Church of Christ - Rug of Hypocrisy

Posted in the Bassett Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of27
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Until I am able to resolve this, I think it may be best I pull away from this altogether. It’s no wonder that former coc preachers turn atheist. Either God wants unity or He allows disunity. If He allows for disunity, it means all who come to Jesus are saved regardless of their doctrinal flaws/short comings.

How can I tell someone they aren’t saved because they “misunderstood” the purpose of baptism, then turn around and allow others to have doctrinal differences over MDR and others things. If God accepts the inconsistencies of some doctrines, He also will allow for misunderstandings over other doctrines like baptism. If not, why not? Book, Chapter, Verse?

The reason that some in the coc hide their disagreement over doctrine like MDR is because it makes them look like those “awful denominational churches”. It’s hard to condemn others to hell for doctrinal disunity when you are guilty of the same thing. So, instead of dealing with it, it often is swept under the rug of hypocrisy.

If the coc can disagree over MDR, and still be saved, then God obviously will accept doctrinal error of others. This is why the coc bury their doctrinal disagreements under the rug of hypocrisy. They know once they come out and admit they also disagree over doctrine, it opens the door for them awful denominational churches.

If God allows some doctrinal error, where does God stop? How far will God go? If we take this to its logical conclusion, it allows for universalism.

Although I believe that the church of Christ are closer to the truth of Scripture- being close doesn’t count. If some error is allowed, where do we draw the line - Book, Chapter, Verse? If ANY error is allowed, it obviously means God accepts people while holding error. If so, this opens the door to EVERY denomination. After all, every single group, including the coc, lack doctrinal perfection.

It’s no wonder Seeking Wanderer threw in the towel and others I know who have left the “church”. They see the issues, and honestly desire to balance them in light of Scripture; yet, they cannot do so without opening the door for universalism.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
May 2, 2013
 
Don't throw in the towel Randy. How about we all try to work through this right here? We can post all relevant scriptures, see what it says, then try to come to some conclusion.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
May 2, 2013
 
Okay. But I dont see how to balance it all. I have some opinion on this but thats all.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I think one of the most important things to see is how Jesus speaks to the seven churches in Revelation, especially the ones He rebukes. He told the Ephesians to repent and do the first works. He told Thyatira that those who didn't hold the doctrine of Jezebel and "known the depths of Satan" that He would put no other burden on them.

He told Sardis to strengthen what remained, and those who had not soiled their garments that they were worthy to walk with Him in white. And Laodicea-He said "As many as I LOVE I rebuke and chasten". We see all kinds of spiritual conditions, even within congregations. We see different doctrines within congregations. He did not tell men to leave a congregation-He told them to be faithful within the congregation. John spoke about Diotrephes, but yet told everyone to follow Demetrius-not forsake and move on.

It seems to me that some doctrinal issues can be tolerated even when disagreed with-the key for us is to remain true and faithful to our beliefs and be stedfast in the Lord. Christ loves all those who are in Him-even those who hold false teachings, or aren't what they should be.

Perhaps we should only reject those that the scripture rejects-as in, what kind of people were to be avoided, disfellowshipped, et al? Maybe we should post some verses and do some exegesis on these ideas.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

I will say this-I know a coc preacher who is a 70 AD theory believing full preterist. I don't think he is lost because of this. I don't believe people are lost simply for speaking in tongues, or believing in all the Spiritual gifts for today. I disagree, but do not condemn.

I don't believe Barnsweb is lost because he still thinks we should honor the Sabbath. Or Bobby for leaving the coc. Who will God say is lost? I think that is the dividing line.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
May 2, 2013
 
