Conferences and Independence

[AnthonyB]

Based on the following scripture the majority of the restoration movement churches in Australia have had conferences with delegates from churches reaching decisions. (With the caveat that the decisions are only as binding on the local church as it chooses for them to be.)

Acts 15:1 Controversy in church
Acts 15:2 Paul, Barnabas and some other appointed as a delegates
Acts 15:6 Apostles and elders meet with the delegation
Acts 15:19-20 Decision made by group and assistance sent from one church to another one.

Now this was not a result of liberalism, centralization of power or wanting to be denominational but is part of our historical understanding from this section of Acts as to how the NT churches settled disputes and worked together. The conferences were begun from the 1860’s at a very early stage in our history.

Now I know this was quite controversial in the US but it seems too me reading Acts that although I wouldn’t never argue that this was an essential, it is clearly IMHO within the biblical parameters of NT church governance.

I was wondering if US reluctance to this type of organization was in part cultural having as central part of your national story resistance to and independence from government. Leaving you with an inbuilt instinctive preference for independence, as much as possible, from any central organizations.

 

[DerSchweik]

I'm not versed on the history of conferences (or opposition to them) in the US - but your point likely has some validity. I'm not sure it would explain why many denominations in the US do organize around various official or otherwise conferences or councils, or why denominations exist at all in the US. For example, there are several Baptist "conventions" and associated churches who subscribe to the mandates established therein. Lutherans are similar and so forth in other denominations - so that wouldn't necessarily explain the US cultural aspect.

Within the RM churches we have a variety of gatherings - usually annual evangelism seminars or the like where many members of disparate congregations gather for (for lack of a better word) "inspiration" and spiritual motivation, edification, etc. But there are no "authoritative" gatherings such as the ones you describe where leaders congregate to decide issues, doctrine, disputes, etc. I guess I've never thought about that - interesting.

It's quite possible our devotion to congregational autonomy, coupled with a strong sense of individualism just never led us to think along those lines. I generalize here, but where there have been disputes or "wayward churches" - people seem to vote with their feet and go elsewhere or "split" rather than work together to iron issues out. Trouble with working things out is that it usually requires some authority to settle issues - some recognition and acceptance of authority outside the local eldership. And given we tend not to recognize any authority except the local eldership (period), the possibility of two, three, or more churches even in the same town getting together to decide a common issue does seem near impossible here when I think about it. Often there are multiple churches in a city because of past splits over issues in the first place.

That's a very intriguing question! What would it take for multiple RM churches in the US to get together to decide some issue common and binding to all of them, or for that matter to even work together to some common goal? I'm sure many will come up with exceptions where this has happened somewhere - but would they be just that - exceptions? Have to ponder this...

 

[wmssid]

I am a devoted student of RM history. I have read all 7 volumes of Alexander Campbell's, "Christian Baptist," monthly magazine. And, I have 20 volumes of, and have read all of them, of Campbell's (and, after his death, W.K. Pendleton's), "The Millinnial Harbinger."

1) Campbell condemned creeds.
2) He condemned Bible Colleges. [But later he founded a liberal arts college, named, "Bethany." He taught that Christians should try to rule the world by achieving offices of world infuence. LATER STILL, he wrote, "Send us your sons and we will make "preachers" out of them." That is a wierd statement for a 'Liberal Arts College.' Because of this, and many similar unstable episodes, I have nicke-named Campbell, "Mr. 50/50."
But he was a "shacker!" "Shakers" turn the world upside down. Campbell published the first Bible translation with the word "BAPTIZO" translated. All others had used the Pope's "transliterated word, "baptize." Campbell and family and a couple of friends were "dipped" by 2 Baptist elders, in 1812. His translation, "Living Oracles" (NT) read, "immerse." He had a section of his magazines, entitled, "Signs of Progress." Men were writing from all over the United States,, reporting how many they had immersed. In 1895, the Disciples of Christ (before the division of Churches of Christ) was the 6th largest denomination in the US. "A Documentary History of Religion ...", 1982, Edwin S. Gaustad, p. 92.

Axiom: God blesses men who honor His word.

This Living Oracles continued to be published until the 1980s, and I have a copy. The Rm went back to the Roman Catholic translations, and today most of the membership has never heard God's word, "dipping"; or, Campbell's word, "immersion."

Axiom: God emphasiizes the "nitty-gritty"; the liberals preach against the "nitty-gritty."

RM had no conventions until 1849, and the Bible Society. This split the Brotherhood in the 1860s, before it became official in 1901. But, on the other hand, the Bible Society brought about the first missionary success in 1859, which began the Millennium, "in the same hour ... the tenth of the city (Lombardy) fell" - Rev 11.11-13. Figuratively speaking (an hour = one-twenty-fourth of a day; and a day = one year), Jesus named , "the Exact Hour that the Millennium began."

