COMMUNITY CHURCHES AND CHURCHES OF CHRIST


We all understand that God did not assign a specific name to his church. Rather, several different names are used to designate his people: church of God, church of the Lord, churches of Christ and the church. When there was but one body of people in the world that honored Christ as their founder, head and Lord there was no need for any further identification. We, however, live in a society were there are upwards of 1500 different kinds of churches. This situation creates a state of confusion as to which body of people one is referring to when he speaks of or asks about "the church." This situation necessitates that we have some way of identifying ourselves so we can communicate, find each other and point others to a body of brethren in a given place.

In the early days of the Restoration Movement three different streams of people came together to unite on the Bible and restore the faith and practice of the original church. Those led by Alexander Campbell most often referred to themselves as Disciples of Christ. Those led by Barton Stone most often used the name Church of Christ. Those coming from the James O'Kelly, Elias Smith and Abner Jones movement preferred the name Christian Church. There was not a strict adherence to any particular one of these names and all the brethren recognized each other as fellow-Christians serving God in one body. When schism occurred at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, those preferring to have instrumental music, missionary societies, women in positions of church leadership, etc., generally identified themselves as Christian Churches/Disciples of Christ. Our brethren distinguished themselves by the biblical name Churches of Christ, found in Rom. 16:16. Over a period of 25 years this distinction of names became virtually complete. Our brethren continued to hold and use the name Churches of Christ, not because it was the exclusive Bible cognomen for the church but because it was biblical and was helpful in identifying our people, wherever they might be.

Over the last 40 years, as liberalism slowly eroded the Biblical foundations of many of our younger preachers and they in turn failed to properly instruct and indoctrinate our people, a new generation of leaders arose who seemed to be ashamed of their association with the brotherhood of people known as Churches of Christ. They craved acceptance with their neighbors of the Evangelical churches. They did not want to bear the stigma of being exclusive and different from the worldly churches around them. Since they no longer believed the exclusive message of salvation and the one church of Scripture, they did not want to be publicly identified with those who still held to such exclusive beliefs. Hence they began to cast around for a name that would do two things:

• It would mask from the people of their community that they were affiliated with other Churches of Christ.
  
  
• It would make them appear like other "Community Churches" that were experiencing phenomenal growth. We know that many of those who have taken this route have chosen as their models, "Non-denominational Community Churches" such as the Saddleback Community Church of Orange County California and Willow Creek Church in Barrington, Illinois and Robert Shuller's Crystal Cathedral. Of course those churches are thoroughly denominational in their faith and practice since they prefer the doctrines and commandments of men rather than the authority of the New Testament of Christ as their standard. Numerous Baptist, Methodist, Reformed and other denominational congregations have also taken this same moniker of "Community Church." It seems that some of our brethren prefer to be identified with such groups rather than with their brethren of Churches of Christ.
  
  
• Another probable motive is that under the name of Community Church, the typical congregation places little or no emphasis on doctrinal loyalty. Thus a typical Community Church might employ a Methodist minister this year and a Disciples of Christ man the next, and a female Presbyterian the following. Indicators are that some of our brethren who have chosen this route have a similar laxness about doctrinal standards. Church for them is all about fellowship, fun, doing good and feeling good. Such things as abiding in the doctrine of Christ (II John 9-11) are given little emphasis.
  
  

Those of our people who have chosen to identify themselves as Community churches seem to have a commonality about them. They all have embraced the agenda of the change movement, which seeks to transform our people into the likeness of our denominational neighbors. Such things as salvation by grace through faith before immersion, a de-emphasis on the importance of baptism, a willingness to tolerate the use of instrumental music in worship, a willingness to allow women to assume leadership roles in the life of the church, acceptance of denominational churches as in good standing with God and other related issues seem to be part and parcel of those wishing to be known as "Community Churches." Several of our Universities and Colleges have given encouragement to the Community Church movement: among them Abilene Christian University, Pepperdine University and Harding Graduate School of Religion.

It would be as scriptural to identify ones congregation as the Community Church of Christ as the State Street Church of Christ. But for most of these folks, they want the "Community Church" without the "of Christ" designation. As Jesus said we can only judge them by their fruits (Matt. 7:16-21). The direction of this movement is away from New Testament Christianity and from obedience to the message of Christ. It is away from the brotherhood of Churches of Christ of which they once were a part. In my judgment it would be a mistake for a congregation to take such a name as it creates confusion as to who they are. It also identifies them with those who are abandoning the Bible as their standard of faith and practice. It reflects on their part a sense of shame to be identified with the gospel and the body of Christ. Paul was not ashamed of the message he preached (Rom. 1:16). With Jesus, he gladly endured the shame of the cross (Heb. 12:2; Gal. 5:11) and so should we. If the world despises us for what we believe and stand for, so be it; they hated Jesus for his faith and convictions (John 15:17-20).

___________________________________
John Waddey, Editor
Christianity: Then and Now
E-Mail: johnwaddey@aol.com

I would like to commend you on your message. You explained the situation in such simple words even the leaders of theh Madison denomination should understand it.

The sad part is that probably none of the "leaders" will read it. If so, they would not pay any attntion to it. Maybe, if we could get Mr. Gingles to talk to the Holy Spirit to come to a leaders' meeting and explain it to them or does he reserve that gift for himself. I'm sure Don Finto would come over if Mr. Gingles asked. I understand he has close ties to "the apolstle". Since Joe Boehm supports Finto, maybe he will talk to him when he comes for the meeting.

Or, maybe Jeff Walling will talk to the Spirit when
he is here. If not, all hope is not lost. The big one, Max Lucado, will be around soon. I'm fairly certain that Head Elder Dozier or Ass't Head Elder Hoppes will be given the gift soon so I guess your message will be lost in never, never land.

Mr. Johns:

Sometimes I wonder how much of this “speaking to the Holy Spirit” is going on with some of the leaders of certain congregations moving toward that direction. If not, then, the Holy Spirit whispering in a clear voice to them individually or to the church collectively? (Speaking of Madison, someone should be reminded that the MCOFC website needs updating. I’m sure that the remaining elders have selected additional elders, and the site does not yet show their pictures. Also, please verify the hierarchical structure of the leadership.)

As you know there are large congregations of the church that now have this type of organization—some form of a hierarchy. And, it’s really confusing because there are now different ministers and other leaders (including THE WORSHIP LEADER) in the mix. In these instances, I wouldn’t be surprised if each of these congregations now had a Head Elder and an Assistant Head Elder [or at least currently serving as “Acting” or “Interim” Head Elder, etc.]—and it’s just not known to the membership yet.

Have you read about Max Lucado, one of the most prominent change agents, as reported in “What Happened at Madison This Week”? The Holy Spirit “spoke” unequivocally to LUCADO and the other ministers, as well as to the elders [?], about their mission. So, now, ashamed of the name of Christ, they have officially changed the name from “Oak Hills Church of Christ” to “Oak Hills Church” [implication: “Oak Hills Community Church”].

These prominent change agents have strong influences at Madison: Don Finto, Rubel Shelly, Jeff Walling, Joe Beam, Lindsey Garmon, Larry Sullivan. One recent MUSICAL WORSHIP guide quoted a statement by MAX LUCADO, as if the scriptures didn’t have enough to quote from. And you are predicting the “big one, MAX LUCADO, will be around soon”?

Donnie Cruz

Mr. Johns:

Sometimes I wonder how much of this “speaking to the Holy Spirit” is going on with some of the leaders of certain congregations moving toward that direction. If not, then, is it the Holy Spirit "whispering" in a clear voice to them individually or to the church collectively? (Speaking of Madison, someone should be reminded that the MCOFC website needs updating. I’m sure that the remaining elders have selected additional elders, and the site does not yet show their pictures. Also, please verify the hierarchical structure of the leadership.)

As you know there are large congregations of the church that now have this type of organization—some form of a hierarchy. And, it’s really confusing because there are now different ministers and other leaders (including THE WORSHIP LEADER) in the mix. In these instances, I wouldn’t be surprised if each of these congregations now had a Head Elder and an Assistant Head Elder [or at least currently serving as “Acting” or “Interim” Head Elder, etc.]—and it’s just not known to the membership yet.

Have you read about Max Lucado, one of the most prominent change agents, as reported in “What Happened at Madison This Week”? The Holy Spirit “spoke” unequivocally to LUCADO and the other ministers, as well as to the elders [?], about their mission. So, now, ashamed of the name of Christ, they have officially changed the name from “Oak Hills Church of Christ” to “Oak Hills Church” [implication: “Oak Hills Community Church”].

These prominent change agents have strong influences at Madison: Don Finto, Rubel Shelly, Jeff Walling, Joe Beam, Lindsey Garmon, Larry Sullivan. One recent MUSICAL WORSHIP guide quoted a statement by MAX LUCADO, as if the scriptures didn’t have enough to quote from. And you are predicting the “big one, MAX LUCADO, will be around soon”?

Donnie Cruz

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THE OAK HILLS CHURCH OF CHRIST IN SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, HAS CHANGED ITS NAME TO OAK HILLS CHURCH (DROPPING THE NAME OF CHRIST). Excerpt from its website (by Max Lucado, August 2003):
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[[[~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. . .
Our fifth major initiative will, hopefully, serve to lower this [“spatial”] barrier: simultaneous Sunday morning services in the South Room and a fourth service on Sunday night. Let's use the new "South Room" to host worship services concurrent with the second and third service in the main Worship Center. A video of the first service message will be shown and an opportunity to worship will be provided. We will begin this gathering in late fall 2003. In early 2004, we will launch a Sunday evening service. I will present the same message from Sunday morning and we will target twenty and thirty year olds.

Recognizing the power of contemporary music, these new assemblies will be instrumental. A soft keyboard beneath an altar call, the sound of a cello during communion service ... these tools enhance outreach. After fifteen years and several thousand sermons, I am convinced instrumentation reaches hearts. … Motivated by a desire to touch more souls, we feel it is wise to use this tool. The three Sunday morning services in the main Worship Center will remain non-instrumental. In this way, ample choices will be offered to all members.
. . .
Some people find the name "Church of Christ" to be an insurmountable [“social”] barrier. Scripture urges us to remove cultural hindrances while remaining scripturally true. … Our seventh initiative calls for an alteration of our name. ... We can reach more souls by modifying "Oak Hills Church of Christ" to "Oak Hills Church" . . . While we deeply appreciate our heritage in the Churches of Christ, we recognize the hindrance the name creates for some. … We recognize the emotional struggle this decision spawns for some.
. . .
In the early nineties, our Lord called us to be a force for unity among San Antonio churches. We, for the first time, "swapped pulpits" with Trinity Baptist Church. This was a major move and we came to it cautiously. I remember Charles Prince preaching on the topic of Christian unity and urging us to "not consult our fears." We didn't and God blessed the church for it.
. . .
Over the last few weeks He has moved in great force again. God has given us our vision. The call to be a city-impacting church has come through loud and clear. Our elders enjoy an uncommon unity and conviction. The ministers, without exception, enthusiastically embrace this vision. Our marching orders are in hand.
. . .

Max Lucado
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ]]]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Oak Hills drops 'Church of Christ' -- It's about time!”—Kenneth Sublett explains:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[[[[[[~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is not a problem: it is in the book and it is all coming true. To paraphrase Isaiah's treatment of Israel as His Vineyard, the remnant will be a "tiny drop of good juice, out of one rotten grape, off one bare cluster, off one dead vine, from one vineyard whose walls have been broken down by God to let in the BEASTS to eat up the harvest and let the briers and thorns obliterate that which God provided free of charge.” In my circle, this mighty apostasy hit home when PK insisted that we MUST BREAK DOWN THE WILLS. We did and the beasts came in to eat up our lunch and souls. People die (Amos 5, 6, 8; Isaiah 5) by hungering and thirsting for the word and CANNOT find it in any church I am aware of. John Waddey's estimate of only 15% who have not been LED into apostasy may be too generous.

The pattern repeats;

Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

Both Lucado and Shelly deny that Christ came fully in the flesh and both promote (maybe to sell books) thinking of the S.O.N. God as the S.U.N. god. They both repudiate Christ and even friend John Mark Hicks warns about their INCARNATIONAL THEOLOGY as denying that God came in the flesh.

Did you see MARS almost IN the Sun last night: it won't happen again for a long time. I was truly astounded at the sight where the MOON shined much like the SUN and the WARRIOR GOD glowed angry red. Has there been more distress of nations?

The SEA is derived from SALT. Is there anything there? Has there been a time when the SEA upon which stands the holy whore Circe (church) has had less SALT? Waves are "agitated."

Roaring is from:

Echeo (g2278) ay-kheh'-o; from 2279; to make a loud noise, i.e. reverberate: - roar, sound.

THOUGH I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as SOUNDING brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 1 Cor. 13:1.

These were instruments of warfare and also of those looking for a SPIRIT to guide them.

This word speaks of the TEAM who came to wail for the Dead girl. When Jesus CAST THEM OUT it was like casting out Dung. But who can deny that MUSICAL WORSHIP (even in the most conservative churches) creates such emotional anxiety that LEARNING is not possible?

Those waves roaring may be from NAVIGATING THE WINDS OF CHANGE.

While this applied to that generation, prophecies have an ongoing message. Therefore, Jesus would say to us undergoing the same abomination which is desolating the church by allowing SINGERS and MUSICIANS to enter the Holy Place as the type of the body or Church of Christ we are repudiating the ONCE FOR ALL TIMES SACRIFICE of Jesus Christ who was then Mocked by the Levitical musicians (warriors) trying to melt His heart.

Luke 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

Rev 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

Rev 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

Well, now is the time we should know more about prophecy which is being used by the BEAST to defeat the church.

And God has blinded eyes and plugged up ears so that no one listens.

Ken, living expectingly as the SIGNS match with the date.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~]]]]]]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“When You Change Your Name, You Have Changed Your Values”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Although the name has changed, Lucado said the church's core values will not. We must wonder how has taking the name of Jesus Christ off of the church sign in front not changed the values. Are they ashamed of the name of Jesus Christ?

