Rule # 4 for the RM Forum

[JDIBe]

Never mind. Off topic and not worth it....

 

[Loveaboveall]

Never mind. Off topic and not worth it....

I agree

 

[JDIBe]

I agree

At least we seem to agree on something this week...

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -
Let's not assume we "basically agree" about what it takes to become a Christian...(snip)... I understand that faith in Jesus, repentance, confession, and baptism are required for one to initially have their sins taken away and become a Christian.

Well, what do you know? It was a fair assumption after all. I knew it would be. We do “basically” agree. I know you well enough by now to know that you'll respond with scripture and I absolutely agree with scripture.

We’ll see how well you “absolutely agree with scripture” as we continue.

Our disagreements are seldom about what the scripture says, which is why I don't quote it much in discussions with you. The disagreements tend to stem from our understanding and application of those verses. ie: We each tend to consider the other speaks where scripture doesn't in that regard.

We’ll see …

Originally Posted by - DRA –

Whooa. Back up. Still assuming we agree on what it takes to become a Christian (i.e. faith, repentance, confession, and baptism), do you know any "Baptist, Methodists, Brethren, Non-denominational etc.. etc... congregations" that are teaching and practicing these requirements for salvation under the gospel of Christ? I am not aware of any that are. Not a single one.

So??? Don’t get me wrong though. I believe doctrine is important. I agree there are some poor teachings out there and I agree we should be correcting them… BUT the church isn’t made up of the denominations. It’s made up of the individuals. Now - this is where I see the inconsistencies start to creep into your thinking. One minute you're saying the church is made up of individuals and the next you're judging them in batches. As I understand your position (thus far into the post), you've already added a few conditions to salvation that aren't amongst those you provided scripture for. Namely, that one must correctly understand salvational doctrines to be saved and that one's salvation is contingent upon them only being exposed to correct doctrine and that we are necessarily judged according to the beliefs of those around us.

Good. We seem to agree that the church the Lord established isn’t made up of denominations, but of individual Christians per 1 Corinthians 12.

The church that Jesus promised to build (Matt. 16:18) was established in Acts 2:47, when the individuals who obeyed (verse 41) what was necessary to be saved (verse 38) were added to the church by the Lord. Let’s “what-if” Acts 2. “What if” the Jews that didn’t obey what was commanded in Acts 2:38 (repentance and baptism) claimed the remission of sins? And, they established (by their own authority) a church that was completely separate from the one described in Acts 2 and the rest of the New Testament. Is it inconsistent with Scripture to say they would not have been saved – either on an individual basis or lumped together as the unscriptural church they would be? I don’t think so. I think that is the necessary inference from verse 38 – those who want to have their sins taken away will repent of them and be baptized in the name of Christ, and those that don’t submit will retain their sins. If you think my conclusion is incorrect, then please explain to us how those who refuse to obey are the ones that are truly saved.

By the way, the “what-if” situation I described in Acts 2 is really a description of the churches that came about as “some” fell away from the truth (i.e. 1 Tim. 4:1-3).

Now, let’s consider something you said. “As I understand your position (thus far into the post), you've already added a few conditions to salvation that aren't amongst those you provided scripture for. Namely, that one must correctly understand salvational doctrines to be saved and that one's salvation is contingent upon them only being exposed to correct doctrine and that we are necessarily judged according to the beliefs of those around us.” Okay, let’s consider Acts 2. As far as the remission of sins is concerned, I believe that verse 38 is “correct doctrine.” And, I also believe that the Jews that were “exposed” to this teaching were expected to obey it – assuming they wanted their sins taken away. And, I believe the Jews that obeyed the teaching were the ones that received the blessings promised. Perhaps you can share with us a scriptural (approved) example or basis for someone who was taught error, obeyed it, and was saved anyway. And, perhaps you can share with us a scriptural (approved) example or basis for someone who was baptized for the wrong reason (something other than the remission of sins), and received the remission of sins anyway.

I don’t believe we are “judged according to the beliefs of those around us.” I believe we will be judged by the word of God.

For someone who’s so ready to insist on scriptural references for everything, I can’t see how you can hold those views, given that none of them were amongst the requirements you listed earlier. Perhaps you could clarify the positions a little more.

My position on providing scriptural support for what I believe, teach, and practice can be found in Romans 10:17, 2 Tim. 3:16-17, 1 Peter 3:15, and 1 Peter 4:11a.

Uh … you kinda lost me. I thought we were in agreement that faith, repentance, confession, and baptism were necessary for the forgiveness of sins. I am definitely of the persuasion that one has to do these things before they can expect to receive the blessings that follow. Perhaps you can clarify your position. Do you think these things are required, or optional? I believe they are required. Once you submit to God’s will and obey Him, then – and only then – can you expect to receive the promises (i.e. Hebrews 5:9). Please explain where you think my reasoning is amiss in light of the Scriptures.

Correct understanding of salvation: Given that you’ve otherwise acknowledged that our understanding continues to grow, could you elaborate from scripture where the line is that determines our understanding is sufficient for salvation? If our understanding is still developing, does that mean we still aren’t saved? Should we get baptised again every time we gain a better understanding just in case our understanding was insufficient the last time we got baptised?

I simply believe that when God tells us what to do to have our sins taken away, our sins are taken away when we do what He says. Once again, I’ll refer you to Acts 2:38. The Jews were told what to do to have their sins taken away. I believe the line is drawn in verse 41. A line is drawn there between the 3,000 that obeyed and all the other Jews that didn’t. I believe, according to verse 47, that when the 3,000 obeyed God they were saved and added to the Lord’s church (the one body in Eph. 1:22-23 and 4:4). Think back to Jesus’ instructions to the apostles just prior to his ascension to heaven in Matt. 28:19-20. Teaching is involved in making disciples in verse 19. Then, follow-up teaching is involved in helping the new converts grow and progress as disciples of our Lord in verse 20. I suspect you are failing to differentiate between the two types of teaching. The conversions in the book of Acts are examples of that first type of teaching (which makes disciples or Christians). And, for the record, I do believe that we must do what God requires for us to be saved before He will save us. Three thousand Jews in Acts 2:41 didn’t seem to have a problem understanding they needed to obey God, did they?

Exposure to correct teaching: Is it possible for someone attending a denominational congregation to be guided into truth by the Holy Spirit, through their study of scripture? OR are they insufficient for the task and RM preachers are the only one’s who can adequately teach them? What if they keep attending that church while that understanding grows? Is their salvation denied until such time that they cease to be exposed to the bad teaching? What if an RM preacher has a bad run and throws out a few dodgy sermons? Do the congregation cease to be Christians until such time as they replace the preacher? Was there a Christian church for the 1500 years or so between Nicaea and the RM? Where did the first christians after that come from and how were they possibly saved, given that they came from denominations?