3) The Bible condemns councils and Bible Colleges.
A) "And the things that you have heard from me before many witnesses, commit these to faithful men (!) who will be able to teach others also" - 2Tim 2.2.

Axiom: Teachers are trained in the local congregation only.

B) "But the anointing which you have recieved from Him remains in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught, you will remain in Him" - 1 Jn 2.27.

Axiom: All students have the Spirit of the Living God, which acts supernaturally on our minds.

Axiom: Spiritual men are not to be taught by little boys still wet behind the ears. This is the Pope's system.

C) "No one will cheat you of your reward, taking delight in [your] humility and worship of [earthly] messengers, intruding into thse things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his FLESHLY mind" - Col 2.18.

You can see, from "fleshly minds," that the Pope's translation, "angels" is an error.

D) "Two or three prophets, they will speak, and others, they will judge. But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, the first will be silent"
- 1Cor 14.29-30.

Axiom: The multiple teachers of the local congregation are to correct each other at once!

 

[AnthonyB]

wmssid,

So how do you understand what happened in Acts 15? To me a church sent delegates to a meeting, they discuss doctrinal issues and make a statement to be read at the original church.

By ecumenical conferences do you mean the seven ecumenical councils of the early church? I was in no way espousing or supporting them. The bible nowhere indicates that the church should call a meeting at the behest of a political leader, and then use the findings of that meeting to usurp the bible as the God given word to mankind delivered through the apostles for discerning truth and worse still use the creeds they created to decide who is or is not a follower of Jesus.

As for the rest of your post it seems OT to my original post? Which merely asked given Acts 15, is something along the lines of a delegate meeting acceptable (not mandatory) as a way to settle questions bettween churches. (Note not to use those meetings to create extra biblical creeds and then use state force to back them up.)

Several of your OT comments do cry our for a reply though.

Alexander Campbell like both you and I was a creature of his time, culture, education and experiences. He like us all had blind spots induced by those factors, it is always wise to attempt to analyse and counter those things in both him and in our selves. If I may write a maxim..."Read the bible from the bibles point of veiw" we should always attempt as poorly as we might often do it to see scripture with scripture being are guide not any other influences.

However your need to make an insulting nickname of a man who clearly followed Jesus to the best of his ability is in poor taste IMHO. Furthermore to throw such a lable on a dead man, who by virtue to that fact cannot reply is a tad unfair, no matter how you disagree with him.

As for biblical words that weren't translated, I for one was brought knowing that baptism meant to dip or immerse. Always had a thing for "dip" as the baptismal pool always reminded me of a sheep dip we had on the farm I grew up on. But as for leaving the word untranslated I think that is much ado about nothing in my book. The bible was written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic and therefore all English words used in our bible are someones attempt at translating. Are you going to lament that "Amen" and "Hallelujah" aren't translated and if you can tell my what the English for "Selah" is I'd appreciate it!

I don't know what the rules for training is in the US, but in Australia a number of churches run internships and of the colleges I have read (we only have three) seem to insist on a period of training within a church as part of the training. Growing up 50% of the churches in my area ran with only elders.

The humorous thing is that if you look up the websites of the churches which felt the need to import a foreign schism into Australia (and please forgive me if this is wrong but I guess that you would align yourself with the a capella churches) they all seems to praise the Australian churches up to around the beginning of the 20th century. In which span we had been running Conferences for 40 years.

I would prefer not to get into a proof text debate with you, I would appreciate however you thoughts on Acts 15 (which although was the topic of my post was not mentioned in yours) and the "nitty-gritty" of what bearing or influences it may have on you understanding of how churches in the NT were organized.

God bless you for you zeal for our Lord.

 

[wmssid]

1) You are wrong! I am not a cappella! This is from the Pope. The Protestants restored congregational singing in the 1500s.

2) Amen = Truly.

3) Selah = Rock.

4) "Hallelujah" (Strong's #239: alleouia) is false translaion of the Greek, because it is from a Hebrew word without the 2 letters "H." Strong suggested Hebrew words #1984 (praise) and #3050 (HY = He (Y) [of] Her (Israel) (H). #3050 had been corrupted, by the Jews, to read, "Yah" -- because they loved their fake vowels. But when the fake vowel is removed, we have "HY = He (Y) [of] Her (H). Hebrew reads right to left.

5) Why the meeting in Acts 15?
If you understood the messages in Romans, you would know that this was a reconciliation of Gentiles (Paul = apostle to Gentiles) and Peter and James = leaders of the Jews. And, that was the only "council"!

6) If they were authorized for men today, then they would be in the New Testament Scriptures; meaning, "Revelation only."

7) This is the biggest problem with the ex-RM today; they limit themselves to the OT. This is from the Pope.

8) You should read RM history! You do not believe anything that they believed in the 1800s; or, even in my youth in the 1940s.