Jesus said, "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels" (Luke 9:26). Christians wear the name of Christ; they love the name of Christ; and they are willing to suffer for the name of Jesus Christ. Lucado, however, thinks it is more effective evangelistically as a Christian not to put the name of Christ on the sign.

Some today are now rejecting the use of that name, claiming that it is sectarian. Others are rejecting the name because they, frankly, do not want to be associated with the undesirable behavior that some members of the “church of Christ” have manifested. The old statement that “those people believe you have to be a member of the church of Christ to be saved” has led some to be ashamed of anything that uses the phrase, “church of Christ.” Consequently, a new generation of churches of Christ has adopted some alternative names. Some now go by “Community Church,” putting the phrase “a church of Christ” on the sign in small letters. A minister favoring the change recently gave this explanation:

The truth is that the name “Church of Christ” carries the baggage of an exclusivistic mentality to many people in our culture. “Oh, yeah,” somebody says, “those are the people who think they’re the only ones going to heaven.” One lady said that she never would have come into our building if she had known we are a “Church of Christ.” Once she came in and experienced the presence of God in this body, however, she isn’t about to leave! She and her children--from a very different denominational background--are reveling in the experience of Christ in this community of faith. (Rubel Shelly, "What Is Your Church's Name?", Lovelines, Vol. 24, No. 5, Feb. 4, 1998.)

Such statements show that some are embarrassed and ashamed of the phrase “Church of Christ.” I must wonder if such people will one day be ashamed of the phrase “family of God” when they suppose that there is too much offensive baggage associated with that name. I wonder if they would change their personal name if some member of the family should disgrace it. Many of those postmodernists who are so quick to embrace the unconditional love and grace of God are slow to forgive what embarrasses them.

It is not an accident that this generation has adopted some new names, nor is it surprising that these new names suggest a change in attitude and may say more about the nature of the new congregations than is at first intended. A nearby denominational group subnames itself, “The People’s Church.” What does that say? I suppose that the members of the congregation wanted the community to know that they were a church “of the people,” i.e., that the common people of the city are part of the congregation. Perhaps they wanted to play up their large size and their appeal to people. Perhaps they wanted the community to know how “in tune” they were to the common opinions and beliefs. My thought was
this: if the church belongs to the people, how can it belong to Jesus Christ? If the desires of people are its driving force, how can Jesus be its Lord? Something of this same idea might also be said of the “community” church. Perhaps the idea is that the church is to be identified with the community. This has a fine marketing appeal, but where is the Lord glorified? Does Oak Hills Church now belong to Oak Hills or to Jesus Christ? When they substitute orchestras for Biblical worship, they are not living after the teaching of Jesus.

The words “church of Christ” are not a formal name so much as they are a description of who we are. The Scriptures do not give any title to the church, but no one should doubt that the church uniquely belongs to Jesus. Jesus is the builder of the church (Matt. 16:18); He is the One who purchased it with His blood (Acts 20:28); He is the one and only foundation of the church (1 Cor. 3:11); He is the head of the church (Eph. 1:22,23); and He is the one and only Savior of the body (Eph. 5:23). When Jesus spoke of the church, He called it “my church” (Matt. 16:18); and when Paul describes the congregations, he calls them “churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16). There is much to be said in associating the church to the name of Jesus Christ.

It must be further pointed out that we as Christians do whatever we do in His name. When we were baptized, it was in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38). When we pray, we pray in His name (John 14:13,14). We give a cup of cold water in His name (Mark 9:41); we gather in His name (Matt. 18:20); and we suffer persecution for His name’s sake (1 Pet. 4:14-16). Repentance and remission of sins are preached in His name (Luke 24:47); we believe in His name (John 1:12); and we have life in His name (John 20:31). Peter reminds us that there is “salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Indeed the apostles taught in His name (Acts 5:41), Philip preached His name (Acts 8:12), and Paul bore His name before the Gentiles (Acts 9:15). It is His name that is to be magnified (Acts 19:17); His name that we are to call upon when we are baptized (22:16); and His name that washes, sanctifies and justifies us (1 Cor. 6:11). Saints are those who call upon His name (1 Cor. 1:2). It was in the name of Jesus Christ that Paul both exhorted the Corinthians and turned the wicked man over to Satan (1 Cor. 1:10; 5:4,5). Paul describes the name of Jesus as that which is above every name (Eph. 1:21); and it is the name at which every knee will bow and every tongue confess to the glory of the Father (Phil. 2:9,10). Whatever we do in word or deed, we are to do in the name of the Lord Jesus (Col. 3:17); and His name is to be glorified in us (2 Thess. 1:12). Even slaves are to live worthy of the name of Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 6:1). Consequently, those who name the name of Jesus ought to abstain from wickedness (1 Tim. 2:19). The name we name is more excellent than the name of the angels (Heb. 1:4). To His name we offer a sacrifice of praise, the fruit of our lips (Heb. 13:15). When we minister to saints, we show love to His name (Heb. 6:10). The name of Jesus Christ, by which we are called, is a fair name (James 2:7); it is the name in which we are to glorify God (1 Pet. 4:14-16). We must hold fast to that name (Rev. 2:13), fear His name (Rev. 11:18), and never deny His name (Rev. 3:8). With all these emphases on the name of Jesus Christ, it is unthinkable that any Christian would abandon it.

Should the church wear the name of Jesus Christ? Yes. Should the church denominate that name? No. The phrase “church of Christ” ought always to be a description of who we are and whose we are. Those who are critical of our use of that name, saying we have somehow denominated it ought to be careful that they are not guilty of the same error with other descriptions.

According to the newspaper, "Oak Hills' core values are similar to those of other evangelical churches, emphasizing the need for faith in Jesus' sacrificial death and resurrection for salvation. Oak Hills also believes salvation doesn't come through baptism, but that baptism is the initial step of obedience after salvation." If Max and Company are so ashamed of the "church of Christ" that they are removing it from their signs, then perhaps they are finally being honest. Their core value is Evangelical; they have ceased to be New Testament Christians.

Much of this is taken from my book, Adrift, pp. 113-117.

Phil Sanders
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John Waddey’s review of ADRIFT says it is “A BOOK YOU MUST READ”:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
”Much of what has been and is being said and written against the change movement afflicting our brotherhood deals with the visible symptoms of the problem. Bro. Phil Sanders, as a skilled physician, probes deeper and identifies the specific disease that has invaded the hearts and minds of many of our brethren. The disease is "Postmodernism" an affliction of the heart and mind affecting multitudes both in and out of the church.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Granted some preachers among us have been "shouting wolf" for the last 35 years. Time and again brethren looked but could not find the wolf. After a while, many became inured to the warnings of the wolf-warners. They finally decided those who were constantly sounding the alarm did not merit their attention. Such a response was just what Satan hoped for. Now, with their eyes closed and ears plugged, he could do his work of infiltrating churches with no serious opposition. Muffled and blindfolded, preachers and elders neither saw nor heard as the Adversary's minions did their work. First they captured the administration and Bible departments of some of our schools. The Father of Lies embolden a few our successful young preachers to launch a program of change. Intoxicated with the taste of their "new wine," they worked evangelistically to recruit others to join their campaign.

When more responsible watchmen saw these real wolves savaging churches in many places and sounded a warning, the majority of our preachers and elders still had their blindfolds and earplugs in place. They could not hear. Many did not wish to hear or see. Such knowledge is disconcerting. Warnings were brushed aside as scare-mongering, complaints from preachers jealous of others' success, nitpicking or other ignoble motives.

Last month (Aug. 03) a leading change agent issued a bold announcement that rang a bell even the deaf could hear and caused a flash of light that pierced the thickest blinders. Max Lucado, the most daring of the change agents and the darling of our liberal brothers, preached a sermon announcing a new agenda for his Oak Hills Church of Christ in San Antonio.

<> Their name would be changed to "Oak Hills Church." His logic was, "Some people find the name ‘church of Christ' to be an insurmountable barrier...Let's seek to remove any barrier that would hinder a person from hearing the Gospel." Immersion is also a barrier to many. Jesus as Lord is a barrier to Jews and Muslims!

<> He proposed: "establishing Oak Hills Campuses in other sections of the city. These satellite churches will at least initially, be a part of the Oak Hills family... Our multi-site churches could stay linked together by viewing a video of the sermon from the ‘mother church.'" In the world of Catholicism, this is called a diocesan form of church government.

<> Instrumental music would be used in their Sunday evening services for young adults. Max said, "I will present the...message and we will target twenty and thirty year olds. Recognizing the power of contemporary music, the new assemblies will be instrumental...A soft keyboard beneath an altar call, the sound of a cello during communion service...I am convinced instrumentation reaches hearts...We feel it is wise to use this tool." Note his absence of Scriptural authorization for this change. For change agents "feelings" trump Scripture when it gets in the way.

<> In an interview in the San Antonio Express-News (9/6/03), Vic King, Oak Hills' minister of missions, said "Oak Hills' core values are similar to those of other evangelical churches." He continued, "Oak Hills also believes that salvation doesn't come through baptism, but that baptism is the initial step of obedience after salvation."

<> Their core values were said to be like the "Evangelical" churches. In "lay" terms, this refers to Baptists, Reformed Churches, Assemblies of God and other "conservative" denominational bodies.

<> Bro. Lucado also said, "Our Lord called us to be a force for unity among San Antonio Churches. We, for the first time, ‘swapped pulpits' with Trinity Baptist Church."

Now I ask those who preach and those shepherd our churches: Can you see the wolf? Yes, Bro. Lucado is gifted and an effective, successful writer. Yes, he has had far greater acceptance among those outside our brotherhood than any other writer. Yes, he did attend Abilene Christian University. Yes, he once was a missionary and a preacher of truth and righteousness. Please, take off the blindfold, remove the earplugs and see the sad and ugly truth. This brother and the church he serves have abandoned New Testament Christianity for the appealing fields of "Evangelical" Protestantism. Like Hymenaeus and Alexander, they have made shipwreck of the faith (I Tim. 1:19-20). Given his high visibility, his popularity and success, Bro. Lucado will influence many young men to emulate his example.

As unfortunate as this case is, Bro. Lucado and Oak Hills congregation are but one example of scores of others who have done likewise. A tidal wave of error is sweeping across the face of our brotherhood. It will eventually reach your congregation. The time to prepare for this invasion and protect your flock is now! Ours are not premature or unfounded warnings. The wolves are already within the fold. Many casualties have already been suffered. For the sake of the Lord Jesus and his holy church, rise up and be the faithful watchmen and shepherds God expects you to be!

John Waddey

I really like bro, Max Lacudo, he is awesome, I too am a former member of the Church of Christ, and I feel that we are saved by grace through faith, and that baptized is a result of our Faith in Christ...Carl

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CARL EXCLAIMS: BROTHER MAX LUCADO [not Lacudo, dc] IS “AWESOME”!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Marx was a very renowned economic/political philosopher. You know, Carl, Max is a very popular “religious” philosopher today. His website describes him in “UpWords” (his teaching ministry) as a prolific writer “with more than 28 million books in print”—he is wealthy! (Hmmm … wonder why?) His philosophy or logic is that the name “of Christ”—appended to the name of the church He established and whose gospel only is to be preached—is an “insurmountable [social] barrier.”

There is a very popular 1988 song titled “Awesome God … Our God Is an Awesome God.” The word “awe” is defined as “a feeling of wonder and reverence; fear and reverence; dread mingled with reverence.” Whether or not the “praise” singers honestly express “fear and reverence” as they do the loud programmed, rhythmic clapping while singing this song, my question to you is this: Since Max Lucado is “awesome” to you, how much of that “feeling of wonder or fear and reverence” would you attribute to the man who no longer teaches the unadulterated truth of God?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CARL CONFESSES: “I TOO AM A FORMER MEMBER OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That’s quite a bold and an honest confession of your current membership, as well as Max’s, which is ___________? [Well . . . you didn’t specify]. Based on your claim, I would assume that you and Max, as “former” members of the church of Christ, had been baptized before in order that your sins would be forgiven. But since you have discovered (or imitated from the Baptist religion) this “new truth” of being saved first before baptism, did you have to go through a “reversal” or a re-conversion process—done differently this time? Did you this time have to first “accept Christ as your personal Savior to get saved [have your sins remitted], then, be [re-]baptized AFTER being saved?

In case you have forgotten, let me remind you of this very familiar passage: “… Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR [the original Greek word “eis” means: so that, in order that, toward or UNTO] the remission of sins, and ye shall receive [clear conscience:] the gift of the Holy Ghost” (KJV). (The Baptists substitute “because of” for the word “for” in the text.) A parallel passage that also explains conversion and refreshing [clear conscience] ONLY AFTER repentance and baptism is found in Acts 3:19—“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.” (KJV)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Donnie Cruz

Churches of Christ are faced with a revolution in their camp. A band of skilled, articulate men have launched a movement to reform (i.e. change) the faith, worship and practice of the brotherhood. If they are successful, we will no longer be a church modeled after the Biblical pattern; the church our fathers and mothers knew. The seriousness of the challenge is illustrated by the contrasting views of the church held by those who are promoting change and those who are determined to cling to the old paths of the Biblical standard.

Our view of the church is that it is stable and unchanging in its essence. We want to believe and worship just as the first disciples did and as faithful saints have since the beginning. The church was established by Christ (Matt. 16:18) and given a standard of faith and practice conceived in heaven, suitable for all men of all nations and forever binding on those who wish to please him (Matt. 28:20). Their view, in contrast, is of a church that theoretically can be different in every age, culture and community. Their churches are the products of their culture and are shaped by those who are significant leaders. They reject the idea of the Bible as our divine pattern and ridicule the idea as “patternism.”