JesusCreed wrote:
Until I am able to resolve this, I think it may be best I pull away from this altogether. It’s no wonder that former coc preachers turn atheist. Either God wants unity or He allows disunity. If He allows for disunity, it means all who come to Jesus are saved regardless of their doctrinal flaws/short comings.
How can I tell someone they aren’t saved because they “misunderstood” the purpose of baptism, then turn around and allow others to have doctrinal differences over MDR and others things. If God accepts the inconsistencies of some doctrines, He also will allow for misunderstandings over other doctrines like baptism. If not, why not? Book, Chapter, Verse?
The reason that some in the coc hide their disagreement over doctrine like MDR is because it makes them look like those “awful denominational churches”. It’s hard to condemn others to hell for doctrinal disunity when you are guilty of the same thing. So, instead of dealing with it, it often is swept under the rug of hypocrisy.
If the coc can disagree over MDR, and still be saved, then God obviously will accept doctrinal error of others. This is why the coc bury their doctrinal disagreements under the rug of hypocrisy. They know once they come out and admit they also disagree over doctrine, it opens the door for them awful denominational churches.
If God allows some doctrinal error, where does God stop? How far will God go? If we take this to its logical conclusion, it allows for universalism.
Although I believe that the church of Christ are closer to the truth of Scripture- being close doesn’t count. If some error is allowed, where do we draw the line - Book, Chapter, Verse? If ANY error is allowed, it obviously means God accepts people while holding error. If so, this opens the door to EVERY denomination. After all, every single group, including the coc, lack doctrinal perfection.
It’s no wonder Seeking Wanderer threw in the towel and others I know who have left the “church”. They see the issues, and honestly desire to balance them in light of Scripture; yet, they cannot do so without opening the door for universalism.
There is no way to find doctrinal unity in a Protestant church. Sola Scriptura prevents this from happening.

Why do you think there are 30,000 different Churches out there and growing daily.

There has been only one true doctrinal true church that has not changed in the areas of faith and morals for 2000 years.

Just 60 years every Christian Church in America that contraception was a sin.

The Catholic Church still teaches that. Do all Catholics follow that? Of course not. The Doctrines have never budged.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
May 2, 2013
 
1 Corinthians 5-Paul states that believers should not have relations with brethren who are sexually immoral, covetous, idolators, revilers, drunkards, or extortioners.

Romans 16 tells us to avoid those who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine learned, and avoid them. This seems to be continuing the idea of doubtful disputations.

2 Thessalonians 3-Paul says to withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly, not working.

1 Timothy 6-Withdraw from those who suppose that godliness is a means of gain, argues over words, disputes, etc.

Titus 3-reject a divisive man, foolish disputes and genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law.

Just a general view from Paul. Sure there's other things to look at.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
May 3, 2013
 
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no way to find doctrinal unity in a Protestant church. Sola Scriptura prevents this from happening.
Why do you think there are 30,000 different Churches out there and growing daily.
There has been only one true doctrinal true church that has not changed in the areas of faith and morals for 2000 years.
Just 60 years every Christian Church in America that contraception was a sin.
The Catholic Church still teaches that. Do all Catholics follow that? Of course not. The Doctrines have never budged.
Does the Bible say that scripture alone can be our sole guide of truth. How does 2 Timothy 3:16 fit into the CC?

Many things I see in the CC is made up by men and cannot be backed by the Bible. Explain the difference of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and how these fit into Sacred Magisterium.
Walkinginlove

Danville, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
May 3, 2013
 
JesusCreed wrote:
Okay. But I dont see how to balance it all. I have some opinion on this but thats all.
Romans 14
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Walkinginlove wrote:
<quoted text>
Romans 14
Yes, it means if we are the stronger brother, we give up our right to be right in disputable matters.

I see it as extending grace, mercy, compassion, forgiveness and love to others in the same way God has done/does with us. Operating in the power of Grace is how we get that done.

This comes pretty close to describing the word *grace* which many coc,(including myself) in the past have either misunderstood or flatly rejected in order to keep our doctrine pure.
Walkinginlove

Danville, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
May 3, 2013
 
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it means if we are the stronger brother, we give up our right to be right in disputable matters.
I see it as extending grace, mercy, compassion, forgiveness and love to others in the same way God has done/does with us. Operating in the power of Grace is how we get that done.
This comes pretty close to describing the word *grace* which many coc,(including myself) in the past have either misunderstood or flatly rejected in order to keep our doctrine pure.
Unfortunately people read that passage and forget that much of it would be grounds to kill you in the Old Covenant. It was no small matter that Paul was addressing! Yet we see it that way because those issues are not important to us. We need to see from the eyes of a praticing Jew to see the truth of Romans 14!
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
May 3, 2013
 
Walkinginlove wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately people read that passage and forget that much of it would be grounds to kill you in the Old Covenant. It was no small matter that Paul was addressing! Yet we see it that way because those issues are not important to us. We need to see from the eyes of a praticing Jew to see the truth of Romans 14!
I agree and would add that the church was under the transition of moving from law to grace-from old covenant to new covenant. There was a lot of resistance to give up the old.