9) Your church leaders have stolen your history from you, and led you into liberalism.

10) I have preserved the Protestant Reformation beliefs, that are true; and the RM beliefs, that are true (and even some false ones for examples, like Campbell repeatedly blaspheming the Holy Spirit. And the RM churcches here in the United States are united in blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Editors here add to, "they received a new Spirit, [but it was not a supernatural Spirit.]"

11) Read Rev 20.7-10, about "Satan loosed a little" (AD 1959-2004; Rev 20.3).

You are in the Second Dark Ages.

Men predicted this 300 years ago, because they believed the Bible.

Aziom: A religion without dates is useless.

wmssid

 

[AnthonyB]

wmssid,

I'm probably going to regret this....

Firstly...Although I'm aware of the purpose of the Acts 15 council and its purpose, from where do you obtain that it is a "once" only thing. I see no such thing recorded in the text itself. I have not asserted that it is mandatory but that is allowable for the churches to hold conferences.

As for the "Revelation of John", it is an apocalypse, which is specific literary style. Have you read other apocalypses so that you can ensure you are using the correct method of interpretting the book according to the genre it was written in. You appear to be using it as a prophetic book, to create timelines of events. We would appear to be someway apart on that.

As for "OT" I should clarrify I was using it in that context for "off topic" not Old Testament. I would have thought that generally "RM" would underplay the OT not overplay it.

As for your reading "RM" history, I presume you mean the "RM" in the US, cause there isn't that much written about Australia. Have you honestly read much about the history of the "RM" in Australia? (Cause I've struggled to find much out there.)

As for "selah" meaning "rock", is that the meaning in context of Psalms? Is God really encouraging people to "rock" during psalms?

 

[wmssid]

Conferences and Independence

Mr. AnthonyB;

1) Quote: “As for ‘selah’ meaning ‘rock’, is that the meaning in context of Psalms? Is God really encouraging people to ‘rock’ during psalm?”

CONTRA: “For name He Is (HWHY) I will call the coming Him, ‘Greatness to Gods of us (YNYHLAL), The Rock, work of Him without blemish” – Deut 32.3-4.

CONTRA: “The Stone (Jesus) which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone” – Mt 21.42. NOTE: There are dozens of verses naming “God” to be “Rock.”

2) Quote: “Firstly .. Although I’m aware of the purpose of the Acts 15 council and its purpose, from where do you obtain that it is a ‘once’ only thing?”

a) First of all, the word “council” is not in the text. This is adding to the word of God.
b) Secondly, there is no record of a “second” assembly of the apostles to discuss teaching.
c) Thirdly, Paul prophesied that Age would “pass away” (1 Cor 13.10). If you cannot “speak in tongues” and “heal” and “prophesy” and “work miracles”; then the Age is gone. [What do you think the book of Revelation is for?]

3) “As for the ‘Revelation of John’, it is an apocalypse [Error], which is a specific literary style. Have you read other apocalypses so that you can ensure you are using the correct method of interpreting the book according to the genre it was written in. You appear to be using it as a prophetic book to create timelines of events. We would be someway apart on that.”

NOTE: For a man who claims to know nothing, and to believe nothing, you are very critical of the Lord’s servant.

CONTRA: Strong’s Greek #602: apokalupsis: appearing, coming. lighten, manifestation, be revealed, revelation.
So you know not what you are talking about. They have deceived you with the fake word, “apocalypse.” The Greek is superior to your “fake” word.

CONTRA: “Have you read other apocalypses?”
Not only have I read them for over 20 years, but I have written many commentaries on them.
“Have you written any Bible commentaries?”

CONTRA: Since 1680, the Matthew Poole Commentary, and Mr. Mede’s writings, and Robert Fleming’s Commentary, the Protestants and RM writers have known the “timeline” of Revelation. This wisdom has only been banned since 1948. [When were you born?]

NOTE: You know nothing of RM Ecumenical Councils.
a) Since AD 1849, the American Christian Missionary Society (ACMS) has been meeting yearly. The conservative men of the RM opposed this, and Campbell published their complaints.
b) In the 1920s, the Independent Christian Churches organized the North American Christian Convention (NACC). The two primary goals of these conventions was/is: 1) To promote “doctor-worship”; and: 2) To oppose the Bible message (especially, the RM message).
c) Leroy Garret, writer of the Stone-Campbell Movement, 1981, documented the RM leaders “sneaking off to Europe” to attend Ecumenical Councils with the “Seven Old Catholic Churches.”
d) College Press and Ozark Christian College, and other supporters, in the 1980s, began their own Ecumenical Councils, to put back the “broken pieces” of the RM, and also, to try to merge with the Church of God in Indianapolis, Indiana. [But then, Praise the Lord – all has failed to this point.]

Mr. AnthonyB;
You being unaware of all these schemes means that “you are out-of-touch.”