Our view is that the Church of Christ is the spiritual body of Jesus in this world (Eph. 1:22); purchased by his blood (Acts 20;28); established by Christ (Matt. 16:18). It is God’s family of saved people (I Tim. 3:15), that will live with him in eternity (I Cor. 15:24; Rev. 21:2). Their view is that the Church of Christ is a human organization founded by Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone in the early 1800s. At best, it is only a denomination, merely a part of the real church. They see it as seriously flawed and of no lasting value. To them, one’s salvation certainly does not depend on being a part of it.

Our view is that the faith, worship and work of the church have been ordained and commissioned by Christ (I Cor. 11:23). The Scriptures provide us all things that pertain to life and godliness (II Pet. 1:3-4). They constitute a “pattern of sound words” to which we are to cling (II Tim. 1:13). We are explicitly taught to “observe all things whatsoever (Christ) commanded” (Matt. 28:20). In his Testament, Christ sets forth the doctrines we are to believe, the kind of worship we are to offer and the mission his church is to pursue. Our duty is to acknowledge him as Lord (Rom. 10:9) and render submissive obedience to him in every way (Heb. 5:9). They see belief and worship as something derived from our history and culture; that human leaders have set the standards for the church. They specifically deny that there is a standard or pattern to which we must conform. They can adapt their message and worship to meet the felt needs and demands of society. They feel comfortable in allowing or doing things Scripture specifically forbids such as placing women in positions of public leadership in the church (I Cor. 14:33-34).

These examples demonstrate that although these two groups of people both call themselves Churches of Christ, they clearly are different in important and significant ways. In fact they represent two different kinds of churches; one divine, the other human; one guided by Scripture, the other by the will of man. Just as counterfeit money looks remarkably like genuine money, so the churches of the change movement appear to the unsuspecting to be Churches of Christ, but their similarity is only surface and their value is no more than that of a counterfeit bill. Christ built but one church (Matt. 16:18); He has “but one body” (I Cor. 12:20). Although counterfeits may exist and even flourish in our midst, they will not stand the inspection of the Great Judge of all (Matt. 7:21-23).

John Waddey

This is a valid question that millions of folks have pondered. To help put it in focus ask yourself: Is one medicine as good as another? Or one doctor? Is one car as good as another? Or one airline? When you are traveling, is one direction as good as another? When balancing your checking account is one answer as good as another? Is one political candidate as good as another? Is one school as good as another? Is a counterfeit bill as good as a genuine piece of currency? Or a forged check of equal value with a good one? Of course, the answer to all of these questions is no. One is not necessarily as good as the other; in many cases one is downright inferior or even worthless.

Only in the realm of religion would we even consider such a statement to have any merit. In any other area, to affirm that one thing is as good as another would cause us to be laughed off the platform. Christ purchased a church (Acts 20:28); he built a church (Matt. 16:18); he is savior of a church (Eph. 5:23); he is head of a church (Eph. 1:22). That church is undisputedly of ultimate value and benefit to all who become members of it. New Testament writers speak of it as an exclusive, unitary church. They call it "the" church. They tell us there is one body or church (Eph. 4:4-5). Across the centuries, men and women have established hundreds of churches of their own design and making. Who would say that any one of them is of equal value with that church which Christ built? Christ's church existed long before any human denomination, sect or cult was created. Our eternal destiny depends on our being members of the church which is God's saved family (Eph. 5:23). It behooves us therefore to be members of that church which Christ built. Paul referred to this body when writing to the Romans, saying, "All the churches (i.e., congregations) of Christ salute you" (Rom. 16:16). No other church is equal in value to that of Christ.

John Waddey

There are churches on every hand; all kinds of churches: Catholic, Protestant and others, big churches, fancy churches, small and plain churches. Let me tell you about a very unusual church THAT HAS:

• No rock bands or professional entertainers; just simple worship to God with hymns and spiritual songs sung by all (Ephesians 5:19).

• No showmen or comedians; just plain, ordinary Christian teachers who preach God's Word to those assembled (II Timothy 4:1-2).

• No cathedrals, or temples; just plain, functional meeting houses in which to worship and serve the Lord.

• No magicians or "miracle" workers; just normal, intelligent Christians doing the will and work of Christ in the church and in the community. Helping the poor, ministering to the ill and doing good in the name of Christ.

• No denominational structure or government; just congregations meeting, conducting their own business, choosing their own leaders and serving God as they understand Scripture to direct.

• No human founder to honor or follow, no human doctrinal system to believe or obey; just disciples honoring Christ by believing in him as God's Son and obeying his will as revealed in his New Testament.

• No sectarian or denominational names to be known by; just members who are called Christians (I Peter 4:16) and congregations called "Churches of Christ" (Romans 16:16).

• No political agendas or involvement; just Christians working to promote a kingdom, "not of this world" (John 18:36), who pray for kings and all in high places (I Timothy 2:1-2) but do not try to manipulate or control government.

"WHAT A STRANGE AND UNUSUAL CHURCH; I can't imagine such," you may say. To see just such an unusual church, visit The Church of Christ near you.

John Waddey

John,thanks to you for an apt discription of the Lord's church. I have read after you for the past several years and enjoy the plain gospel teaching that eminates from you brother.If memory serves me [and it doesn't always] I have attended a few meetings or lectureships in which you participated.Thanks again and keep up the good work. Yours in Christ. Elmer LaRue

Wonderful article, but if we are not careful the church as we know it, the church of the scripture, will change before our very eyes, just like the soceity we grew up in is gone, all in the name of progress and tolerance. Contemporary praise and worship services for our young people - fellowship with groups such as Promise Keepers & denominational groups, acceptance of alternative lifestyles. As God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, so shall the church of Christ be the same in the eyes of Jesus, our Lord. I just pray that we continue to be that church and not change with the times. One thing is for sure, those of us that see unscriptural changes coming in our local church and say nothing, will pay the price, eternally! May God give us the strength and courage to stand with him and His Word. Come apart from the world or you will come apart!

Many brethren are like the man from Missouri: They won't believe a report until they have seen with their own eyes. When we warn brethren that apostasy is sweeping our brotherhood under the guise of changing us, many folks just can't believe it. I sometimes wonder just what it would take to persuade them. You who doubt the report, I ask to consider the following:

• If you knew for a fact that some preachers are teaching that sinners can be saved by grace before and even without baptism for forgiveness of sins;
• If you visited congregations of our people who are using women to lead in public worship, teach adult classes with men present and even preach from their pulpits;
• If you observed congregations of the Church of Christ participating Billy Graham Crusades;
• If you could see congregations mixing the Lord's Supper with a common meal;
• If you visited a sister congregation engaged in special Easter and Christmas services;
• If you attended a class or service in a church of Christ where instrumental music accompanied the singing of hymns;
• If you heard with your own ears gospel preachers teaching that the Churches of Christ are really just another denominational body, that we were founded by Alexander Campbell;
• If you could read the words of Christian teachers advocating that we should fellowship denominational churches since they are acceptable to Christ;
• If you heard preachers ridicule and reproach the deceased great heroes of our brotherhood and downplay their achievements:
• If you saw with your own eyes congregations torn asunder by promoters of change and houses of worship built and paid for by brethren who opposed all of the above stealthily taken by false brethren;
• If you knew that some Christian Universities founded and funded by our people are now promoting all of the above;

Would you be convinced that great and serious problems have befallen the Lord's Church in our day? With deep regret I must tell you that such is in fact the case. Furthermore unless we act quickly and decisively the tidal wave of error may well sweep everything before it. I implore you not to stop your ears and close your eyes to the dangers we face. Every faithful man and woman is needed to help preserve the blessed church of our Lord Jesus.

John Waddey

The Community Church Movement


The community church movement has grown out of a denominational background. The chief models are the Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois and the Saddleback Community Church in California. The textbook for the movement is The Purpose Driven Church by Rick Warren. Some of the characteristics of community churches, are the following:

1. Contemporary music. At Willow Creek a pop singer has replaced the choir, and a 10-piece rock band has replaced the organ.
   
   
2. Eliminating denominational names. Most community churches are disguised denominations, that is, they still hold to Baptist or Methodist creeds and teachings, but the name has been changed. As this movement has infiltrated churches of Christ, the name church of Christ has been diminished or eliminated.
   
   
3. Casual emphasis in worship, both in style and dress.
   
   
4. Different kind of leadership model rather than elders who have authority.
   
   
5. Praise teams and entertainment orientation in worship.
   
   
6. A greater emphasis on “self”, including one’s own feelings and emotions.
   
   
7. De-emphasis on doctrine, and among churches of Christ, an emphasis of the restoration plea.
   
   
8. A market-driven program, that is, striving to provide what people want or what they are seeking, rather than what God says they need.
   

Concern Even in the Denominational World

In his book, Ashamed of the Gospel, John MacArthur writes against the “market-driven” approach to religion. Here is how he describes the philosophy behind the community church movement: “Provide non-Christians with an agreeable, inoffensive environment. Give them freedom, tolerance, and anonymity. Always be positive and benevolent. If you must have a sermon, keep it brief and amusing. Don’t be preachy or authoritative. Above all, keep everyone entertained. Churches following this pattern will see numerical growth, we’re assured; those that ignore it are doomed to decline” (pp. 45-46). “Preaching—particularly preaching about sin, righteousness, and judgment—is too confrontive to be truly satisfying. The church must learn to couch the truth in ways that amuse and entertain” (p. 23). In contrast to such a philosophy of preaching that entertains, the Bible commands preaching that convicts the heart and moves the sinner to repentance (Matthew 4:17; Luke 13:3; Acts 17:30; 26:20; 20:21; 2 Corinthians 5:9-10; Acts 24:25 “And as he was discussing righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come”).

• Please note that we can preach the truth, urge people to repent, expose error and still greet people in a warm and friendly manner. Jesus ate with sinners and continued to preach the truth. We can make people feel welcome, but we are making a mistake if we want them to avoid any discomfort at all. The Word of God will naturally cause any sinner to feel uncomfortable at times (Hebrews 4:12; John 16:8; Acts 2:37). Remember, life is not about avoiding discomfort.
  
  
• People who wanted sinners to feel no discomfort were labeled as false prophets in times past, (Isaiah 30:10; Jeremiah 8:11). Spiritual growth many times requires being convicted and being uncomfortable (Matthew 5:3-4).
  
  

An Old Problem
In his book, MacArthur quotes often from the 19th century Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Spurgeon was probably the most well known denominational preacher of his time. He became concerned with what he saw as a “down-grade”, meaning that he saw faith going downhill (we would say the “slippery-slope”). The Downgrade controversy began with Spurgeon’s publication of two anonymous articles by a fellow Baptist, which lament trends away from biblical fundamentals, compromises with the world, and the unwillingness of even otherwise orthodox preachers to oppose those whose soundness was questionable. He saw evangelicals using entertainment as a tool for church growth, and he believed that was subverting the church’s priorities. He feared that frivolous diversions and carnal amusements in the church would eventually destroy people’s appetites for real worship and preaching of God’s Word. Paul seems to have described the same worldly attitude in 2 Timothy 4:3, and Isaiah saw the same problem among his contemporaries (Isaiah 30:9). We need to remember that there is another kind of “worldliness” besides drinking and fornicating. It is the worldly desire to be seen as sophisticated, to fit in, to no longer be different, to be viewed as “cool”, “hip”, “on the cutting edge,” and on what the world would call “a winning team” (Romans 12:1-2). Indifference toward doctrine is only one step away from indifference to immorality (Romans 1:23-24).

Among Liberal Churches
Various schools supported by liberal churches of Christ are known to be promoting the Community Church, these are Abilene Christian University, Harding University, Oklahoma Christian University, Lipscomb University, and Pepperdine University. The Downtown Church, the joint world of the Highland Church of Christ, and Harding Graduate School of Religion, has borrowed from denominationalism by employing the use of a praise team to replace the song leader, the clapping of hands during the singing; the presence of icons in worship, and testimonials from the congregation. Other practices that are usually associated with the movement in liberal churches are, drama presentations, observing religious holidays, dedicating babies, children’s worship, and the adoption of instrumental music in worship.

False Compassion
Even when these churches arise in the denominational world, the philosophy often is that the mainline group isn’t warm or compassionate towards unbelievers. Doug Varnado, preacher for the Hendersonville Community Church, was recently forced out as a faulty member at David Lipscomb University because where he serves began employing, on a periodic basis, recorded instrumental music in worship. In an interview he noted, “It’s unimportant if the church adds instrumental music on occasion. More important, is a faith community that shows compassion for people seeking God at the end of the 20th century”. The trouble with this statement, and others that seek to downgrade doctrinal matters, is that true compassion means truly bringing people out of darkness into God’s light, which includes God’s view of things, including how He wants to be worshipped.

• Often people will try to justify the absence of any doctrinal or convicting preaching by saying that they want people to feel comfortable in the assembly and eventually these topics will be addressed. First, I have found that once one adopts this attitude, those topics never get addressed, for there is never a “convenient time” once you have bought into the idea that people should always feel comfortable (2 Timothy 4:2).
  
  
• True compassion means recognizing the facts that a person is lost, that they believe things that are false, and that until those issues are addressed, they can’t be saved (Acts 17:22ff; 3:14). It is noteworthy, that Jesus didn’t put-off confronting people with what stood between them and eternal life (Mark 10:21).
  
  

The Name
Various liberal congregations have dropped the designation “church of Christ”, arguing that people are turned off by such terms. But such a name is Biblical (Romans 16:16). I have found that dropping the name virtually equals dropping what the name represents, that is, the church that is following Christ, New Testament Christianity, and the church that Jesus founded. Secondly, such is a deceptive practice. It is better to be honest and upfront with people, than try to lure them in under false pretenses ( 1 Peter 2:1 “putting away all guile”).