Let’s begin by going back to the night before Jesus’ crucifixion. John 16:7-14 tells us about Jesus’ promise to send the Holy Spirit to the apostles after His departure (14:1-6). In John 16:13, Jesus promises that the Spirit will given the apostles to “all truth.” I believe the Spirit did that very thing. And, that we have “all truth” recorded for us in God’s word (i.e. 2 Tim. 3:16 – 4:4). Therefore, that is where I look for the truth.

Now, to address your “is it possible” scenario. Okay, let’s assume someone in a denominational church was led by the Holy Spirit to consider the sermon delivered in Acts 2. They already agreed with the conclusion given in Acts 2:36 – Jesus is both Lord and Christ. Then, they went on to consider that some of the Jews that heard the preaching also believed and asked what they should do in verse 37. Imagine the denominational’s surprise at Peter’s response (given by the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit) in verse 38. The Jews weren’t forgiven at the moment they believed. Rather, they were told to “repent and be baptized.” Hmmm. This is not what the denominationalist was told to do to be saved from their sins. Now, let’s suppose the denominationalist comes to you for spiritual guidance at this point. What would you tell them? Would you suggest they obey God as the 3,000 did in verse 41? Would you also show them verse 47 and discuss how the Lord adds them to His church when they are saved?

Neither the church of Christ nor the RM is the source of truth. Truth is right there in God’s word.
According to Jesus (John 8:32), it is understandable.

Once one obeys the gospel of Christ, he/she must be careful of extending fellowship (i.e. joint participation that carries the idea of agreement and consent) to those that teach error according to passages such as Romans 16:17-18 and 2 John 9-11.

Sorry, but history has not provided a detailed record of the Lord’s church after the first few centuries of its establishment. As for the “Christian Church,” I believe it came about during the Restoration Movement as brethren began to differ over how to establish Bible authority.

Where did the Christians come from who were involved in the Restoration Movement? I believe they came from denominations – which were established in protest of or trying to reform Catholicism. However, as these folks studied the Bible for themselves more and more, they began to realize that denominationalism wasn’t in accordance to God’s word. They came to realize they needed to return the church to be in agreement with N.T. teaching. Do you think they did the right thing? Or, do you think they should have remained in denominational churches anyway – even though the Lord didn’t establish them and they teach erroneous plans of salvation?

Guilty by association: If correct understanding is necessary AND an individual has it BUT is attending a denominational church, is their salvation null and void? What if there’s no other churches in their area? What if the teacher of that denominational church is also teaching correct doctrine? What if the whole congregation have correct understanding and teaching but for the fact that they continue to assemble in a building with a “Baptist” sign out the front? What if half of your RM church have bad understanding and teaching? Are you still considered a christian in God’s eyes? Is there a clear point where the cut-off occurs? Eg: More than 30% in your congregation have it wrong, so you’re counted among them?

How many churches are there according to Eph. 4:4? Therefore, if you think churches established by men and based upon false doctrine are sufficient substitutes for the Lord’s church, then please provide the scriptural basis for this conclusion.

You ask, “What if the teacher of that denominational church is also teaching correct doctrine?” As I have stated before, I simply don’t believe any of them are. Take those things that we agreed are necessary to be initially saved from our sins … faith, repentance, confession, and baptism. Which denominational church teaches this? Frankly, if you can’t provide some support for what I suspect is an assumption or wishful thinking (that some denominational churches actually teach the scriptural plan of salvation), then there is simply no reason whatsoever to consider your “what if” scenario.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

One point you may want to consider is the "one baptism" in Ephesians 4:5….(snip)… What baptism do the Baptists, Methodists, etc. teach and practice? Is it the "one baptism" that unifies us as God's people? It's not. Simple as that. It's not the same at all.

Is it possible that any of the individuals amongst them could get baptised for the right reason? Does that even matter or does the person baptising them have to also have been baptised for the right reason? If that’s true AND there were no Christians for 1500 years or so… who baptised the first of the new batch of Christians and how? What if I thought I understood it when I got baptised, but have since learned more and recognise some error in my understanding at the time? Does the first one count? How much error is acceptable? Hey, what if the guy who baptised me wasn’t really a christian and I never found out? Again I’ll go back to my question about understanding: What if our understanding of baptism continues to develop? Should we get baptised again and again and again? Isn’t that contrary to the notion of one baptism?

Going back to Acts 2, who baptized the 3,000? Is the emphasis in that text put upon who baptized them, or upon “why” they were baptized?

1 Corinthians 1:10-17 is the only place I can think of where whom baptized whom was an issue. The conclusion? Wasn’t the emphasis put upon the idea that they were baptized in the Lord’s name – not the preacher’s? Did it really matter who baptized them?

Acts 19:1-5 deals with disciples who thought they were baptized correctly, but weren’t. I suggest those that find themselves in a similar situation do what the Ephesians did.

Unless you have found examples or a scriptural basis for one to be baptized repeatedly, I suggest just submitting to the “one baptism” in Eph. 4:5 (which takes us back to the text just previously considered) and trusting that God will do as He says (i.e. Acts 22:16).

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Now, back to your points about the "right sign" in front of the church building and requiring a "100% perfect understanding of all doctrine and practice." As for the "right sign," I want to remind you that we agreed there there is "one body" or church per Ephesians 4:3.

Absolutely! I think we also agreed that it is composed of individuals and not churches. That being the case, the signs out the front tell us little about the salvation of the individuals inside. I promise you that not everyone that attends a congregation with the “Church of Christ” sign out the front will be saved. The sign offers us no assurance in and of itself. Assembling with other “Christians” offers us no assurance in and of itself either. Now, I’d imagine you’d agree with that, though I don’t want to be too presumptious. The thing is, it works the other way too.

For sure, the sign on the church building or in front of it is no more a guarantee for salvation than everyone who calls themselves a Christian being saved. As far as I recall, I am not aware that anyone has said anything about “everyone that attends a congregation with the ‘Church of Christ’ sign out the front will be saved.” If they have, please direct us to the appropriate post. Uh … I wouldn’t worry about being “too presumptious” until I had a valid line of reasoning to offer.

The issue at hand is one of authority. Either God’s word completely equips us for every good work (i.e. 2 Tim. 3:16-17), or it doesn’t. And, if it does, then we know where our authority should come from for what we say and do in God’s service, right (i.e. Colossians 3:17). If you have authority to put a sign on the church building that designates the place of worship is for those who promote denominationalism, then please direct us to the appropriate Scripture(s).

Why is it impossible that individuals outside that building might also be saved? We’ve agreed the things that matter are faith, confession, repentance and baptism. Is it impossible that some have met these “requirements” while not attending a church with the “Church of Christ” sign out the front?

Unless there are some “other churches” out there that also teach the plan of salvation accurately under the gospel of Christ, then it is “impossible” for others to be saved who follow their false teachings.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Now, for that 100% perfect understanding concern, note the sequence of events in Matthew 28:19-20. First, sinners are taught the gospel and become converted to the Lord. Then, additional teaching occurs that strengthens thems for continuing service to the Lord.