It is similar to the coc letting go of some of their foundational talking points even when proven to be wrong.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
May 3, 2013
 
JesusCreed wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the Bible say that scripture alone can be our sole guide of truth. How does 2 Timothy 3:16 fit into the CC?
Many things I see in the CC is made up by men and cannot be backed by the Bible. Explain the difference of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and how these fit into Sacred Magisterium.
Sola Scriptura lives and dies on this one verse. I believe every verse in the Bible in context. I am not sure what translation you read, but I will use KJV, which I still don't understand why a translation made for the head of the Church of England is so loved except for he "Shakespearean" language.

2 Timothy 3:16
King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Like all verses in the Bible, I believe this. First, this verse is in the Bible, like all in the NT, because the CC said it was the inspired and inerrant word of God.

The scripture Paul is referring to here is the OT scriptures. He was telling Bishop Timothy that the OT was profitable to teach the Church that Jesus was the true Messiah prophesied there.

Now that it is part of our Bible, it means what it says. It is profitable for teaching, not the only source of teaching.

But I also believe in all the verses that talk about maintaining the traditions. Don't you? The Bible is not either/or. It is that/and. You know one verse cannot contradict another. You use both.

Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

These generations are the Magisterium with one man with the ultimate Authority on Earth, the Pope.

This is not new. God always had a man on Earth with Authority, Moses, Abraham, David etc.

Why would he stop that, give the world a book, tell them their eternal life will be determined on how you interpret it? Especially for the 90% who could not read until the printing press in 1470. That would be one cruel God. Look at where that is getting us since the 1500s.

He didn't. He created a Church which is the pillar of Truth. He did not create a Bible. The Church created the Bible which is:

"is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Instruction by who? Jesus' Church, the one that has been here since the beginning and has never changed on the issues of faith and morals.

The Bible, Tradition, and the Magisterium. I is the 3 legged stool with which, one is removed, the stool falls.

How many legs does your Church have?

Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
May 3, 2013
 
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree and would add that the church was under the transition of moving from law to grace-from old covenant to new covenant. There was a lot of resistance to give up the old.
It is similar to the coc letting go of some of their foundational talking points even when proven to be wrong.
You and WIL are both correct. In fact, if you realize that when Paul wrote Romans, Jews were returning to Rome, and the church was having a culture clash, the book makes much more sense.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mike, so you are telling me, that the “3 legged stool” can be traced all the way back to Peter.

2 Timothy 3:16 [All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness]. I agree, at that time, the scripture Paul is referring to was the OT scriptures seeing there wasn’t a complete Bible at that point. However, did not God inspire the writers of the New Testament? If so, these too, would fall into 2 Timothy 3:16.

I believe the Golden Candlestick represents the written Word. If true, it shows 66 books that would make up the written Word. If true, we should abide by these 66 and not by outside sources.

The Golden Candlestick had a central shaft with three branches protruding from each side. Each branch had 3 sets of 3 ornaments, with each set containing a bowl, a knop, and a flower- 9 total on each branch. On the central shaft there were 4 sets of these same 3 ornaments for a total of 12.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
May 3, 2013
 
JesusCreed wrote:
Mike, so you are telling me, that the “3 legged stool” can be traced all the way back to Peter.
2 Timothy 3:16 [All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness]. I agree, at that time, the scripture Paul is referring to was the OT scriptures seeing there wasn’t a complete Bible at that point. However, did not God inspire the writers of the New Testament? If so, these too, would fall into 2 Timothy 3:16.
I believe the Golden Candlestick represents the written Word. If true, it shows 66 books that would make up the written Word. If true, we should abide by these 66 and not by outside sources.
The Golden Candlestick had a central shaft with three branches protruding from each side. Each branch had 3 sets of 3 ornaments, with each set containing a bowl, a knop, and a flower- 9 total on each branch. On the central shaft there were 4 sets of these same 3 ornaments for a total of 12.
Praise God! This is truth.
Barnsweb

Idaho Falls, ID

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
May 3, 2013
 
The 'Bible' contains more speakers than God. Jesus said to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. So we need to be mindful of the speaker, and other facts relevant to the gospel. Why do we quote Paul when we can quote those of more authority on any topic, let alone take every word by Paul, even in personal letters, to be 'Scripture'?