Targeting Your Audience
Far from going out and trying to save everyone (Mark 16:15), the community church movement often targets a select group of people whom they are trying to attract. MacArthur notes, “Why do you suppose nearly all the user-friendly churches identify their ‘target market’ as young suburban professionals and other moneyed groups? Why are so few of these churches targeting the poor and inner city? The answer may be obvious. One leading pastor in the movement says, ‘A pastor can define his appropriate target audience by determining with whom he would like to spend a vacation or an afternoon of recreation’. It would be hard to imagine a ministry philosophy more at odds with the Word of God than that” (p. 126). Paul actually found that “suburban professionals”, rejected the truth (1 Corinthians 1:26; Matthew 11:5).

False Growth
Willow Creek, which is held up as the model of church growth, recently did an internal audit, in which they found that only 2% of their growth consisted of new converts. The rest of the people simply came from other churches in the area. MacArthur observes, “User-friendly, entertainment-oriented, market-driven, pragmatic churches will probably continue to flourish for a while. Unfortunately, however, the whole movement is based on current fashion and therefore cannot last long. When the fickle winds finally change, one of three things may happen. These churches will fall out of vogue and wane; or they will opt to change with the spirit of the age and very likely abandon any semblance of biblical Christianity; or they will see the need to rebuild on a more sure foundation” (p. 188). (See Acts 17:21; Ephesians 4:14). Such congregations have made the mistake of giving people what they think they need, instead of what God says they need. “Those who advocate a contemporary style of worship tell us that if we want success and growth in the church, and if we want to keep our young people, we must do things in new and different ways. But, consider this: When the ‘new’ wears off and the ‘different’ becomes customary, what happens then?” (The Spiritual Sword, October 2000, p. 27) . One cry that was heard in the denominations and is being heard in liberal churches today is that “We are bored” with the same old songs, prayers, and preaching, but people also become bored with entertainment as well. People were bored with the Olympics, claim to be bored by the present World Series and so on. The truth of the matter is, as long as one is selfish, eventually everything will seem boring to you. I like the following comment: “Instead of attempting to renovate worship for our own benefit, what we need to do is cultivate our appetites for pure, New Testament worship (John 4:24; Habakkuk 2:20)” (p. 27).

__________________________________

Mark Dunagan/Beaverton Church of Christ/503-644-9017
www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/mdunagan@easystreet.com

Ahh, We are so good at taking what believe is the translation of biblical text and making it what want it to say. We as Church of Christ members have the audacity to claim we are the only non-denominal church, and we say that all these community churches are just denominations in disguise? Hmm well i would argue that we are nothing more than a denomination in disguise. I love the arrogance that you all have to believe that our church is the orginal church formed at Pentacost as if our ways of thinking are directly from the bible. What you should all do is spend some time studying the path of Christianity from Palestine, to Italy, To Turkey, To England and eventually to the United States and then maybe you would realize that Church of Christ is simply an offshoot of a thought process that has been carried down. Im sure that many of you would claim that Martin Luther was some sort of Anti-Christ yet without him there would be no Church of Christ. I am a Member of a Church of Christ but im not as arrogant as all of you to believe that my translation of the Text is the right way. First off you all read the KJV. Im not sure if you intellegent concerned members know but the original texts were Written in Greek which I have studied and I can Assure you that the KJV is far from accurate, But im sure you just as arrogant as to believe that your bible is the Real one and the Greek that Paul wrote in is some sort of language of Satin. Also you fail to even investigate any circumstances for the text of the bible. Do you honestly believe that everything written in the NT was focused for your biblical doctrine?? Im sure many of you cannot even name one of the Apostolic Fathers who helped to form the bible. By the way did you know that the Holy Canon which was not finalized till 325AD was formed by Constantine who just happened to be the first to form the Universal church also known as Catholic....Uh Oh i bet that throws a Kink in your exclusiveness. Im sure you will throw some poorly translated Texts at me in response to this and carry on thinking that your way is the right way but your Way is Dying. It is dying as your generation Ages and within 50 Years you will only be looked on as Extremists in christianity. You people fill the same Role that Radical Islamists do in Muslim Relgion. But that doesnt matter does it they are all satanists anyway. Enjoy passing misguided judgement, and please respond telling me about how Liberal Professors are filling my head with this "Knowledge Stuff." Continue to be Uneducated so that when you spew your Ignorant banter the educated of the world will simply shake their heads and just excuse your actions. Im sure this wont even get posted but its ok because if a Moderator reads it I will be happy. Im sure God is very happy with you right now because you have taken his will and made it fit into your idea of religion. Enjoy

Christian Scholar's post seems more of an attack on the King James Bible than discussing the Community Church Movement as such. Very well, Christian Scholar claims to have studied Greek and therefore contends that the King James translation of the New Testament is "far from accurate." I would therefore ask the following of Christian Scholar:

1. What specific Greek New Testament edition (Traditional Text [Textus Receptus, Received Text], Critical Text, etc.) did Christian Scholar use as a comparison to draw his/her conclusion?

2. Since the King James Bible provides a literal, word-for-word translation of the Greek New Testament (formal equivalence translation), let Christian Scholar produce at least twelve New Testament passages (or many more if desired) which clearly demonstrate the most profound of alleged inaccuracies of the King James translation. Let the proof be so clear that we cannot do anything but discard our KJVs.

3. Since it is obvious that Christian Scholar rejects the KJV, let him/her not only recommend a specific New Testament translation which is allegedly the most accurate and reliable when compared with the Greek, but also cite ample reasons for this recommendation.

Bill,

He won't be able to. This is part of the "brain washing" that is occuring at these "mega churches" to try and keep their congregations from understanding exactly how far off the path they have travelled.

You see...it's a simple issue. First, they make you feel all warm and cozy. THEN they discredit ANYTHING that disagees with their stance (a legitimate translation of the Bible) so you are left to trust only them (who are led by the Holy Spirit but not the Word...hm...) Then the leaders will let you know which PARTS of each translation they agree with. How else will they keep you from the truth? They certainly don't want you to think for yourself.

It is so sad and such a well-known tactic for cults. What surpises me is how many adults fall for it. The Catholics have used it for years...to the point that most of their members do not own a Bible, much less have ever studied one.

However, our Christian Scholar does NOT come across as one that is very knowledgeable about Greek/Hebrew or he would know that his comments are erroneous and go against any decent Greek scholar. He wouls also know more about the history of the KJV and how many different scholars were involved. He would know that the versions agreed to by these Mega Churches were not translated by Greek Scholars from the original text, but were "culturized" by present day evangalists to make the Bible easier to understand. More bluntly, they were written by poor biblical preachers who didn't like what the original text said (or how it was said) and made up a version that in NO WAY can relate back to the original Greek version.

Our scholar is also very unaware of the history of the Church as it moved across Italy into Europe and then America. He would know that the C of C and other divisions did survive throughout the centuries and were persecuted by the Catholics for their refusal to disobey the Gospels and follow the Pope. He would know that these Churches were almost identical to today's "mainstream" smaller church of Christs. He would also know that the Mega Chruch issue has been debated for centuries and has always been a problem every 150 years or so with the younger generations. This is not a "new" issue nor are their ideas of entertainment "new".

What our scholar fails to realize is that he is speaking to those who are aware of the history of the Church and are very much aware of the issues behind certain translations. He really should have read this website better before posting. Its sad to say, but I do discredit his understanding of Greek text...for his hypothesis is very "immature" and his understanding of the KJV is weak.

I feel this is just an attempt to express anger at people who threaten his "internal dialogue" and beliefs.

PPB,

Thanks for your most valuable insight. Your comments about detractors' anger at people who threaten their "internal dialogue and beliefs" (because such beliefs conflict with the New Testament) is right on target.

What we strive to get across to detractors is that if they waltz into this web site with generic criticisms against the New Testament in general, the KJV in particular, or the Church of Christ, they must be prepared to support their accusations with accurately translated Scripture in complete context. Hurling statements like, "The KJV is inaccurate," "The Church of Christ is a false religion," or "You're just holding up your preferences as divine principles" just won't pass muster without biblical support. Likewise proving ineffective here are the sophomoric "weapons" of sarcasm, satire, and character assassination, which detractors so frequently utilize. Cast them upon the playground and school yard before venturing to this web site.

ChristianScholar:Ahh, We are so good at taking what believe is the translation of biblical text and making it what want it to say. We as Church of Christ members have the audacity to claim we are the only non-denominal church, and we say that all these community churches are just denominations in disguise? Hmm well i would argue that we are nothing more than a denomination in disguise.

SOME people may have said that just as SOME people may use that claim to discredit OTHER THINGS. There is a community church denomination and then there are others which have STOLEN the name. Because you are such a scholar you know that there were about 421 separate denominations formed out of the Great American Awakening. Most of these were Baptists and someone has counted 156 separate Baptist denominations. NONE of that has anything to do with the LUSTED FOR changes.

I know of no major religious group which you can identify which does not have collectivists meetings to thresh out opinions and dogmas. They almost always train men and make sure they get PLACED in the group and most feed funds into a central headquarters. If you know of a specific non-denominational group then let us know. I know that the Jubilee hoped that they would spawn a group which met annually to be fed good stuff about HOW TO RAISE HOLY HANDS or be conditioned to instrumental music. They began with a Sunday school program but that probably got stamped on just as has the whole Jubilee denominational or INCORPORATED movement.

ChristianScholar:I love the arrogance that you all have to believe that our church is the original church formed at Pentecost as if our ways of thinking are directly from the bible. What you should all do is spend some time studying the path of Christianity from Palestine, to Italy, To Turkey, To England and eventually to the United States and then maybe you would realize that Church of Christ is simply an offshoot of a thought process that has been carried down.

Ignatius who Died C. 110 wrote to the Ephesians spoke of THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. The Apostolic Constitutions identifies the church as THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. ALL of these writers defended the NAME of the church, the organization of the church, the worship of the church including rejecting music and even musicians from membership until they repented. They all rejected the trinity concept and all insisted on Baptism FOR the remission of sins. So CHRISTIAN SCHOLAR, you will never find any evidence to hallucinate Musical Worship Teams until the Pope imported the A Capella who were ALA CASTRATOS to perform in the Sistine Chapel where organs were outlawed.

Not until AFTER the Reformation did the Catholics or anyone ever have congregational singing WITH instrumental accompanied. Organs were signals to mark processionals, recessionals and were more like a pitchpipe for the Precentor but NOT to accompany "singing."

ChristianScholar:Im sure that many of you would claim that Martin Luther was some sort of Anti-Christ yet without him there would be no Church of Christ.

On the contrary, thou who reads textbooks by Ph.Duhs who have never read Luther, Restoration Scholars who read original documents in original languages speak the same way Luther, Calvin and others spoke. What the lying "scholars" say about "american" invention is NOT TRUE in ANY SINGLE INSTANCE. T. Campbell spoke Luther's Sola Fide absolutely: "Faith must have have an object." Luther's Sola Fide meant Sola Scriptura because you cannot believe something you have not heard. Because the Sola Fide produced by Sola Scripture DEMANDED baptism for the remission of sins, Sola Fide demanded Salvation by Baptism Only. You didn't know that! Huh? Martin would repudiate LUTHERAN and would call himself a member of THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. We could use his description of baptism without change. He even put infant baptism in the cast of "baby dedication."

AD 150-211 Clement of Alexandria 354-430 Augustine of Hippo AND EVERYONE considered itself THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.

Luther defended OUR form of baptism FOR the remission of sins for those old enough to believe. Erasmus and Calvin called it the church of Christ, rejected music, the trinity of three Shellyite "people," and cast out the organs, choirs and restored congregational singing. Calvin rejected that the Spirit operated outside of the Word and called his effort A RESTORATION MOVEMENT.

ALL of the literary evidence proves that THE GOAL of all protestants was to RESTORE the faith and practice of the church to the BIBLICAL STANDARD. So, it is another big lie that Anti-instrumental churches of Christ INVENTED the concept of Commands, Examples and Inferences which is WELL DOCUMENTED in the Bible and all scholarship.

Constantine DID NOT form the canon but included what he wanted collected together to print. The Bible is a LIBRARY and there were MANY cannons based on what books were referred to by individual writers. MAKING A LIST did not include or exclude anything which has stood the test of time. The Old Testament as we have it with the Apocrypha existed and Jesus may have had a BOUND COPY because that is what he quotes. Adding the Apocryphal will only get you MORE association of MUSIC with the Devil and the sacrificial system.

ALL of the non-canonical literature CASTIGATES music as a worship concept and assigns it to Satan as does the Bible and ALL contemporaneous literature. So, the only thing you could ADD would be Babylonian tablets continued as Gnosticism and the Mother Goddess worship under Sophia and ZOE. Even among the Gnostics Zoe is called THE BEAST and the FEMALE INSTRUCTING PRINCIPLE.

Defend what YOU as PROGRESSIVE believe which is CONTRARY to the 2,000 year history of THE CHURCH OF CHRIST and let us see what you are screaming about. Amos, Isaiah, Ezekiel and other identify PROGRESSIVE with INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC.

GIVE US SOME TRUE BLUE TRANSLATION WHICH REFUTES ANYTHING CHURCH OF CHRIST. I can refute professional riders on church widows, the Law of Giving, the Law of Singing and that TRUMPS you.

oh thank you miss ppb for your valuble insight!
What dribble dr bill. your full of $%%^$ as a christmas goose!

Bleeah!!

I see the usual suspects are still out hear ranting and raving!

Your faithful detractor,
Kent

"Kent," the epitome of detractor:

1. He cannot respond without using or suggesting profanity/vulgarity (as borne out in the post here and in other threads).

2. He hasn't ever contributed one single, original essay to this site, only responses laced with sarcasm, satire, character assassinations, and, of course, profanity/vulgarity.

3. He cannot even begin to make a rational, legitimate argument against this web site, let alone back it up with any valid Scripture.

Conclusion: We'll waste no more time on detractor Kent, for his future posts will only be sordid variations on what we've just witnessed.

I’m going to retract what I said previously about not wasting any more time on the detractor Kent. It’s quite obvious that any person who repeatedly resorts to profanity and vulgarity in order to communicate, especially to fellow Christians on this web site, is filled, not with the spirit of Christ, but with the spirit of evil. Such a person as Kent is in serious need of spiritual help.