Agreed and essentially my point. Conversion comes before perfect understanding. It’s not a prerequisite, it’s a continuing process. Your position implies the inverse to me.

No, I think you totally missed the point. The point under discussion is the understanding that is a part of conversion. In Matthew 28:19, “teaching” is involved with conversion (making disciples). And, where you have teaching, of necessity, you must have a correct understanding of what was taught. For sure, 3,000 Jews had no problem understanding Acts 2:38 (see verse 41), the Samaritans seemed to understand just fine in Acts 8:12, the jailer understood just fine in Acts 16:30-34, and Saul understood just fine in Acts 22:16 (see Acts 9:18).

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Now, let's go back to the first part of the process. Suppose someone is taught of salvation through Jesus, but told they only need to belief in Him to be saved. So, they believe in Jesus in their heart and feel they are saved. Are they truly saved?

I don’t know. I don’t see how you could either. I believe in absolute truth, but I recognise that our expressions are very often relative. The issue is less about the statement and more about the heart. Eg: I know some people who say that salvation comes through faith alone. Now, for some of them that means they simply need to confess with their mouth and then they can go about living for themselves as they did before, content in their belief that they’re saved. They’re wrong. I know others who say they are saved by faith alone, who really mean more than a simple confession. Their expression means a living, vibrant, realised faith. Ie: A faith that necessarily brings repentence, obedience and fruit. I see that the fruits of their conversion are consistent with scripture. Same teaching, different realisations of that teaching.

Okay, let me approach this from a different angle. Acts 2:38. Were the Jews that believed the message and were convicted of their sins in verse 37 saved BEFORE or AFTER they obeyed what they were told to do in verse 38? And, there is Saul. Were his sins washed away BEFORE or AFTER he did what he was told to do to have his sins washed away?

What would be the condition of the person’s heart who didn’t obey what God said to do to be saved, but claimed the blessings anyway? Let’s assume the person was sincere, but deceived. Does God go ahead and forgive them anyway? If so, please provide the scriptural support for this conclusion.

Likewise I know of some who teach that salvation requires faith and works. For some that means they must earn their salvation through works, independent of their expression of faith. They’re wrong. For others it’s about acknowledging that true works accompany true faith. Personally, I like the expression “By grace, through faith, for works.” But I don’t expect it means the same thing in my reaslisation of it as it does in others.

I don’t shy away from Eph. 2:8-9 anymore than I shy away from Acts 19:1-5, which discusses the conversion of the Ephesians, nor do I shy away from Eph. 2:5-6a and a parallel passage (Col. 2:12-13, nor do I shy away from Romans 4 and James 2, nor from 1 Peter 1:22a, nor from Hebrews 5:9. They are all a part of God’s word and have something to say about our salvation today under the gospel of Christ.

Ultimately, that’s where I recognise the matter to be truly important – in our hearts and demonstrated through the fruit we bear. We can all claim to believe x,y and z but that doesn’t mean we’re all agreeing on what x,y and z are. The evidence is often more apparent in our actions and love for another than in our words alone.

While I understand and agree with what you are saying, I still suspect you have Matt. 28:20 in mind. Let’s not forget the teaching that precedes in the previous verse.

Originally Posted by - DRA –

After careful thought and study, if you still believe the disobedient also receive the blessings promised, then I believe the burden of proof is yours to scripturally show how this is true. In essence, this is what the denominational folks are doing. They want the blessings, but don't submit to the requirements of God.

This comes back to the whole perfect understanding point again. Consider times in your life that you recognised you weren’t being obedient and then responded. Did that mean you weren’t Christian while you were unaware of that issue? What if someone were able to demonstrate to you that Jesus absolutely meant for “wine” (alcoholic) to be used for communion, but you’d been using grape juice? Would that mean you weren’t a christian until you rectified it? I’d be more inclined to agree with your point if it were apparent that denominationalists were aware that they were in error and choosing to remain disobedient.

Once again, I believe this reasoning is based on Matt. 28:20, and not on the requirements for becoming a disciple (i.e. a Christian) in verse 19.

I’ll collect some scriptures for you while you’re away nonetheless

Good. It would be nice to have some Scriptures to consider which show the basis for your reasoning. Thinking back to your earlier comments, you said, “Our disagreements are seldom about what the scripture says, which is why I don't quote it much in discussions with you.” Not to be offensive, but I’ve noticed this same trend in your conversations with others. That leaves me skeptical of your explanation.

You also said, “I absolutely agree with scripture.” Good. Then please show us how salvation under the gospel of Christ can be accomplished without both repentance and baptism in light of Acts 2:38.

And, you said, “The disagreements tend to stem from our understanding and application of those verses. ie: We each tend to consider the other speaks where scripture doesn't in that regard.” Okay, since Acts 2:38 is before us, please explain how my understanding and application of that passage is amiss. If obeying what was commanded is not the desired response that God wanted, then please show us from the text what is the desired response.

Final question: “What if” the denominational churches are NOT teaching the plan of salvation under the gospel of Christ … and we fellowship with those who obey their erroneous teachings and act as if they are fellow servants of God? What are the consequences of our actions in light of 2 John 9-11?

 

[cremi]

What rules....?

God works all things after the counsel of His will (Ephesians 1:11).

It was the Father's good pleasure for all the fulness to dwell in Christ, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven (Colossians 1:19-20).

No one can resist His will (Romans 9:19).

The sovereign will of God will always prevail....never doubt it again.

Peace

I did not write correctly in my post. Hey Homie corrected me. IT should have said "I have no problem with point #4."

As far as the other "rules" I did elude to in my post, I was referring to a variety of "rules" that others put upon people. Some are biblical, but some are only man's ideas of what the bible says.

Does that make sense?

 

[- DRA -]

This is a topic that still interests me. It used to be a big issue for me. I'm not really intimidated by the concept of a "one church" anymore, but my burning question now is: Is the Restoration Movement Church of Christ really it?

Members of the Church of Christ generally believe in the "Great Apostasy", as most members of "restored" churches do (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists etc.), but, is this concept even biblical? Matthew 16:18 would suggest otherwise. The church would have been there throughout the ages, and probably visible too. Jesus promised it. Sure, the scriptures predicted a "falling away", and there was, early on (Gnostics etc.) but the concept of a complete falling away, where the church could no longer be found, is contradictory to Matthew 16:18.

So why do I doubt that the Restoration Movement Church of Christ is it? Because, many of their core teachings did not exist prior to the Reformation and were not a part of the early Christian church. The purpose of this thread is not to discuss the issue of Real Presence in the Lord's Supper, but The RM fervently believes in Memorialism only (thanking God for the representation of his body and blood only), and this is a view only found post-Reformation and was largely based on work by 15th-16th century humanist theologian Huldrych Zwingli, a Reformed theologian (this is just one example).

