.
However, the things you listed as “clear as day” aren’t to everyone. Some self-proclaimed Christians deny all these things, including the resurrection. To turn your question around, do you believe you have perfect knowledge of these things? If so, why? Do you believe you’re right and these people wrong? Why?
Or are we better served agreeing on the principle and discussing the specifics of what’s true?
answering, I’m assuming you mean the Thayer’s section (which has to be expanded), which says, “Used in the N.T. – of the utterances of the O.T. prophets.” Is this correct?
This definition does not indicate merely predictive prophecy. Furthermore, do recall that, while useful, this is a man-made definition. In context, Peter’s definition of Scripture would appear to conflict with Thayer’s (cf. 3:16 of this same book). Shouldn’t the Bible be its own interpreter whenever possible?
Hi Jeff.
Jeff says: However, the things you listed as “clear as day” aren’t to everyone.
I used this term to bait the question at hand. Thats my very point everyone doesnt understand things the same, including doctrine. Whats clear to me may not be to someone else. And whats clear to you may not be to someone else. Far as the Gospel-Jesus went to a cross, died and was raised the third day. Most people understand that, but many deny it. But when it comes to other issues-such as music, tithing, Lords supper, end times…to name a few- many do not understand it the same. Even in the church of Christ there are too many sects to even name who disagree on many things, but I dont dare say they are lost.
I will admit I do NOT have a perfect understanding of ALL doctrine. I dont know anyone who does. There are some who pridefully say they do, but I dont. I do think I am right about some things, but I dont dare say because I THINK I am right, that someone else is wrong and headed to hell. I think the Lords supper can be any day of the week-where you may say Sunday and each Sunday. I dont see any problems with someone following one example, but when its made into some law and binded upon people-I draw the line there. Why not take the example of the early church selling their goods and bind that as law?? The main problem I have is with people who THINK their view on these things is law binding and if someone disgrees they are hell bound. The verses in the section of “scrpitures pulled from context” are just a few I have heard abused. Its sad that people use them the way they do. Thanks for your comments.
I am not saying that theology does not matter. What I am saying is that I do not believe that it takes a theologically perfect (if there is such a thing) scholar to get into heaven. I also do not believe that our agenda as fellow believers is to shove our interpretations of truth down peoples throat for the sake of winning arguments. Christianity is not so much about theological precision as it is about diligently seeking to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord for HIS glory and Name’s sake.
I will go on record and say “I am not sure if one can lose salvation” I know the arguments from both sides and know each weakness and each argument -I honestly do not understand perfectly this doctrine, meaning …maybe God does keep one secure by His power or maybe one can walk away and deny the faith he once believed, or maybe he never was saved to begin with, and shown this by his turning from the faith-or he could be a prodigal son that may return at some point. My point is there are many doctrines in the bible that people disagree on or don’t understand the same. To be honest I am somewhere in the middle on this doctrine of “Eternal Security”
Jeff: This definition does not indicate merely predictive prophecy. Furthermore, do recall that, while useful, this is a man-made definition. In context, Peter’s definition of Scripture would appear to conflict with Thayer’s (cf. 3:16 of this same book). Shouldn’t the Bible be its own interpreter whenever possible?
Randy: I probably have heard II Timothy 3:16 quoted at least one thousand times on TV and from others in the Church of Christ. I do not ever remember the context being given. I do not ever remember being mentioned the fact that Paul is speaking about the Old Testament Scriptures in this passage. (the New Testament had not yet been written) so wonder what Paul was thinking about when he wrote this?? But, I do know where you are headed and what you mean.
To add to what Randy has said…
Jeff wrote:
“This definition does not indicate merely predictive prophecy. Furthermore, do recall that, while useful, this is a man-made definition. In context, Peter’s definition of Scripture would appear to conflict with Thayer’s (cf. 3:16 of this same book). Shouldn’t the Bible be its own interpreter whenever possible?”
Would appear…
That sounds might subjective. In other words, it doesn’t sound like Peter’s definition is clashing with Thayer, but rather that Jeff’s interpretation is clashing with Thayer.
That is my point. When you hold tightly to your own interpretation, and claim that those whose interpretations differ from your own are somehow standing counter to Scripture, that you need to be very, very careful.
This is what Johnny Robertson, Norm Fields and James Oldfield do on a weekly basis, three times a week (usually) in our area, and this is what I strongly STRONGLY object to.
answering: Actually, it sounds more like your opinion clashes with what Peter says Scripture is. I was trying to be as gentle as possible, but if you prefer more direct, I can accomodate.
Again, Peter says Scripture includes more than simply the Old Testament within the same book.
Randy: I’m afraid you misunderstand. II Peter 3:16 is what is under consideration, not II Timothy. But this is useful. It appears our interpretations of what I wrote differ. One of us is right, one of us is mistaken, but we cannot both be right. Meaning belongs to the author, not the reader. When he understands something different from the author, he misunderstands.
Also, you left my entire point to you completely unaddressed. I look forward to your thoughts on the matter.
Exactly Jeff, it shows that we sometimes make mistakes and sometimes misunderstand things. Thanks for pointing that out:) So, are you more saved than the next person who might misunderstand something or unlearned about something. Are you then saved by how much you know or think you know?? BTW, I agree with you-“the meaning belongs to the author” this is my point. I know the scriptures have a meaning and they had one before you and I were even born. My point is when a person takes their view or interpretations from examples or what they infer and then binds that as law upon everyone, this is wrong. Thank you for pointing out how we all can misunderstand things.
It appears our interpretations of the Lord supper differ. One of us is right, one of us is mistaken, but we cannot both be right. Meaning belongs to the author, not the reader. When he understands something different from the author, he misunderstands.
Jeff, MUST a Christian take the Lords supper each Sunday per the example of the early church?
Must Christians sell their things and give them away as per the example of some in the early church?
Does man have a right to take what he infers or an example and bind HIS interpretation on others as law?
I look forward to your thoughts on the matter.