Therefore, I call upon all those who regularly contribute to Concerned Members, supporters and detractors alike, to put away doctrinal disputes momentarily and offer prayer on Kent’s behalf. This guy at least deserves a chance to rid himself of this bane of profanity, vulgarity, and general hatred, and massive prayer from other Christians surely can’t hurt.

Christ warned of severe penalties to those who used abusive language against their brother. The examples He used were “Raca” (“empty head”) and “Thou fool” (Matt 5:22 KJV). Calling the Church of Christ “you racist old bastards! All of you!” and “Print this you jackasses” (both from “RE: Old Book,” April 25, 2005 in the “Change Agents Convince; But Do Not Convict” thread) or implying that someone is filled with excrement from a Christmas goose would certainly fall under the same warning. Another "Kent" quote: “If God is such a mean [S.O.B.] that he will damn to hell someone for saying damn, [excrement], Eff off, etc, i [sic] dont [sic] need that god [sic]” (Ex-Church of Christ web site discussion board).

Therefore, I call upon Kent to examine his life, to repent of the abusive, profane, and vulgar language with which he has addressed other Christians at this web site, and to ask forgiveness not only from those against whom he has trespassed, but from Christ as well. I’ll begin by forgiving Kent. May others do the same.

Now knowing human nature as I do, I would not be surprised to see a blistering response from Kent himself, along with his full vocabulary of profanity and vulgarity. If so, then Kent would definitely be on a downhill slide to oblivion. But if his sure-to-come response bears evidence of contrition and remorse, then his soul just may heal and he become a useful Christian in Christ’s service.

I believe that you people are the ones in need of real prayers. As you continue to Alienate Thousands from Christianity because of your closemindedness and your blaten ignorance many are turning to other forms of faith. Maybe we all including myself need to stop worrying so much about what other Valid Churches are doing(Yes they are valid, im sorry "Your" view of scripture is not black and white, Others have valid ways of translating the bible, You are not omnipotant as many of you feel you are) and Look at ourselves and see how our church is damaging the Face of Christianity. Maybe when we all stop this petty quibbling over which church is right than we will in fact be able to bring more believers in christ. Im sorry you do not have some sort of right on Heaven. Heaven is open to many more people than just so called Church of Christ members and i think you will all be in for big surprise when and if we get there(judgement is reserved for Jesus alone so I will not judge who will not go to heaven and im not close to arrogant enough to believe that i know who will enter the kingdom) So, Before you go and claim someone else needs prayers because of thier sin you should examine your own, I believe there is some verse about that in Matthew... it may even be in my TNIV bible as well, even though as well all know my book is the book of the deciever

Donnie,

Thank you for saying that.

Tom

Christian Scholar:

Can't you put aside your obvious hatred for us for a few minutes and offer some heart-felt prayer for a poor soul like Kent/Brad who has an obvious fetish for profanity/vulgarity, as I asked? That's so obvious that it's a no-brainer about whether it's wrong or not. We all need prayer, because we ALL sin. But I'm beginning to think that, because you manifest such intense hostility toward us, you are in need of special prayer to help you rid yourself of such hatred. You mentioned Matthew and sin. There’s also a verse in Matt. about using abusive language toward your brother (Matt. 5:22 KJV). Further, there’s a verse in Matt. which implies that having animosity toward your brother cancels any offering that you could present to God (Matt. 5:23-24 KJV). Scholar, you obviously have animosity toward us and this web site. I admonish you to be reconciled to us and thus fulfill the command of Matt. 23-24.

BTW, you never did respond to the three requests I made of you earlier regarding your false premise that the KJV is inaccurate. So I will restate them:

1. What specific Greek New Testament edition (Traditional Text [Textus Receptus, Received Text], Critical Text, etc.) did you use as a comparison to form such a conclusion?

2. Please produce at least twelve New Testament passages (or many more if desired) which clearly demonstrate the most profound of alleged inaccuracies of the King James translation. Let the proof be so clear that we cannot do anything but discard our KJVs.

3. Since it is obvious that you reject the KJV, please recommend a specific New Testament translation which is allegedly the most accurate and reliable when compared with the Greek, and please cite ample reasons for this recommendation.

You have made certain accusations. Now you must be prepared to back them up with Scripture in complete context; if not, you automatically proclaim yourself a false person.

The point of my critisism is not to say that KJV is an invalid version of the Bible. In no way is that bible evil or wrong. I take offense to someone claiming the NIV is some sort of bible from Satin and that it serves no purpose. It was never intended that biblical translations be perfect. Take for example the Septuigent. The Israelites fully accepted that version except for a few radical groups. If we are actually going to claim that there is one true translation then we must go back to the Greek text, the tradtional greek text because there are words that are impossible to translate to english correctly. The greek was translated to English to make it accessable for all. It was actually translated from Latin since that was the text of the Time when the KJV was created. No one on earth speaks old english any longer so we again updated the bible so that it would be accessable to everyone. Its not a matter of accuracy, because it is impossible to be completely accurate in any text. Even the greek texts may not be accurate because of the passing down of the letters over time since the finalized Canon was not astablished until the 4th century. No one is saying that the KJV is invalid, im saying that it is outdated. In respose to your other post, you have provided no rebuttle to my other accusations. I do not understand how you are so sharply critisizing someone who used profane language when your language is just as dangerous. I believe that James said something about the Tongue and how it can lead the entire body astray. You come on this website and write words of slander about members of a congregation and yet you claim that the one who says a few swear words should be prayed over? I think we all need to ccheck our own language before we critisize. I do not hate any of you on this site, I am just afraid. Im afraid that this type of christianity. This closeminded christianity will drive away people from a church that is already dying. Its rather reminicent of the Catholic Churches response to Protestantism. Your thought process is now the minority for church of christ. The common church goer no longer speaks as you do, we have better ideas of the early church than we used to and we understand that many of our preconcieved notions were wrong. If you want more information about the first century church read The Story of Christianity by Justo Gonzales. This portrays a perfect picture of what the early church really was like. It was not a church where women sat in silence and there were no clear established leaders. It was not a church of harmony but a church of many different ideas. You can even continue reading and realize where the thought process for the Church of Christ came from because unfortunatly our church is not the church of the bible or the first century, Many of our ideas come from men and not from text. We read scripture the way we do because of Men who came before us who put forth these ideas. Now if you would like to continue some discussion please be my guest and i will continue to respond. I do not wish to destroy what you do, I only wish to show some that this process of thought is not furthering the Kingdom of God, It is only hindering it.

You state:

"Take for example the Septuigent. The Israelites fully accepted that version except for a few radical groups"


Sorry scholar, you need to go back to school;

" The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. Remember, it was the Massoretic Old Testament Text which Jesus quoted when he walked the earth. And, it was the Massoretic Old Testament Text that has been verified.

Yet, some 'modern textual critics' use the Greek Septuagint to determine the wording of 'new versions'. Instead of using the proven Hebrew Massoretic Old Testament Text, some translators admitted they used Origin's Septuagint. For instance; the NIV translators said they used the Old Testament Text that was: "standardized early in the third century by Origin" [S3P537].

"Thus, we see that Origin was a key participant in the corruption of God's Word."


And no, Jesus never quoted from the Septuagint.

http://www.concernedmembers.com/spiritualdeception.htm#7

=============================================

You state:

"It was actually translated from Latin since that was the text of the Time when the KJV was created"


Sorry scholar, The King James Bible was never trnaslated from Latin.

The Old Testament came from the Massoretic Old Testament Text, and New Testament came from the Traditional Majority Greek Text.

http://www.concernedmembers.com/spiritualdeception.htm#5


Sorry scholar, you failed.

Your lies and deceptions will be countered here with your every step you take. You will be seen for who you really are.

Unfortunatly you are wrong

When The KJV was originally created it used the latin text, for the NT, because that was the bible that was used and they also used the Greek, The issue is not over what bible was used its the fact that they made a translation that could be read by the masses which as you may know the church in rome rejected. Just as you reject all versions but the KJV and your right Jesus did not speak out of the Septuigent thatsa because he spoke Aramaic. It does not make it less valid, The Septuigent was just as valid as the Hebrew OT considering it was translated by the Jews. You being a christian really have no authority over the OT considering the OT we have came from the Jews so you cannot be an expert. But this not the issue. The issue is how you deny the fact that your way is not the only way. When jesus said the way is short and narrow he did not mean that only group of christians would make it, He meant that many would not believe or follow his teachings. He did not mean only CofC would go to heaven. Thats the real issue not some petty argument over Bible Translation

ChristianScholar -

Actually, the KJV only relied on some of the prior Latin text but relied more heavily on the Tyndale's translation or the Byzantium text which was Greek. "The New Testament writers wrote in Koine Greek, the language of the common man in the first century A.D. A major step in the development of the English Bible was Tyndale's translation of the New Testament published in 1526 and portions of the Old Testament published later. Tyndale's version was significant because it was translated from a newly published Greek New Testament rather than from the Vulgate."

Tyndale used a Greek text for his translation. The first published Greek New Testament appeared in the year 1516. It was edited by Erasmus, a Dutch scholar. Erasmus had at his disposal no more than six Greek manuscripts (we have thousands at our disposal today). These manuscripts were part of what is called the Byzantine text family.

Erasmus' Greek text was reworked and reprinted by others including Robert Estienne who divided the text into verses. Theodore Beza then built upon Estienne's work, and his Greek text provided one of the major foundations for the King James Bible. The term Textus Receptus, or Received Text, came from a blurb in another Greek text produced in the early seventeenth century by the Elzevir brothers."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Just for the record...Did you read Ephesians 4? I believe it should answer your question on why we believe only a member of Christ's church will enter the Kingdom:

1] I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, [2] With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; [3] Endeavouring to keep the UNITY of the Spirit in the bond of peace. [4] [There is] ONE body, and ONE Spirit, even as ye are called in ONE hope of your calling; [5] ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism, [6] ONE God and Father of all, ONE [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.

[13] Till we all come in the UNITY of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: [14] That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; [15] But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, [even] Christ: [16] From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

[23] And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; [24] And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. [25] Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. [26] Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: [27] Neither give place to the devil. [28] Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with [his] hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. [29] Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. [30] And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. [31] Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: [32] And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you. (Eph 4:1-32 KJV)

What about ALL of the verses? The ones on Unity and One body, One faith, One baptism? That we are not to listen to deception? That we are not to give place to the Devil? As much as he talks about being kind, gentle and peaceful...he also talks about standing fast and in the One faith. Not many faiths, several faiths, etc...ONE.

Unity of faith cannot happen with different beliefs and baptisms. It is not possible. Division is the opposite of Unity.

If we are not to listen to deception or give the Devil a footing, how are we to stop it? By being quiet? Ignoring the false teachings? Allowing division?

Are you asking us to obey only part of Ephesians 4 - the easy, sweet part and ignore the obligations we must bare?

ChristianScholar -

Who has been teaching you this false history? Please do NOT tell me it is a college professor, for he/she should be booted from their job. Your facts are inaccurate and Mr. Gonzales book is NOT the definitive history book. For goodness sakes...History 101 starts here:

You might want to check your history of the first church again. There are plenty of books and reference materials out there with letters from the 1st Church elders and other citizens about the early church and their beliefs/behavior.

Take your comment on women in the early Church. It is extremely inaccurate. It is WELL KNOWN that women in the early church did NOT speak up during the worship time nor did they hold any authority over the Christian men. This has long been established by historians (real ones) and written about in letters passed between the early church Elders. Christians today are very naive about women and religion in the 1st Century. Did you know that majority of new converts were from pagan religions? If so, why don't you study up on the pagan religions of that time. Guess what you will find out? Yep, most of them were ran by FEMALE PRIESTS. In fact, one of the first heretical movements was started by women. GASP!!!!???? So Paul wasn't talking to a bunch of repressed women but women that were used to leading religious ceremonies. SHOCK!!!! So guess what? The old "it wasn't meant for women today" just doesn't work.

And guess what! The Churches were VERY, VERY, VERY concerned with keeping to the ONE TRUTH. Nope, not different styles or thoughts but ONE TRUTH. They wrote letters back and forth to make sure they were on the same page. Christian's travelling to another city carried letters from their church Elders verifying they were a true Christian. They remained steadfast for several hundred years until heretics like Augustine and others began making up their own rules. So, again your facts are very wrong.

I am shocked at your conclusions as I did not realize that our members were so unaware of the history of the Church. Sad...

I beg you to read up on some of the letters from the Church Elders (1st and 2nd centuries). You will find a REMARKABLE likeness to the c of C.

Oh, and guess what else? The early churches had copies of the Apostles' letters that the church Elders read and re-read on Sundays and discussed over and over again. These letters were later found and turned into a book. Can you guess which one? Amazingly enough, the letters of the early elders are WORD FOR WORD translations of the scrolls found in the Dead Sea caves. Hmm..imagine that?

There is so much more I could tell you about the early Church which would make you run far and fast from a group like Madison. But since you seemed to have closed your mind to the truth, why don't you check out some of the early letters from the Elders. David Bercot has a dictionary that will start you on your way to finding out who the early church Elders were and where to look for their letters/apologies/etc.

Good luck and hope you enjoy reading their letters as much as I do.