There was only one visible church for the first few hundred years of Christianity, and this was the Catholic church (which later split and became the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church). The reasons above are the reasons that I'm looking into these two churches (in particular the Eastern Orthodox church).

Never should anyone doubt the sincerity of Campbell and Stone (and other RM champions), but in order to restore the church, they had to believe things that the early church did. It seems kind of obvious that they bought a lot of post-Reformation Protestant ideas into the RM Church, of which none of the early church fathers or early Christians in general believed. History contradicts the Church of Christ, which is why I'm not sure if I'll with a clear conscience be able to stay in it forever and accept it as the "true church".

Of course, if you're of the mind that there isn't a "one true church" than it's mostly just about whether the RM fits your opinion or not.

Matthew 16:18 says (NASV), ""I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it."

I don't quite see this passage supporting the points you are trying to make from it. "Hades" means the realm of the dead or the grave. Jesus' promise is that His church won't be overpowered by death or the grave. Why not? Because of Jesus' resurrection from the dead and the promise of the resurrection to eternal life that He gives to His followers i.e. 1 Corinthians chapter 15.

Why would the "one church" concept "intimidate" you? Do you accept it (i.e. Eph. 4:3)? If so, there shouldn't be a problem. On the other hand, if you don't ... okay, I suspect we see what the problem is.

I suspect the apostasy you are referring to is discussed in 1 Timothy 4:1-3. It is biblical. And, unless I'm mistaken, those of us who find ourselves involved in error should be restored to the Lord, right? If not, what do you suggest those in error do?

If not too much trouble, perhaps you could list some of the "core teachings" of the church that you allude to in paragraph three of your post. As for Jesus' institution of the Lord's Supper, Matt. 26:26-28 says,
26 While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."
27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you;
28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
I tend to think that Jesus was using figurative language there. Unless, of course, one takes the position that the disciples were literally eating Jesus' flesh and drinking His blood. Just out of curiosity, is that what you think they were doing?

If the Catholic Church was the "only one visible church for the first few hundred years of Christianity," then it must have been the one that Jesus promised to build in Matthew 16:18, right? And, it must be the church that we read about in the N.T. Scriptures, right? What did you base that conclusion upon? I think it is obvious that Catholicism resulted from the falling away or apostasy predicted in 1 Tim. 4:1-3. That would mean the Catholic Church was established later - after Jesus' church was established, right?

As far as the conscience is concerned, Paul also had a clear conscience when he persecuted Christians (i.e. Acts 23:1). However, he was wrong. Perhaps the conscience is not the only guide in spiritual matters. Perhaps our conscience needs to be calibrated to be in agreement with God's word.

 

[- DRA -]

Anytime we declare any one person or group of persons to be saved or not, we step onto delicate ground. God did not give us the ability to see into another's heart or mind--at least not as HE really sees us.

Frankly, when I approach a passage such as Acts 2:38, I don't declare who is going to be saved and who isn't, but simply point out that this is what the apostle Peter taught while under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And, I do feel obligated to point out verse 41 to show how those who "gladly received his word" (NKJV) responded. And, I also feel it is beneficial to point out the inspired commentary on these conversions in verse 47.

To me, the "delicate ground" is a threat when one overlooks, ignores, or undermines the word of God or portions of it that don't suit a particular person's beliefs.

How do you feel about the 3,000 in Acts 2:41. Did they do the right thing? Should we follow their example today when we want to be saved from our sins? Or, should we follow the example of the other Jews - the ones that did not obey what they were told to do?

A person can follow all of the rules--at least the rules as any one person interprets them, but may not be saved. Why? Because only God can see their heart. On the other hand, one can seemingly "miss" the truth by not performing well, and yet be saved. I'm not saying that everyone is saved simply by what they "think" is right--I don't believe that, but we often throw people into categories, simply because they are not following the rules as we see fit.

Until one has been given the mind of God, the eyes of God or the heart of God, we need to be careful to not condemn those who may not follow our rules.

Therefore, I have no issue with Rule #4.

What about the rules (e.g. commands of God)? Do they matter? I tend to think the command/direct statement in Acts 2:38 mattered to the Jews that believed that Jesus was Lord and Christ and believed that He could take away their sins. As far as the heart of each individual person that obeys the gospel is concerned, that matter is up to God to discern. However, let's not forget that the whatever is in the heart is manifested by the actions one does (i.e. Matthew chapter 15).

The heart of the issue with Rule #4 is the principle taught in 2 John 9-11. It's a matter of consent and agreement with the wrong things. Sure ... we can do those things. But ... if we do ... we shouldn't be surprised when God is not pleased with the choices we made.

 

[- DRA -]

Since I wrote the Sticky, I feel as if something needs to be said.

First of all, there is no "Rule #4." Point # 4 in the sticky is, or at least, was, merely a statement, about what I believe was and is one of the key points of the RM, placed there as information for anyone who may be wondering what the RM is - to wit, we are not the only Christians, but we are Christians only.

However, that statement has since been rewritten, reflecting this sub-forum's unfortunate trend toward sectarianism.

I suggest that anyone who has a problem with what I wrote in the Sticky write their own, and try to convince a mod to put it up. No skin off my teeth.

While your intent was to express your beliefs about the RM, the wording was adopted and being presented as a "RULE." Those who wanted to post/discuss/debate on this thread would be expected to consent to the rules in order to do so. That involves the rest of us, and not just yourself or your views. In addition, I believe it is wrong and contradicts God's word. Therefore, I opposed that wording and suggested that it be changed.

What exactly is "sectarianism?" Isn't it being used here to portray Christians who actually believe in the unity that God's word can bring (i.e. Eph. 2:1 - 4:6) in a demeaning way? And, isn't it also being used to undermine Christians who actually think we should do what God says to be saved from our sins (e.g. Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 10:9-10)?

Was Jesus being "sectarian" in Matthew 7:13-14? How about in verses 21-23 (of the same chapter)?

 

[- DRA -]

4) "We are not the only Christians, but we are Christians only." Restoration Movement believers do not claim to be the only Christians, and we accept other believers who profess to believe in Jesus Christ as our brothers and sisters. However, we do not attach any other name to ourselves other than "Christian." There is a very small percentage of RM believers who believe that only RM believers are true Christians, but this is not a popular view."

Looks good. You might add "They tend to be very vocal."

Or, we could add:

"We are not the only Christians, but we are Christians only." Some Restoration Movement believers - acting without scriptural authority - do not claim to be the only Christians, and accept other believers who profess to believe in Jesus Christ as our brothers and sisters. However, we do not attach any other name to ourselves other than "Christian." There is a very small percentage (i.e. Matthew 7:12-13, 21-23) of RM believers who believe that only RM believers are true Christians, but sadly this is not a popular view."