Look at God talking to Job. We need to also be mindful that in things not explicit enough by God, Christ Jesus or the apostles/prophets - we must abide in the Doctrine and commandments of God - not the clever musings of mere men trying to give answer for everything.

Only God knows everything and we need to abide in that truth which is directly from Him.

'Who is he who darkens a matter'? It isn't God - it's men twisting and skipping around what He has declared truth.

Jesus didn't come to bring unity - He said so, and the word of God will accomplish all He intended it to do.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
May 3, 2013
 
JesusCreed wrote:
Mike, so you are telling me, that the “3 legged stool” can be traced all the way back to Peter.
2 Timothy 3:16 [All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness]. I agree, at that time, the scripture Paul is referring to was the OT scriptures seeing there wasn’t a complete Bible at that point. However, did not God inspire the writers of the New Testament? If so, these too, would fall into 2 Timothy 3:16.
I believe the Golden Candlestick represents the written Word. If true, it shows 66 books that would make up the written Word. If true, we should abide by these 66 and not by outside sources.
The Golden Candlestick had a central shaft with three branches protruding from each side. Each branch had 3 sets of 3 ornaments, with each set containing a bowl, a knop, and a flower- 9 total on each branch. On the central shaft there were 4 sets of these same 3 ornaments for a total of 12.
That is what I said. Since 382 AD we have the had the Bible and it was determined by the CC, the whole Bible is the inspired and inerrant written word of God. Your verse still say the Bible is profitable for teaching. It does not say the Bible only is profitable for teaching. The Church is the pillar of Truth. That is how the Bible was created.

As for as the Candlestick, that was invented in 1500s when Father Martin Luther removed 7 books of the OT that he knew wouldn't agree with his personal beliefs. He tried to get rid of James too, but his buddies knew they would get push back. The real Bible as canonized by CC, had 73, no candlestick analogy was possible for 1500 years.

The 3 legged stool is an analogy, not a doctrinal statement.b
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
May 3, 2013
 
Barnsweb wrote:
The 'Bible' contains more speakers than God. Jesus said to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. So we need to be mindful of the speaker, and other facts relevant to the gospel. Why do we quote Paul when we can quote those of more authority on any topic, let alone take every word by Paul, even in personal letters, to be 'Scripture'?
Look at God talking to Job. We need to also be mindful that in things not explicit enough by God, Christ Jesus or the apostles/prophets - we must abide in the Doctrine and commandments of God - not the clever musings of mere men trying to give answer for everything.
Only God knows everything and we need to abide in that truth which is directly from Him.
'Who is he who darkens a matter'? It isn't God - it's men twisting and skipping around what He has declared truth.
Jesus didn't come to bring unity - He said so, and the word of God will accomplish all He intended it to do.
Good to see you again Barnsweb. All the way from Idaho? Hope all is well. I do plan to look at what Jesus and others have to say on this. Paul was quick and convenient for me to post late at night after work :) Good point about unity-His prayer for us was that we all might be one, but He also came to bring a sword. Perfect unity, all believing the same about everything, will not happen on this planet. The thing at this moment, this discussion, is how much error, opinion, and disagreement are we willing or should tolerate before drawing the lines of fellowship. At what point does God say enough?

One thing is certain. Jesus outlined discipline in the church in Matthew 18. Sin is not to be tolerated, and we must draw the line on sin for sure. Now, how about doctrines and opinions?
Barnsweb

Idaho Falls, ID

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
May 4, 2013
 
I got a letter on my web site from an out of country CoC preacher that believes IM is permissible, but the other locals are heavily opposing them...
:-
Is it right to oppose what God has approved of? How can this actually be anything but prideful men who refuse the very word of God? I know they mean well, but the path to hell is said to be paved with good intentions!:-)

Let me know when you figure it all out:-)

Yeah, plans are to go to Yellowstone today:-)

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of27
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
Bassett Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Bassett Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Bassett People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••