Funny how whenever anyone decided to quote a book that may dispute what you say it becomes wrong or not accurate enough for you liking. Actually Gonzalez is the leading authority on Church History. HIs book is the best selling Church History book, and is used in most collegiate level history classes. First off its interesting you say that Women remained Silent and you have no facts to back that up in the original church. Actually The women were very involved, There were deaconesses in churches and paul thanks women for thier leadership in the church. Thats interesting though if they remain silent and subserviant at all times how do women become leaders?? Hmmm interesting. Unfortunatly again for you your wrong. The churches were very split and i dont even need a history book for this one. Just look at the the epistles of Paul. Every letter is to a church trying to get it back to what Paul taught originally because of the vast differences in teachings. When he speaks of false prophets he is not talking about the 21st century he is talking about Judiazers of the 1st Century, but im sure you knew that huh. Funny again that you say the apostolic fathers were very much like CofC, which again is far from the truth. If they were why were most Bishops of the city the belonged to? Most worried more about being Martyered for thier faith than they did over instruments in the church as we waste our time with. How come we have centered our attention on the sermon when the true focus of service was the Taking of bread and wine? How come we also believe that the Eucherist is only a memorial when the original apostolic fathers believed that Jesus was inherenently present in the bread and wine also known as Transubstantiation which we deny? What fathers do you know that were like CofC because obviously they were not that influential. Im sorry CofC is not the only church that will enter the kingdom of heaven. The one faith you speak of is not one faith in CofC its one faith in Jesus and one church is the church of believers. Not the church of Christ. We are believers of Jesus and that is the one faith. Know what is even better is you claim that the Dead Sea Scrolls have something to do with NT letters when in actuality that is so far from the truth. The Dead Sea Scrolls were written by the Asines that had fled Jeruselem because they did not want to become part of the Roman Culture. The Scrolls contained comentary on that and the Hebrew bible, which is the OT and some of the Apocrypha, Not a single letter of Paul or from a church that Paul had set up. If you want to get on here and tell me how wrong I am you better check your facts i will even link you to a site that has the entire Dead Sea Scrolls http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/Library/library.html. If you find a letter from an elder in these let me know. I am very interested to see where you got your information. You can continue to pick and chose which parts of my messages you respond to but when you are ready to get into the real breadth of what im saying you can respond. Stop picking the petty issues and speak about important issues such as how our "church" is corrupting christianity and sending many away from the faith when we are called to welcome those in with open arms. We can debate christian history all day and i can promise you that even though you claim to have some knowledge if you continue with the line of thinking you had in the last post i will have a rebuttle for whatever you say and i promise if anyone in here would be willing to an objective study i would be proven right, But im sure you have some more things to say that are probably not the truth. I am a History/Biblical Studies Scholar. I Have taken basic world history classes and specialized world history classes along with Survey Church History Classes and Specialized Church History Classes. Trust me I know my material and if you want to continue this debate we can, but i think the real issue is why the American Body of believers is dying. It is not the fault of Culture but our own faults and until we examine ourselves and start to deny these arrogant thoughts that we are the only right way and that we have had some devine intervention that has given us the ability to accurately decipher the mysteries of the NT the church will continue to shrink

Christian Scholar has given much rhetoric and cited his/her credentials as being a Bible scholar. S/he started out by saying that the KJV translation of the New Testament is “far from accurate.” Now s/he states, "The point of my critisism is not to say that KJV is an invalid version of the Bible." If a version is "far from accurate," it must be inaccurate, which means that it is invalid and cannot be trusted. If the KJV NT doesn't fall right in line with the Greek, it is invalid and cannot be trusted. So which is it, Scholar?

Through all of Scholar's rhetoric, s/he still hasn't presented 12 or more New Testament verses which prove how blatantly "inaccurate" the KJV NT is when compared with the Greek.

Christian Non-Scholar

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. Would you please, please study some better resources than just Catholic ones. Gonzalez is NOT used by any professor that knows his true church history. He is controversial and writes from a more Catholic perspective about the rise and fall of Christianity. He does NOT understand the differences in the Constantine/Augustine movements and the original followers. Do you not get this?

Do you understand that the position of "Bishop" (Elder) was changed during the mid 2nd century when heretical sects were taking over? There was a large break in the Church that had occurred and the Church YOU are discussing was NOT the original true Church

You think it's interesting that I have ACTUAL biblical/historical knowledge about women in the 1st Century church compared to your biased and poor reference? Amazing. Women did NOT become leaders of the early Church. Have you ACTUALLY read the letters from the Early Church Elders?

Take Tertullian for instance - he discusses how women are to be silent in the Church yet some are trying to teach and even baptize. Tertullian was upset and aghast at these women. They were not to teach men, baptize, offer or to claim any lot in manly nor priestly functions. Cyprian also states the same information. He would not let women teach, be deacons/elders or have authority over men in the Church. Even the early Catholic Church understood the NT in regards to women and positions of authority. They had yet to change that doctrine (as they had so many others).

Irenaeus discusses the pagan women and how they dared to consecrate cup. Tertullian was extremely disgusted with the pagan women as they were wonton. "For they are bold enough to teach, to dispute, to enact exorcisms, to undertake cures - it may be even to baptize" C 197 W, 3.263. Origen discusses this same issue and how the pagan women were allowed to hold prophetic office.

You also have failed to study the original Greek version (and context) of the Bible for the word "deacon" or shepherd if you actually believe that Paul allowed women to be in the position of "Deacon". There are many uses of the word "diakoneo". Also, if you would read Paul's writings, you would find that the OFFICE of Deacon had many requirements, one of which was to be married to one woman. Are you now stating that Lesbian's could hold office?

You answered your own self with the following: "Every letter is to a church trying to get it back to what Paul taught originally because of the vast differences in teachings." Hmmm.. Paul was teaching that we should get back to the original teachings? Wow...Isn't that what this site is about? Do you not see how one-sided your view is? Paul is telling congregations that they are starting to fall away from the Truth and to get back to it. If not, they would be lost. Hence all the lost religions like the Catholics, Lutherans, etc. Do you not get that?

Paul states that everything he writes is inspired by God and meant for all people. Are you saying he was lying or was it God? Paul's corrections are meant for anyone who is NOT doing the same thing that the early Church was doing. What you are trying to imply is that the rules do not matter anymore.

Again, you are so very wrong about what the early Christian church worried about. They were very worried about many things. We know this from both Christian writings and Roman writings. Here are just a few of the issues discussed in letters:

Women allowing male servants to see them naked.
Christian's attending theater and events in the arenas.
Being rich was a sin.
Going to war as a soldier.
Use of instruments in worship (they were considered a form of entertainment/paganism).
This list could go on and on.

You are also wrong about the true reason for gathering on the first day of the week. It was not just for the Eucherist (Lord's Supper). It was a time to read and discuss the Apostles' letters, psalms and hymns. Justin Martyr wrote about a typical Sunday gathering in 160, E. 1.186, in which he discusses how they gathered together to discuss the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of Church prophets/leaders. Then the preacher would talk to them and instruct them on how to imitate the good things written. They they rose and prayed together. They THEN broke bread and wine/water. Then they would sing and give psalms. Where do you get the the LS was the only reason they met?

You are confusing Heretical leaders with the original Church fathers in regards to to "Transubstantiation". Jesus commanded in 1 Cor 11:23-27 that we take the bread and fruit of the vine as a remembrance of Him and the covenant he made by his death. When we take the LS we are proclaiming that Lord's death till he comes. Didache, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Clement of Alexander all believed it was in "remembrance" of Christ and was figurative. These are the Early Church Elders. Transubtantiation did not come about for hundreds of years and it is a later addition created by the Catholics. It was NEVER a part of the early Church.

I did NOT say that the Dead Sea Scrolls were made up of Apostle's letters (I assumed you understood that was the NT). I was discussing how amazing it is to find that these illiterate first Christians were studying scriptures and old prophecies from the OT that were word for word the same as that found in the Dead Sea caves. Have you ever read the Early Church elder's letters? They constantly quoted scrpture from the OT which we now know to have been passed down correctly for generations. If they could quote OT so perfectly, then would they not have quoted Apostles they had actually met? Because of these scrolls, we are able to decipher the true Greek context used in the NT and the early church letters. I did not understand that you were Catholic and unaware that the NT and early church elder letters used OT scriptures. Sorry for assuming.

By the way, again your source is not up-to-date on the Dead Sea Scrolls. I always try to stick with the best source. You might want to try the Orion Center. As the actual scholars of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Orion Center states: "The majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in the Hebrew Language (approximately 90-95%) with Assyrian Block script. From this majority there are a few cases in which the scribes used Paleo-Hebrew (see for example 4QPaleoExodus). In addition to the texts found in Hebrew there were also some texts written in Aramaic and Greek. Most scholars agree that the Dead Sea Scrolls are the remains of a library that belonged to an ancient Jewish sect, the Essenes. The site was occupied by the Essenes from the late second century B.C.E. until the appearance of the Romans in the year 68 C.E. The Dead Sea Scrolls were produced by Jews in Judea during a momentous time. They CONTRIBUTE to our understanding of this time period, and represent broad aspects of both ancient Judaism and early Christianity. From these texts, it is possible to trace the development of the Hebrew language, to learn about the different manuscript traditions, including knowledge of scribal practices in use by the community. This data can enable a fairly accurate historical reconstruction of this formative time period. This period was significant in the history of what later developed into Rabbinic Judaism and the Scrolls are concurrent with the origins of Christianity."

The mainstream c of C is not corrupting it's members. Do you not understand that the Devil has taken ahold of some of the Leaders and young members and is causing division in the Church? Jesus tells us to remain steadfast in our knowledge. That means DO NOT CHANGE YOUR TEACHINGS. Hm....What are the new leaders doing? Changing the teachings.

Here's something you might want to learn quickly... Those who start changing things are the Divisionists - not those that remained steadfast. How can one who remains steadfast be causing division? If we change the basic teachings of Christ and the Apostles, we are not following God's commandments. We might be making you happy, but we sure won't be making God happy. Your needs are not His needs. Sorry.

Kid, you have taken a small amount of classes compared to many of us here. You are many, many years behind us. You might want to stop thinking "you're all that" and start appreciating your elders a little more. You should be grateful that we care enough about your soul to try and explain to you how off your knowledge is from fact. The Church colleges have lost a lot of respect with their watered-down version of history and the Bible. I am not impressed with the lack of knowledge kids are graduating with today. Your own comments and lack of facts leave me extremely concerned. I believe we need to know what college you are attending. This is outrageous!

I think that you mean the Essenes: the Asines you refer to mostly claim to be Christians AND scholars. The link you gave us has only a tiny outline of some of the sources from which you learn nothing. I think you are just FAKING the role of scholar as a JOKE?

Here is a link if you want to begin Assines, Fast ones of the Slow Group:

http://www.piney.com/DSSIndex.html

And this is just a small sampler. However, you may not know that Isaiah was found which proves that the scholars kept faithful copies of the text. Most of us know that the Essense mostly wrote before Paul was born. There is no scholar in the early churche Asines enough to NOT agree with the major beliefs of the church of Christ.

You may not know that the synagogue as Qahal existed as "the church in the wilderness." It met only for instructions and that was the meaning of the ekklesia or synagogue or church of Christ established and Paul clearly defined. The Warule which you don't really have except a tiny excerpt defines the ALARM where "playing instruments and making a joyful noise before the Lord" was, like all of the instrumental Psalms, parade songs or PANIC warrior chants which were NOT musical.

You will discover that just as Psalm 41 prophesied, the attack led by Judas would be by the Levitical Warrior noise makers who did not make MUSIC. You will see that the Dead Sea Scrolls show that Jesus would WIN and then would PLAY the instruments of His mouth and spirit.

I have collected some of the Psalm material and have pictures to show why any literate or spiritual or even decent person never wanted to MAKE MUSIC during the assembly.

http://www.piney.com/DSSPsa41.html

The PSALM material repeats much of the Old Testament material and the RECORD is complete. You may remember that Jesus lived under the Law and the Essenes--and never the Asines--spoke eloquently of the nature of the Messiah. You cannot possibly even remotely understand Paul without understanding that he makes COMMENTARY on the Old Testament to correct views about the sacrificial system.

Without any of the Bible we could know what it taught: we would NOT believe in the "neo-scholarly" tritheism, we would BELIEVE in the Bible as the basis for restoring the church or planting the seed just as all Scholars such as Luther and Calvin believed, we would believe that the name is the church of Christ, we would believe in baptism FOR the remission of sins, we would believe that the heirarchy existed to GO TEACH and establish churches, we would REPUDIATE instrumental music and we would sing PSALMS as commanded by Paul, women would NOT be deaconesses (which meant NUNS) and preachers would be evangelists as Luther, Calvin, Erasmus etal insisted.

We would be able to understand the GREAT SATANIC LAW about the INCREDIBLE SHRINKING church. People who want to RESTRUCTURE the church to look like that a the Tower of Babbling, always use the HITLER or Hegel LIE that if you don't want to be part of a DYING CROWD then you had BETTER join us. It's a lie, it's a lie, it's a lie. By the tree you can know the musical fruits. When people reject the WORD God pours out his WRATH. In Hebrew this means that He sends BUFFOONS, JESTERS AND "GAY TROUBADOURS."

So, before you begin your rebuttle, you might prove that you are not a CLOWN by using adult uppercase letters.

HIs book is the best selling Church History book, and is used in most collegiate level history classes. First off its interesting you say that Women remained Silent and you have no facts to back that up in the original church. Actually The women were very involved, There were deaconesses in churches and paul thanks women for thier leadership in the church.

I would back that up by Paul's direct command to be SILENT which means SEDENTARY. The church had no SPEAKING roles which means "a random harangue." The direct command was to speak WITH ONE MIND and ONE MOUTH that which is written." The women SERVED Paul and they were not DEPARTMENT HEADS of a pyramidal "ministry" scam. Any woman who wants to get off her rear and get on her donkey and go serve will find thankful elders.

Phoebe was a SERVANT of the church AT Cenchrea. I know of no REAL TRUE HISTORY which places a church AT Cenchrea. The church at Corinth undoubtedly did much of its MINISTRY between the two seaports. Phoebe was on BUSINESS just as was LYDIA. Phoebe's title marks her as an official and as a patroness probably SELF-SUPPORTED. Here task was to find jobs and housings for the many transients or find them a TICKET on the next boat out of Greece. The church had widows in need and in deed who were momentarily called deaconesses but they were PLEDGED NUNS and served in areas such as keeping the children and women SILENT during the assembly or helping baptize women. The OFFICE was quickly disbanded because the women usurped male roles and caused more trouble than pagans. When you examine the TROUBLERS in the modern church you will find "pagan" women or effeminate males at the CORE.