 

[AJB4]

If the Catholic Church was the "only one visible church for the first few hundred years of Christianity," then it must have been the one that Jesus promised to build in Matthew 16:18, right? And, it must be the church that we read about in the N.T. Scriptures, right? What did you base that conclusion upon? I think it is obvious that Catholicism resulted from the falling away or apostasy predicted in 1 Tim. 4:1-3. That would mean the Catholic Church was established later - after Jesus' church was established, right?

Thanks for replying. Needless to say, unless the Catholic church was the one started by Christ, then it did come after the one started by Christ. That seems plain enough.

But a compete falling away as the CoC claims is unbiblical. "The gates of hell will not prevail against it". That's kind of another issue I might have with the CoC. Where was it? In the 2nd Century, where all the Gnostics and things were "usurping" the church, was the CoC defending the true faith? After all, the CoC agrees that the Gnostics and various other early Christian groups were wrong. Only, it wasn't the (or a) group of people with distinctive CoC beliefs that was defending their faith, it was the Catholic church -- The same Catholic church that believed Christ was present in the Eucharist (not just symbolic), who baptized infants, who were under bishops (not just elders and deacons), and various other things that the modern-day CoC would consider heretical. It was the early church fathers (Saints) of the Catholic church who were being martyred for their Christianity.

Either the "true church" as you'd have it, the 2nd century CoC, were absolutely non-existent (this is the option that's most likely), or they were quite happy to sit in the distant (as in, invisible) background, and watch, while those darned Catholics were doing all the hard work writing lengthy apologetic works, refuting early distinctive Christian groups, and getting martyred for the cause of Christ. Even if I were managed to be convinced that the modern-day CoC in all its doctrines existed back in the 2nd century (and for the Great Apostasy theory to work, you'd have to believe this), you have to admit, the 2nd century CoC were pretty darn lazy (absolutely inactive, to put a finer point on it), compared to those darned Catholics.

 

[cremi]

Frankly, when I approach a passage such as Acts 2:38, I don't declare who is going to be saved and who isn't, but simply point out that this is what the apostle Peter taught while under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And, I do feel obligated to point out verse 41 to show how those who "gladly received his word" (NKJV) responded. And, I also feel it is beneficial to point out the inspired commentary on these conversions in verse 47.

To me, the "delicate ground" is a threat when one overlooks, ignores, or undermines the word of God or portions of it that don't suit a particular person's beliefs.

How do you feel about the 3,000 in Acts 2:41. Did they do the right thing? Should we follow their example today when we want to be saved from our sins? Or, should we follow the example of the other Jews - the ones that did not obey what they were told to do?



What about the rules (e.g. commands of God)? Do they matter? I tend to think the command/direct statement in Acts 2:38 mattered to the Jews that believed that Jesus was Lord and Christ and believed that He could take away their sins. As far as the heart of each individual person that obeys the gospel is concerned, that matter is up to God to discern. However, let's not forget that the whatever is in the heart is manifested by the actions one does (i.e. Matthew chapter 15).

The heart of the issue with Rule #4 is the principle taught in 2 John 9-11. It's a matter of consent and agreement with the wrong things. Sure ... we can do those things. But ... if we do ... we shouldn't be surprised when God is not pleased with the choices we made.

What can I say? It's the same disagreement I've had with you since I've entered the forum. Is there a need to go over it again?

I don't think I'm the only Christian in the world. That's it. In a nutshell. I don't follow other people around trying to make sure that when they say they are Christians, that means that they followed up on Rule X, Y and Z, crossed all of their t's and dotted their i's in order to be called Christian. Instead, I watch to see what fruit they are producing.

The fruit is really the telling of whether one is truly a Christian or not. Sure...I have my own thoughts on what one should do, according to my view on scripture, and I admit that I highly question those who have refused to do certain things--(be baptzied would be one of them), but I still don't see a need to declare these people as unchristian because they don't go to an RM church and don't follow the practices and beliefs of the RM to a "T". Even within the RM, people have a variety of beliefs...

Or is it only those who attend a 'church of Christ' that have chance at salvation? More specificially, is it only those who attend a 'church of Christ" that hold to traditional coc teachings that have a chance at salvation? Because only the traditional teachings teach the correct view of the bible?

Now that is sectarian.

There is only ONE way to Jesus, but that is not through the CoC. It could be, but it may not be the way for others.

And yes, I fear God, but I am not afraid of him throwing me into the fiery pit for not following all of the rules. If my salvation is entirely dependent upon me getting the rules correct--i.e...when, where, why and how I was baptized--and a bunch of others "things" (don't forget repent, confess, etc.....) then Jesus really did die in vain.

What *if* I skipped one of the steps?
What *if* I was baptized, but not for the remissions of sins?
What *if* I was baptized for the remission of sins, but I had water poured over my head?
What *if* I was fully immersed for the remission of sins, but I was only 5 years old and didn't understand the whole picture quite yet?
What *if* I did everything I was supposed to do, but nothing ever changed in my heart and there was no fruit, no fire and no passion to do anything but argue that my way was the only way, yet I saw the Baptist guy across the street, really living for Christ, leading bible studies, feeding the hungry and showing others what Jesus really looks like....

I'd start questioning the validity of the "rules".

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by -DRA-

If the Catholic Church was the "only one visible church for the first few hundred years of Christianity," then it must have been the one that Jesus promised to build in Matthew 16:18, right? And, it must be the church that we read about in the N.T. Scriptures, right? What did you base that conclusion upon? I think it is obvious that Catholicism resulted from the falling away or apostasy predicted in 1 Tim. 4:1-3. That would mean the Catholic Church was established later - after Jesus' church was established, right?

Thanks for replying. Needless to say, unless the Catholic church was the one started by Christ, then it did come after the one started by Christ. That seems plain enough.

See the point? Jesus established "one body or church" (i.e. Matt. 16:18, Eph. 1:22-23, 4:3). And, it wasn't the Catholic Church. Nor was it denominational churches that later were established in protest of Catholicism. Rather, it was the church established in Acts 2 - the one the saved are added to by the Lord (verse 47) - the one we read about in the New Testament. Agree?

But a compete falling away as the CoC claims is unbiblical. "The gates of hell will not prevail against it". That's kind of another issue I might have with the CoC. Where was it? In the 2nd Century, where all the Gnostics and things were "usurping" the church, was the CoC defending the true faith? After all, the CoC agrees that the Gnostics and various other early Christian groups were wrong. Only, it wasn't the (or a) group of people with distinctive CoC beliefs that was defending their faith, it was the Catholic church -- The same Catholic church that believed Christ was present in the Eucharist (not just symbolic), who baptized infants, who were under bishops (not just elders and deacons), and various other things that the modern-day CoC would consider heretical. It was the early church fathers (Saints) of the Catholic church who were being martyred for their Christianity.