Again all you do is find everyway to disprove what you claim to be fact. Yes Gonzalez is a Catholic but i hate to tell you this but Catholics are not heretical. I will no longer listen to your false teaching because you continually fail to accept the fact that what you are doing is driving away many from our Jesus. No the greek word used for deacon was actually the masculine word for Deacon when used to describe a women, Read the Koine Greek you are very mistaken, But please again tell me how wrong I am. Its ok though because slowly but surly we will move on and you will become just a radical sect of relgion which you are well on your way toward. You are no better than the Radical Fundementalists in our country. You claim to have the real verion of history and you discredit all objective scholarly resources. Do you want me to start quoting Non Christian Scholarly Articles. Ones that look at the objective fact and deny 90% of the things you believe. Do you realize that everything you claim to be part of the NT church was because of culture. How do you feel about Jewish Culture being the most important aspect of the christian church. You have a poor understanding of Church and what it should be. I think that if you are all so mad about your churches you should leave and let them alone. Form your own churches. No one forces you to go to a church thats the beauty of our country we have relgious freedom. Enjoy your Conservative thought and continue to alienate Believers in another Church. Please try to discredit all of the things that I study and Know to be true. It will not change the ending. God will not choose you over another. I am not part of the Community Church Movement but I thank these people who you claim to know so much about that have tried so hard to further the Faith. You seem to all know these church leaders so well. I think Jesus said something about Judging, and you cannot even claim that this judgement is based on some knowledge of these men. You know nothing about them. You are competely biased and until you are wiling to admit that you will continue to make people run away from true faith which is the belief in Jesus not your rules that you have somehow pulled from the bible. I dont care about facts or history as much as i do care about how you are running away believers in droves. Just leave the people of these churches alone and let them be because they are trying to worship God and not some God that you believe to have some sort of Copyright on.

ChristianScholar,

I'm gathering you are starting to realize that your facts are weak and biased. YOur comments on the word Deacon shows you have very little training in Greek. Sorry.

By the way, you didn't address the "most be married to one woman" scripture. Wonder why?

You have clearly explained that you are not a Christian by comments and defining the Catholic faith as non-heretical. No true Christian would EVER agree to that statement as the Catholic faith does NOT follow the Bible. In fact, movements like the Catholic's were discussed in the NT as "heretical" by Paul.

So, what you are saying is that you are smarter than Jesus and the Apostles. You don't care about the truth they presented. You want to do this YOUR way. YOu would rather the Church grow in size without any depth or truth. That is the saddest statement I have ever heard.

By the way, be very careful about stating whether any of us know these false preachers. Many of us do know them personally and have every right to say what we say.

I will continue to pray that you will mature in your knowledge and attitude towards Christ. I pray that you will open that hard heart and see the Glory of God and His Truth. It will not be what You want to hear but it will be the TRUTH as God wants it to be. I pray you will find your path to the One Faith and One Baptism.

I hope you will confront your professors for their lack of knowledge and/or refusal to read ALL the history of the Church and not just the parts they are comfortable with.

hey crump, who gave you permission to copy a post i made on another web site?

The thought still applies though.
Oblivion Hmm. you are one distubed man

Permission? Authors may quote very brief passages from books, periodicals, or any other media as long as they give full credit for the source. It's called "fair use" in the publishing industry, and it's quite legal (surely you remember doing term papers in high school or college and citing sources for your quotes). I quoted a LINE from one of your profane posts at the Ex-Church of Christ web site and gave you FULL credit for it. I also cited some of your colorful phrases from the Concerned Members web site and gave you FULL credit for the source.

BTW, I noticed that in order to register at the Ex-C of C site, each person must electronically "sign" a statement (push the "I accept" button) to the degree that s/he will not use abusive language or behave in an uncivil manner; if reported, violators will have their IP addresses reviewed, and their access to that site could be permanently terminated. You're a persistent violator, so I don't need to tell you to tread lightly there as well as here. That's not a threat, that's a PROMISE.

And I'd also be most careful about slinging around words like "disturbed" when you so freely use profanity/vulgarity like you're addicted to it. There's addiction to drugs, addiction to sex, addiction to pornography, etc. You, my friend, are addicted to profanity/vulgarity and you are in dire need of spiritual HELP.

Heed Matt. 5:22 (KJV) and turn away from this bane before it completely eats you up.

But maybe a tiny bit of healing has begun: you didn't use one profane/vulgar word in your response here; the anger and hatred are still there, however, which you need to purge as well.

i'm not afraid over on that site, many say a lot of things there you might find offensive, but the moderator over there understands free speech

So if pictures could be posted at the Ex-C of C site and someone posted the blasphemous photo of a cross immersed in a jar of urine (it received high acclaim from the artistic world), then no one would object there. It would be a form of "free speech" -- free expression. If that's true, and if the moderator there allows all kinds of abusive language ("free speech"), then the statement to register there is false and totally meaningless.

Yes, many over there do use quite a lot of "strong language." There's even a thread that deals with cursing. Surprisingly, many of the posters believe that there's nothing wrong with using profanity, vulgarity, obscene language, for God surely will not hold them accountable for their right to "free speech."

The Ex-C of C site states that one does not need to be a Christian to post there. I can believe that. The New Testament tells the Christian not to be conformed to this world (Romans 12:2 KJV), which means not to behave and act like the rest of the non-Christian folks in the world, who curse and use profanity/vulgarity, etc. The Christian life is not governed by "free speech" but by the commandments of Christ. The Christian is more concerned with pleasing Christ and fulfilling those commandments rather than being "one of the boys" by being adept at cursing and swearing.

If the Ex-C of C site allows and even condones profanity/vulgarity, then it has become a friend of the world, for the world surely is adept at cursing and swearing. James 4:4 (KJV) states that the friend of the world is the enemy of God.

So you just continue to enjoy your "free speech" at Ex-C of C. That site has already shown itself for what it is.

the site never claimed to be a christian site, but many who post there are christians

and by the way, you can post pictures on that site. There are a few posted there, and not those pagen picts old ken posts\. They are of some very funny fashions, of coc ladies wearing jumpers and helment hair, most likely PPB being subservient.

ROFLMAO

Let's hope that those "many Christians" who do post at Ex-C of C are not among those who are given to uncivil responses and unspeakably vile language. That would be a stark contradiction, now wouldn't it? Imagine someone saying, "I'm a Christian, because I believe in Jesus, read my Bible, and pray every day; and oh, by the way, since I don't agree with you, you're full of [excrement] as a Christmas goose!" Imagine.

Dr. Bill, You are violation of one of the rules, "Never argue with an Idiot, some people may not know the difference". LOL!

oh thats funny observer, ha ha ha, nearly wet my pants with that one!
BTW Crump, i thought you coc'ers didnt believe in crosses and crucifix' as symbols. So why would you care where anybody put them, urine or not.
besides, it is fre speach. Would you ban that if you could?

BTW, i attend a catholic church. i guess you think we are all doomed huh?

so i see from all these rants that you folks think that if one is not a member of the church of Christ, then one is lost.
Ok, how bout this, which c of C?
Liberal, conservative, how bout one cuppers? No sunday schoolers? No fellowship hallers? Each one of them, except maybe the liberals, think the other is wrong. And each one can back the position with BCV!
So which is it oh learned ones of the coc?
Forget the other christian denominations, which coc is correct?

One thing you people all forget,. each coc is autonomous. The elders from each congregation decide how to lead and how to conduct worship. Seems to me you al are advocating a coc council. Lets have a coc convention and kick out all the coc's we dont think do it right and disfellowship them.
Ok, cool beans. who ya throwin out? One cuppers? Naw, they do it ok, except they dont use those littel glass cups and trays that go..clink.
No sunday schoolers? Maybe, casue they dont study the Word enough.


I stil find you people repugnant. Im sure ill get some smart (insert epitath here, i cant use it) comments from our resident loons like PPB, ken or crump. At least old dnnie can type in complete sentences and has a coherant thought. Hes an arrogant one, to say the least, but i actually kinda respect donnie. He hates Madison, but at least he goes there and keeps up the fight for what he believes in, Ken, doest even go to church!

Kent has been fuming against this site for many months, and he asks the same questions over and over. From the “Apostate: Jeff Walling” thread, Kent said on March 30, 2005:

“Dont need your prayers, dont want them.” “Do you believe that only the people who follow the coc are going to heaven? Are all catholics condemed, how bout methodists, baptists, presbyterians, etc???” “Am i also to asume you think im lost since i attend a catholic church now? Most likely!”

And as recently as September 15, 2005 in the present thread: "so i see from all these rants that you folks think that if one is not a member of the church of Christ, then one is lost." (Don't even begin to deny these posts, friend.)

Same thing over and over. After a while, it becomes obvious that responding to a persistently rebellious, impenitent person like Kent is completely futile. So it's time to put Kent aside and move on. For his benefit, however, I’m re-posting a previous essay that I wrote in the “Apostate” thread on March 31, 2005. The essay is titled “Who Is Going to Heaven?”

“WHO IS GOING TO HEAVEN?

“The Gospels record several instances in which the Pharisees tempted Jesus with questions, hoping to trap Him with His words. But Jesus always provided answers that, to some, would seem ambiguous or evasive; but to the discerning, His answers were the pure truth. A typical example is His answer given when asked about paying taxes to Caesar (Matt. 22:15-22, this and all succeeding verses KJV): Render unto Caesar his things and unto God His things (although Jesus well knew that ALL things belong to God in the final analysis).

“And so it is when change agents or other detractors of the traditional Church of Christ come to this web site and ask over and over again if the Catholics and members of the Protestant denominations are going to Heaven. They not only mock the confidence that the traditional Church of Christ manifests about its salvation, they also mock us with demands that we speculate upon the eternity of other faiths. So with temptation as their motive, they crouch with Matt. 7:1-2 hidden up their sleeves, itching to spring.

“It’s perhaps easier to ask, ‘Who will decide who is going to heaven?’ for the answer is obvious: God will be the final Judge, and anyone who says otherwise violates Matt. 7:1-2. Is it then more difficult to ask, ‘Who IS going to heaven?’ Why not turn to the ONE source that has the definitive answer—the New Testament? Why not the Old Testament? Gal. 5:3-4 explains why not. You have a Bible—read.

“First of all, Jesus said, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me’ (John 14:6). This means that, since the advent of the Christian dispensation, no person who has ever walked, or who ever will walk, on this earth can be saved (go to Heaven) from ANY faith (Christian or non-Christian) unless he first believes on Jesus, and Jesus only, as Lord. For those who do not believe this basic premise that Christ created, there’s nothing more to be said.

“For Christians, belief is not enough; there must also be obedience, as the Scriptures also stipulate. Jesus ordered for His followers to observe all things whatsoever He had commanded them (Matt. 28:20) and that if we love Him, we will keep His commandments (John 14:15). If all we needed to do was just ‘believe’ and do nothing else, why did Jesus make a big issue over obedience to everything that He had commanded? Why would nearly a third of His 50 recorded parables be devoted specifically to obedience? All that Jesus directly commanded, or commanded through the inspired Apostolic writings, is recorded in the entire New Testament, and it is the New Testament that is the ‘gold standard’ by which all Christian ‘faiths’ eventually will be judged, for the New Testament is the very Word of God. This Word is to be followed without ever adding anything to it, without ever diminishing anything from it, as the Scriptures also stipulate (Rev. 22:18-19).

“Therefore, each Christian ‘faith’ must examine itself, its creed, and its doctrine most closely and determine if it measures completely up to New Testament standards—not occasionally, not sometimes, not here and there—but in ‘all things.’ Not all Christian faiths live up to New Testament standards. For example:

“If there are women pastors or homosexual pastors, confirm whether the New Testament authorizes them or not.
Likewise, if baptism is by sprinkling or pouring instead of by immersion;
If infant ‘christening’ is practiced as the sole form of ‘baptism’;
If baptism is not considered essential for salvation;
If the roles of elders or deacons have been eliminated;
If the Virgin Mary is venerated or deified as holy and able to answer our prayers;
If the Pope is considered the vicar of Christ;
If human priests serve as intermediaries between man and Christ;
If priests have the power to absolve sins;
If there is belief in Purgatory and Limbo;
If divorce and remarriage are readily acceptable for any cause;
If all portions of the Word are not considered of equal merit and importance;
If practices are implemented in worship which closely mimic worldly practices or which are clearly designed to make worship more entertaining, culture-relevant, and acceptable rather than reverent and holy;
If a new practice is under consideration for implementation in worship;

“Therefore, for ‘all things,’ confirm whether the New Testament specifically authorizes them or not, either by specific command or by direct implication by the Word. The list could go on and on.

“Which act follows the Word more closely—to second-guess the Scriptures and implement into worship anything and everything not specifically forbidden therein, or to implement only that which is specifically authorized and commanded therein? Is it not more obedient to take the Scriptures at face value, trust them to be a true Guide, and not deviate from them in any way whatsoever? Neither Jesus nor the Apostles gave Christians any authority to go beyond that which is specifically authorized and commanded in the Word. This is not ‘legalism’; this is simple obedience to God’s Word.

“So who is going to heaven? Those who believe that Jesus is Lord, who forsake the world, and who do the will of the Father according to His Word (1 John 2:15-17).”

I bid Kent a good life. Perhaps someday he will change and become a penitent person.

Okay, you folks can say or do whatever you wish, that is fine with me. But, I do have a question for Donnie. What the heck is the AMERICAN CATHOLIC CHURCH??? You asked Kent whether he goes to a Roman or American Catholic Church.

I am a "cradle Catholic" (born and raised so to speak) and I have NEVER heard of the American Catholic Church? Is this possibly the Espicopal Church? If so, the Episcopals are the American Anglicans, not Catholic.

I am just confused on the terminology American Catholic Church. Could you please direct me to a valid source of information regarding this movement? Thanks so much.

Donnie, hi, I just have a question, I am not going to make any comments on your opinions or philosophy.

As a "cradle Catholic" (one who is born and raised Catholic) I am very interested about your statement to Kent regarding the Roman vs. American Catholic Church. I am not sure that I have ever heard of the American Catholic Church. Being raised in the Roman Catholic Church, I realize I may not be aware of ALL of the other divisions, but I am aware of some. However, I have NEVER heard of the American Catholic Church.

Now, the American version of the Anglican Church (the Church of England) is the Episcopal Church. I hope you are not confusing the "American" Anglicans as "American" Catholics.

Please, direct me to a valid source of information regarding the movement called the American Catholic Church.

Thanks so much for your time,
Concerned Catholic

i do not respond to facecious question mr cruz, and yours were just as i supected all along.
none of you want real conversation and debate; only retoric that suits your twisted purpose.

THE GREATNESS OF THE CHURCH


The church of Christ is the greatest institution the world has ever known. It is a divine institution and we should never think of it in terms of an ordinary worldly thing, nor should we treat it as such. The church is Christ's kingdom on earth over which he reigns (Matthew 16:16-18). One cannot be loyal to Christ without being loyal also to his kingdom, the church. Christians and the world need to appreciate the church more. Consider some characteristics of its greatness.

I. THE CHURCH IS GREAT BECAUSE OF ITS FOUNDER. The founder is a most important factor in the merit of any organization. He sets it in order as to its functions. He gives it a code or standard of operation. His wealth and mentality furnish the lifeblood of the institution. An organization will usually reflect the spirit and ideals of its founder. Jesus founded the church (Matthew 16:18). He did all of these things for his church. It is our obligation to reflect his divine spirit and ideals in the life and conduct of the church. Paul exhorts us to "have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus..." (Philippians 2:5). Again, he writes, "Be ye imitators of me, even as I am of Christ" (I Corinthians 11:1).

II. THE CHURCH IS GREAT BECAUSE OF THE PRICE PAID FOR IT. Most worldly concerns were founded to enrich their founders. Even many churches began for this purpose. The Lord's church was not established for financial gain. What could the Creator want to extract from the work of his own hands? (See John 1:3). His purpose for the church was to benefit lost mankind. He purchased the church with his own blood when he died the accursed death on Calvary (Acts 20:28). To give us the church he humbled and emptied himself of his equality with the Father and became a servant of men, willing even to die for humanity (Philippians 2:5-9). He taught mankind that "it is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).

III. THE CHURCH IS GREAT BECAUSE OF ITS RELATION TO CHRIST. There are several ways of comparing or describing the church. It is the spiritual body of which Christ is head (Ephesians 1:22). It is the bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:22, 32). The church is the kingdom of Christ and he reigns as its only king and lawgiver (Matthew 16:18-19). It is his army and he is our captain and leader (Hebrews 2:10; II Timothy 2:3-4). The church is his family, for they do the will of his Father in heaven (Matthew 12:50). There is a certain honor that comes from intimate association with great people. How much more honor is there to the church to be so wonderfully associated with King Jesus. While we ponder this point, as yourself, "Can I be saved out of Christ's kingdom; out of his army; out of his family?" The obvious answer is no. But since to be in his church is to be in all of these. The saved He adds to his church (Acts 2:47).

IV. THE CHURCH IS GREAT BECAUSE OF ITS MISSION. The great purpose of the church is to save lost men from sin and damnation by winning them to Jesus. It is charged with preaching the gospel to the whole creation (Mark 16:15). It helps sinners reform their lives and be translated into God's kingdom on earth (Colossians 1:13). It prepares men for heaven (Ephesians 4:11-15; II Peter 1:10-11).

Christ's church is not a political power or economic power. It is not warlike as is Islam. Rather, the church evangelizes, telling all men the good news about Christ and salvation. It serves the unfortunate and keeps Christians in faithful service (Ephesians 4:11-12) As a great beacon light, it holds forth the word of life to a world lost in the darkness of sin and error (I Timothy 3:15; Philippians 2:15-16).

V. THE CHURCH IS GREAT BECAUSE OF ITS BLESSINGS. James tells us that every good and perfect gift comes down from God (James 1:17). These blessings are available to humanity within the church. There are certain privileges and blessings available to men in America. You may read of these blessings in a book or hear of them from others, but you will not receive them until you enter in. So with the church. You must become a member to enjoy the benefits. Salvation in heaven awaits faithful members of the church (Ephesians 5:23). Every spiritual blessing is available in Christ, i.e., in his church (Ephesians 1:3-7). There are such wonderful privileges as sonship to God, fellowship and brotherhood with all other Christians, communion, prayer and providential care from God. They are yours within the church. There are great opportunities to serve God and your fellow man in the greatest institution on planet Earth, as we work to make the world a better place in which to live. Really, there is no way to adequately measure these rich blessings.

VI. THE CHURCH IS GREAT BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE WHO COMPOSE IT. They are called Christians because they strive to be like Christ (Acts 11:26). They are called saints because they are dedicated to God's service (I Corinthians 1:2). They are in the world, yet they do not live like the sinful world (John 17:14). True Christians are honorable, humble, generous, pure, well-informed, truthful, faithful, benevolent, devoted, diligent, and loyal. No, they are not perfect, nor are they angels. But with God's help they are daily growing into the image of Christ by the renewing of their minds (Romans 12:1-2). What great joy it is to be a part of God's family on earth.

VII. THE CHURCH IS GREAT BECAUSE OF ITS ULTIMATE GOAL. Paul taught the Ephesian Christians that Christ is the savior of the body (the church) and that he will one day present the church to himself in glory (Ephesians 5:23, 27). In I Corinthians 15:24, the same writer says, "Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God..." John in a glorious vision saw the new Jerusalem, the church, in the presence of God in the heavenly paradise (Revelation 21:1-4; Hebrews 12:22-23). Throughout eternity the church of Jesus Christ will reign in holy triumph with the loving Father, the victorious Son and the Holy Spirit.

We should realize that it is a matchless privilege to be member of the greatest organization the world has ever known. Prophets predicted its coming. Kings and holy men desired to see the day. The rich and the poor, every devout God-fearing soul, even publicans and harlots, have eagerly sought to enter into the church of our Lord. We who are so privileged should constantly watch lest we by our conduct or speech shame or stain its holy reputation
.
All men are invited to seek refuge within its sacred precincts. If you let God wash away your sins (Acts 22:16), He will add you to His church (Acts 2:47; I Corinthians 12:13).

_______________________________
John Waddey, Editor
Christianity: Then and Now
E-Mail: johnwaddey@aol.com

Dear Christian Reader:

This lesson addresses a matter currently and widely discussed among our brethren. Please take a moment to read it. If it is helpful to you, why not forward it to all the other Christians in your email address book. In just a few moments you will have provided a lesson that will strengthen their faith. Send it with a prayer that God will bless His church.

John Waddey
____________________________________


A CHURCH WITHOUT A NAME


Change agents do not want to be encumbered with the name Church of Christ. They prefer anonymity. It is no surprise that those who hate and despise the church of Christ wish to erase her sacred name. It is strange, however, when some of her devoted members seek to do the same. Their logic is—having a particular name denominates us and thus makes us a denomination. Although I have read many of their articles, I have yet to see one of their congregations identified as something other than a church of Christ.

• Some say God did not give his church a name, nor should we. They think we should be content to call the church simply, "the church." A name is a noun that identifies a person or thing. The word "church" is a noun that identifies a body of people who associate for religious purposes related to Christianity. "The" being a particular article says it is a certain church. If we all identify our congregations as "The church" and use that in our documents we will still have a name.
  
  
• Should we use only the name church, those on the outside would be left to wonder just whose church it is? Is it Luther's, Wesley's, Calvin's or some other person's church?
  
  
• One brother suggests that we use in rotation the several biblical names for the church. A church with several names would present a confusing situation to those not within the informed circle. It would be like a man with several different names.
  
  
• A church with no name in a world of over 2,000 identifiable churches would be unknown and unrecognizable to those who might be hoping to find it; unique, yet lost in a forest of other churches.
  
  
• A church with no name in a world of hundreds of competing, counterfeit bodies needs some way for seekers to identify her.
  
  
• Imagine a man who desperately wants to be saved, to be a Christian, and to serve God. He reads his Bible and sets out to find God's people. If we did not identify ourselves in some biblical way, he could spend years, going from church to church looking for the church which is truly Christ's and might never find it.
  
  
• Imagine a Christian passing through a town on the Lord's day who desires to find a group of Christ's people with whom he might worship. But in a town of 75 churches, Christ's church has no name to identify her. He might spend hours on the phone trying to find her and still not be successful.
  
  
• The idea that the Lord's church should function in today's environment without some identifiable name is utopian in nature. It wrongly imagines that our circumstances today are identical with those of the first century when they are not. When there was only one church in existence it was reasonable that it have no specific name. The church either existed in a town or it did not. One did not have to compare different bodies to find the true church. This reasoning is of the same nature as the idea that since the church of the first century existed without fixed and permanent meeting places we should have no meeting houses (church buildings) today. It is like those who reason that since the apostles went out without purse or promise of support (Mark 6:7-8), so should we today.
  
  
• Common sense tells us that to attempt to exist and successfully function in today's world without a name is impractical and unworkable.
  
  

While we cannot and do not insist that only the name "church of Christ" is biblical and acceptable, we should never be ashamed of it. It was used by Paul (Rom. 16:16). It glorifies our Savior. It identifies the church as belonging exclusively to Christ her founder, head and savior (Eph. 1:20-22). It is the only name in which salvation is found (Acts 4:11-12). It is the name which we confess (Rom. 10:9-10); the name into which we were baptized (Gal. 3:26-27). It is the name of our king in whose kingdom we serve (I Tim. 6:14-15). It is the name of him who will raise us from the dead, judge us and bestow our eternal reward (I Cor. 15:20-24). Why would a church not wish to be known, honored and recognized as Christ's church? Would it not be like a wife who does not care to wear her husband's name?

Let us wear that sacred name in dignity and honor. Let us conduct ourselves, both personally and as members of Christ's church in a way that truly honors the Savior whose blessed name we wear.

_______________________________
John Waddey, Editor
Christianity: Then and Now
E-Mail: johnwaddey@aol.com

Dear Friends in Christ:

Today's lessons addresses a problem that is common in 21st century churches. If you find it true to God's word and helpful please forward it to other Christians in your email address book. Feel free to print out copies to share with others. Pray for the preservation of Christ's church.

— John Waddey
____________________________________


CASUAL RELIGION


We live in a casual age. This is reflected in many ways. We see casual dress in public; casual manners while dining; casual grooming when going out in public; casual conduct when in public places. Most would agree that a degree of casualness is harmless, even good. The stiff formality of the past was sometimes oppressive and even pretentious. Yet most mature observers will agree that many people take their casualness too far. Especially is it disturbing and distressing to see some extreme cases of casualness in the life of the church.

• Some are casual about the salvation of sinners. They do not take seriously the conditions God has set for receiving sinners into his family. In no uncertain terms he has told us that confession of faith, repentance and baptism are prerequisites for salvation (Rom. 10:9-10; Acts 2:38). These conditions are stated not once but in many places. Yet casual preachers are leaving the impression that one can be saved before and maybe even without baptism.
  
  
• Some are casual about the purpose of baptism. Many churches immerse, but few immerse for the reasons given by God. For most it is to join a denominational body. Biblically, one is baptized for remission of sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). Casual preachers imply that some might be saved even if they don't understand the proper reason for their baptism.
  
  
• Some are casual about their worship. The worship of God in many congregations cannot in any way be described as reverent. There is little or no solemnity. Such is manifested in preachers who treat their position in a casual way; with little serious study and preparation; with sermons that are more entertainment than reflections on the sacred things of God. Jokes, earthy stories and entertainment crowd out the study of the Holy Words of heaven.
  
  
• Some preachers are casual in their handling of the Scriptures. In place of "The Bible says," their sermons ring with, "I believe" or "Dr. So and So says," or "the majority believe." None of these have any currency with God, nor should they with Christians.
  
  
• Some are casual in their singing. They confuse fun songs and entertaining songs with worship to God. Others see no problem in replacing congregational singing, which the church from earliest times has practiced, with the performance of soloists, duos, trios, quartets and choirs, all of which have no divine authority.
  
  
• Some are casual in the observance of the Lord's Supper. It is manifested in the demeanor and conduct of those presiding and serving. It is seen in the behavior of those in the pews. Many commune with little preparation of heart and mind, with an inclination to hurry through the observance; with a lack of somber thought and reflection. All of these reflect a casualness that is not wholesome.
  
  
• Even public prayer can be offered in a casual manner. Men who pray without forethought as to what they will say; men who talk to God of Creation as though he were their next-door neighbor do not reflect the proper reverence for God and his worship.
  
  
• A casual attitude toward worship can be seen in the way some folks dress. If you were invited to visit the president or some notable dignitary you would dress "up" for the occasion. For the funeral of a loved one, you would dress up. How do you dress to when you come to honor your Lord's death?
  
  
• Many moderns are casual in their daily discipleship. Jesus calls all men to be his disciples (Matt. 11:28-29). Those who accept the call are expected to take up their cross and follow him (Matt. 16:24). He expects us to love him above all others, even our closest kin (Matt. 10:37). We are to let our manner of life be worthy of the gospel (Phil. 1:27). We are to discern the signs of the times (Matt. 16:3). All of these and many other scriptures remind us of the serious of our life in Christ. For the forgiveness, the blessings and the salvation he gives us, in return he expects our lives, genuinely committed, not as a casual game of pretense!
  
  

Casualness is a common mark of those who feel empowered to change the faith, worship and practice of the Lord's church. Since Christ, our salvation, the church and God's word are the most important things in the world, let every child of God treat them with the reverence and respect they deserve.

_______________________________
John Waddey, Editor
Christianity: Then and Now
E-Mail: johnwaddey@aol.com