Where did the idea of a "complete" falling away come from? "Some" indeed departed from the truth and went into Catholicism per 1 Tim. 4:1-3.

I suspect you are misunderstanding the nature of Jesus' promise in Matthew 16:18 concerning, ""The gates of hell will not prevail against it". Clearly, Jesus established the church that He promised in Acts 2. It began in Jerusalem, and spread throughout Samaria and Judea after the stoning of Stephen. Then, spread throughout the world beginning with Paul's first journey in Acts 13-14. Later, "some" Christians fell as prophesied in 1 Timothy chapter 4, giving rise to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church combined with the Roman government and soon overshadowed the Lord's church. However, that doesn't necessarily mean the Lord's church totally ceased to exist. It simply means that Catholicism took the limelight - and held it for a number of years.

The word "hell" in Matthew 16:18 is "hades," which means the realm of the dead or the grave. In essence, Jesus promised that His church (those He called out) would not be overcome by death or the grave. Hmmm. Let's think. Jesus Himself was opposed by those who thought they could get rid of Him by having the Romans take His life. He was killed, and entered Hades (see Acts 2:27). However, He overcame Hades and rose from the dead. And, according to 1 Corinthians chapter 15, God's people will also be victorious over death and the grave. Take Stephen. He was a member of the church that Jesus established in the first century. He was killed by Jewish leaders who rejected the gospel. Were they victorious by sending Stephen to the grave (note Acts 7:55-59)? Nope. Jesus promised those called out (His church) wouldn't have death or the grave prevail over them. Rather, they would be victorious over it in the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:54-57).

Your portrayal of the early Catholic Church makes it members appear as Saints. Such simply wasn't the case. The merger of church and government brought about an army that was sent out on "Holy Wars" to change (by force) the minds of those who opposed Catholicism. The efforts of this army were referred to in a generic way as the Inquisition.

Either the "true church" as you'd have it, the 2nd century CoC, were absolutely non-existent (this is the option that's most likely), or they were quite happy to sit in the distant (as in, invisible) background, and watch, while those darned Catholics were doing all the hard work writing lengthy apologetic works, refuting early distinctive Christian groups, and getting martyred for the cause of Christ. Even if I were managed to be convinced that the modern-day CoC in all its doctrines existed back in the 2nd century (and for the Great Apostasy theory to work, you'd have to believe this), you have to admit, the 2nd century CoC were pretty darn lazy (absolutely inactive, to put a finer point on it), compared to those darned Catholics.

Personally, I'm not inclined to cast stones at Christians back in the second century that I know nothing about. For sure, I know historians focused on the Catholic Church as it came into existence. It reminds me of historians who write about Columbus discovering American in the late 1400s. True, from a European perspective you could say Columbus discovered America. However, from the Indians who already lived here, I'm sure they would beg to differ. I'm sure the same is true of the Lord's church after the first century. From their perspective, they were not competing with the emerging Catholic Church for attention, wealth, or political power - but just serving the Lord as best they could.

Is there anything wrong with the church today being like the N.T. church? When brethren dispersed from Jerusalem to Samaria and Judea, they took the "word" with them (Acts 8:4). As a result, people obeyed the Lord and local churches were established in other areas. Why can't we do the same today?

 

[AJB4]

Hi Denny . Good to see you .

We both agree that a complete falling away would be unbiblical...good. We also believe that the church Jesus built would never die (never cease to exist). All things are agreed upon so far.

Personally, I'm not inclined to cast stones at Christians back in the second century that I know nothing about.

I'm not asking you to throw stones. I'm asking you to question them.

Notice the bolded part of your quote. Ask yourself why you know nothing about them -- that nothing about them is revealed or known at any point in early church history.

For sure, I know historians focused on the Catholic Church as it came into existence...

they were not competing with the emerging Catholic Church for attention, wealth, or political power - but just serving the Lord as best they could.

Well, first of all, if the modern-day CoC did exist back then, they didn't really give historians very much (as in, nothing) to focus on. There's absolutely no record of their existence. There was no evidence from the 2nd century of any kind of any opposition to the Catholic church, except for Gnostics and the like (who the CoC thinks were wrong anyway), or non-Christians.

You say that they were probably underground serving the Lord as best they can -- well, wouldn't part of doing that be "contending for the faith" (Jude 1:3). If they did exist, they made no effort to contend for the faith, they just sat in the background and watched while the Catholics (of which they would've agreed with here) refute Gnostics and similar groups, and get martyred for their Christianity. If the Catholics were wrong and they were right, history records no letters, no apologetics, no nothing, no effort at all from the 2nd century CoC to try to rebuke "usurping" Catholicism. Tell me I'm wrong.

I just don't really see why you'd trust a few 19th Century Scottish Presbyterians over 2nd Century Christians from the areas Christ and Apostles lived (many of which would've known the Apostles personally).

 

[- DRA -]

Hi Denny . Good to see you .

We both agree that a complete falling away would be unbiblical...good. We also believe that the church Jesus built would never die (never cease to exist). All things are agreed upon so far.

I'm not asking you to throw stones. I'm asking you to question them.

Notice the bolded part of your quote. Ask yourself why you know nothing about them -- that nothing about them is revealed or known at any point in early church history.

Well, first of all, if the modern-day CoC did exist back then, they didn't really give historians very much (as in, nothing) to focus on. There's absolutely no record of their existence. There was no evidence from the 2nd century of any kind of any opposition to the Catholic church, except for Gnostics and the like (who the CoC thinks were wrong anyway), or non-Christians.

You say that they were probably underground serving the Lord as best they can -- well, wouldn't part of doing that be "contending for the faith" (Jude 1:3). If they did exist, they made no effort to contend for the faith, they just sat in the background and watched while the Catholics (of which they would've agreed with here) refute Gnostics and similar groups, and get martyred for their Christianity. If the Catholics were wrong and they were right, history records no letters, no apologetics, no nothing, no effort at all from the 2nd century CoC to try to rebuke "usurping" Catholicism. Tell me I'm wrong.

I just don't really see why you'd trust a few 19th Century Scottish Presbyterians over 2nd Century Christians from the areas Christ and Apostles lived (many of which would've known the Apostles personally).

H o w d y,

Okay, let's make sure we understand things correctly. Jesus promised to build His church in Matthew 16:18, right? And, He built it in Acts 2, right? Later, the apostle Paul wrote about a departure from the faith (by some) in 1 Timothy 4:1-3. That departure, as I understand it, is speaking of the practices of Catholicism. That would mean the Catholic Church is a "departure from the faith," right? Therefore, it should be pretty clear that the Catholic Church is not the church that Jesus promised to build, but was established when some departed from the faith. "Some" means not all departed. That mean some remained faithful, right? See the point? Some departed. Not all. Therefore, some remained faithful. The Catholic Church formed over time as folks fell farther and farther away from the truth. And, during that time, some remained faithful to God. And, I believe those that were faithful did indeed contend earnestly for the faith.

Which second-century Christians are you aware of that practiced Catholicism? Who was the pope then? Please produce the evidence that Catholicism was established and being practiced during that time. I suspect that error was creeping in among God's people. And, some were opposed to it, but some accepted it and fell farther and farther away from the truth.

For sure, the first-century church existed in the first century. That's my focus ... the church that we read about in the New Testament. If the modern-day church of Christ isn't what it should be, then folks such as you and I should be working to ensure that things get headed in the right direction. I know, as an elder of the church, I am acutely aware of my responsibility in that regard as I shepherd and watch out for the souls of the flock.

My trust isn't in "a few 19th Century Scottish Presbyterians" or "2nd Century Christians." Rather, my trust is in the Lord ... and His word to guide me to do what He directs. Isn't that where yours should be also?

BTW, if the Bible indeed teaches there is "one church," wouldn't those who teach there are different churches with different faiths and beliefs be a departure from the truth (i.e. Eph. 4:1-6)?

 

[- DRA -]

What can I say? It's the same disagreement I've had with you since I've entered the forum. Is there a need to go over it again?

I don't think I'm the only Christian in the world. That's it. In a nutshell. I don't follow other people around trying to make sure that when they say they are Christians, that means that they followed up on Rule X, Y and Z, crossed all of their t's and dotted their i's in order to be called Christian. Instead, I watch to see what fruit they are producing.

The fruit is really the telling of whether one is truly a Christian or not. Sure...I have my own thoughts on what one should do, according to my view on scripture, and I admit that I highly question those who have refused to do certain things--(be baptzied would be one of them), but I still don't see a need to declare these people as unchristian because they don't go to an RM church and don't follow the practices and beliefs of the RM to a "T". Even within the RM, people have a variety of beliefs...

Or is it only those who attend a 'church of Christ' that have chance at salvation? More specificially, is it only those who attend a 'church of Christ" that hold to traditional coc teachings that have a chance at salvation? Because only the traditional teachings teach the correct view of the bible?

Now that is sectarian.

There is only ONE way to Jesus, but that is not through the CoC. It could be, but it may not be the way for others.

And yes, I fear God, but I am not afraid of him throwing me into the fiery pit for not following all of the rules. If my salvation is entirely dependent upon me getting the rules correct--i.e...when, where, why and how I was baptized--and a bunch of others "things" (don't forget repent, confess, etc.....) then Jesus really did die in vain.

What *if* I skipped one of the steps?
What *if* I was baptized, but not for the remissions of sins?
What *if* I was baptized for the remission of sins, but I had water poured over my head?
What *if* I was fully immersed for the remission of sins, but I was only 5 years old and didn't understand the whole picture quite yet?
What *if* I did everything I was supposed to do, but nothing ever changed in my heart and there was no fruit, no fire and no passion to do anything but argue that my way was the only way, yet I saw the Baptist guy across the street, really living for Christ, leading bible studies, feeding the hungry and showing others what Jesus really looks like....

I'd start questioning the validity of the "rules".

Unless your reasoning agrees with passages such as Acts 2:38,41,47 and Ephesians 4:1-6, there is a need to continue the discussions. Do you see your reasoning agreeing with those passages?

What Jesus a "sectarian" based on Matt. 7:13-14? How about Matt. 7:21-23? How about Eph. 4:1-6 (Note Gal. 1:11-12 ... Paul received his instructions directly from the Lord)? If He is, then it is logical that those who follow His teachings are also sectarian, right? And, if He isn't, then it is also logical that those who those who follow His teachings aren't sectarian, right? So, which was is it? Was the sectarian or not?

For sure, the Lord adds the saved to His church, right (Acts 2:47)? That's the only church I'm concerned about. I want to be saved and added to it. From your perspective, is that the right or wrong thing to do? If it is the wrong thing, then perhaps you can help head me in the right direction.

As for your last paragraph, your concerns can be answered from Matthew 28:19-20 and Matthew 7:21-23, respectively. Please let me know if you would like some help with those passages.

 

[- DRA -]

Duplicate post.

 

[AJB4]

Some departed. Not all. Therefore, some remained faithful. The Catholic Church formed over time as folks fell farther and farther away from the truth. And, during that time, some remained faithful to God. And, I believe those that were faithful did indeed contend earnestly for the faith.

OK, fair enough. At least this discussion is going somewhere (unlike many of our discussions). Well, I guess the natural step now would be for me to ask: Who, in your eyes, remained faithful, and where were they?

Which second-century Christians are you aware of that practiced Catholicism? Who was the pope then? Please produce the evidence that Catholicism was established and being practiced during that time. I suspect that error was creeping in among God's people. And, some were opposed to it, but some accepted it and fell farther and farther away from the truth.

I'd probably say that all Christians apart from the Gnostics and similar groups uniformly were practicing Catholicism back then. Sure, the Gnostics and similars were opposed to Catholicism, but like I've said, the CoC is opposed to Gnosticism, so that's about as far the CoC-Gnostic alliance against Catholicism goes.

I can't really be bothered going to all of the individual letters by the ECFs stating the practices. Basically, they were under elders and deacons who served under one head Bishop at least by the second century (the Bishop of Rome would have been the equivalent of the Pope back then), they practiced infant baptism, they didn't teetotal, they used bread and (alcoholic) wine in the Eucharist (I do have proof of that ready here), they believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (but not necessarily transubstantiation). They pretty much believed all things that the Apostolic Churches do. You don't really have to read very far to see that.

For sure, the first-century church existed in the first century. That's my focus ... the church that we read about in the New Testament. If the modern-day church of Christ isn't what it should be, then folks such as you and I should be working to ensure that things get headed in the right direction. I know, as an elder of the church, I am acutely aware of my responsibility in that regard as I shepherd and watch out for the souls of the flock.

Of course, the 1st-century church existed in the 1st-century, but you seem to think (correct me if I'm wrong) that as soon as the 2nd century rolled around, that it pretty much died. Even if you wouldn't come out and say it, it seems pretty clear that 2nd century Christian practices are quite far removed from most of the practices of the modern-day CoC.

I guess the question is, why don't you think that the church (the Catholic church, the only visible church) continued to be the pillar and ground of truth into the 2nd century (1 Timothy 3:15), and that it continued to hold the traditions of the Apostles by both word and epistle (2 Thessalonians 2:15)?

And, if the 2nd century CoC existed, why didn't it ever speak up?

I guess the main reason I'm focusing on the 2nd century most is because that's when the church was still new. I know from experience that the CoC places no value at all on early church history (or not even the Restoration Movement history, for that matter), I don't know why this is: maybe just to cover their backs or something, but I don't know if I can accept that the modern-day CoC existed back then, if there's no historical evidence that they did.

My trust isn't in "a few 19th Century Scottish Presbyterians" or "2nd Century Christians." Rather, my trust is in the Lord ... and His word to guide me to do what He directs. Isn't that where yours should be also?

That's what I predicted you'd say.

Well, do you not think, even in the slightest, that Campbell and them were influenced at all by their age, when establishing the doctrine of the Restoration Movement?

I mean, take for example grape juice instead of wine. Such a thing was a pretty new invention back then (it was invented at the Temperance Movement -- was unheard of before then), yet they still carried the practice over into the CoC. And yet, St. Justin Martyr (100-165AD), accounted that the early church used real wine. I mean, this thread isn't about real wine or not, but don't you think that that's just one example of the RM leaders being influenced by doctrines of the day, and transferring them over into the CoC, as opposed to trusting the early church less than a decade after the last Apostle died? (If you think that that's a bad example I can give you another one if you want).

I've had enough now *sleeps*. It's like beating a dead horse.

 

[- DRA -]

OK, fair enough. At least this discussion is going somewhere (unlike many of our discussions). Well, I guess the natural step now would be for me to ask: Who, in your eyes, remained faithful, and where were they?

Considering things from the perspective that "some will depart from the faith" according to 1 Tim. 4:1-3, I would say that God's people that continued to follow His word and were faithful. Where were they? Well, look once again at the text. If "some" would depart from the faith truly meant "some," then obviously "all" didn't depart from the faith, right? That meant there would have been Christians that didn't depart from the faith, right? So, some faithful would have remained, right? It's what's called a necessary inference.

Not sure, but where would you like our discussions to go? Is there anything wrong with taking the discussion back to the church we read about in the Bible?

I'd probably say that all Christians apart from the Gnostics and similar groups uniformly were practicing Catholicism back then. Sure, the Gnostics and similars were opposed to Catholicism, but like I've said, the CoC is opposed to Gnosticism, so that's about as far the CoC-Gnostic alliance against Catholicism goes.

Hmmm. I believe you have presented a dilemma. 1 Tim. 4:1-3 presents Catholicism as a departure from the faith. Therefore, "all Christians apart from the Gnostics and similars" practicing Catholicism are unfaithful. Since the "Gnostics" and similars" are left, that would make them the faithful, right? Is that what you really believe ... that the Gnostic or similar thinking are the faithful of God?

I can't really be bothered going to all of the individual letters by the ECFs stating the practices. Basically, they were under elders and deacons who served under one head Bishop at least by the second century (the Bishop of Rome would have been the equivalent of the Pope back then), they practiced infant baptism, they didn't teetotal, they used bread and (alcoholic) wine in the Eucharist (I do have proof of that ready here), they believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (but not necessarily transubstantiation). They pretty much believed all things that the Apostolic Churches do. You don't really have to read very far to see that.

I don't think the role of a bishop as the chief elder in a particular region is necessarily the equivalent of the pope. What it did was open the door for additional departures from the faith once bishops became more than elders, shepherds, or overseers over the local church. Later, things digressed to the point that the bishops competed over whom was greater, and the appointment of a pope settled that matter. Even later, the pope became the head of the (Catholic) church (contrasted with Jesus, who is head over His church i.e. Eph. 1:22-23; accepted worship; and somehow became infallible. It's how apostasy works.

Of course, the 1st-century church existed in the 1st-century, but you seem to think (correct me if I'm wrong) that as soon as the 2nd century rolled around, that it pretty much died. Even if you wouldn't come out and say it, it seems pretty clear that 2nd century Christian practices are quite far removed from most of the practices of the modern-day CoC.

No, I don't think the first-century church died when the second century rolled around. As I have stated, my focus in not on the second-century church or any latter church. Rather, it's on God's word and what His word teaches about the first-century church. I believe the first-century church was established just like the Lord wanted it. Is there a reason that you keep referring to the second-century church versus the one we read about in the New Testament Scriptures?

I guess the question is, why don't you think that the church (the Catholic church, the only visible church) continued to be the pillar and ground of truth into the 2nd century (1 Timothy 3:15), and that it continued to hold the traditions of the Apostles by both word and epistle (2 Thessalonians 2:15)?

1 Timothy 4:1-3 stands in my way of envisioning the Catholic Church as you describe it. I feel that my description of that church needs to agree with this text in this epistle. Why does yours disagree? Is it wise to reach a different conclusion than God's word?

And, if the 2nd century CoC existed, why didn't it ever speak up?

I guess the main reason I'm focusing on the 2nd century most is because that's when the church was still new. I know from experience that the CoC places no value at all on early church history (or not even the Restoration Movement history, for that matter), I don't know why this is: maybe just to cover their backs or something, but I don't know if I can accept that the modern-day CoC existed back then, if there's no historical evidence that they did.

Please explain how the second-century church is newer than the first-century church. From that perspective, you're not going to get any "newer" than Acts 2 - when the Lord's church was established. Please explain why we should overlook the church the Lord built and the inspired writings that shaped and molded that church the way God wanted to accept the writings of and about men who were departing from the truth? Do you believe the word of God does what it says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17?

Well, do you not think, even in the slightest, that Campbell and them were influenced at all by their age, when establishing the doctrine of the Restoration Movement?

I mean, take for example grape juice instead of wine. Such a thing was a pretty new invention back then (it was invented at the Temperance Movement -- was unheard of before then), yet they still carried the practice over into the CoC. And yet, St. Justin Martyr (100-165AD), accounted that the early church used real wine. I mean, this thread isn't about real wine or not, but don't you think that that's just one example of the RM leaders being influenced by doctrines of the day, and transferring them over into the CoC, as opposed to trusting the early church less than a decade after the last Apostle died? (If you think that that's a bad example I can give you another one if you want).

I've had enough now *sleeps*. It's like beating a dead horse.

Personally, I am glad that the Campbells, Stone, and others realized they were involved in error and needed to be restored to the Lord. Such is not a new story. Frankly, it is a story that repeated itself several times during Judah's history after dividing from Israel. Judah departed from God, and then returned under the direction of a "good" king. However, even some of the "good" kings had their faults. But, they did head things in the right direction. I believed the folks you allude to fall into this same category.

BTW, are you absolutely sure the original word in Justin Martyr's writings always meant "wine" as we think of it today (fermented and potentially intoxicating)?

Regardless of the answer, does the N.T. teach that the Lord's Supper was observed with wine (as in a fermented and potentially drink)? C'mon now. You knew that's where I'd go, right?

 

[Loveaboveall]

DRA,

From the time of say AD 250-300 until the beginnings of the restoration movement, were there any people who will be ressurected at the "last trump"? Will there be any that will be saved? There were small groups we know of who stayed true to the word of God, but the vast majority did not have and could not read the bible. What will God do with these people who had no oppurtunity to fully understand all the "conditions" of salvation?

I am just wanting to get your perspective on this subject, if you have already alluded to these questions forgive me I have been gone for a while.