Place your banner ad here.          See all banner ads

|| ConcernedMembers.com || About || Links Library || Help Warn Others ||
|| Madison Church of Christ || Richland Hills Church of Christ || Hillcrest Church of Christ || More Churches || Sunday School in Exile ||

Where is my NewThisWeek Email subscription?Click Here

Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Annie Mouse
(no login)
64.234.85.24

Re: Did They Need It?

January 5 2013, 11:41 PM 

B,
Since you believe that the men who translated the Word were fallible and since you believe God didn't direct these men to ably translate His Word for Him, then certainly you can add Enoch....and take out Mark, and put in your own thoughts.....whatever you want to do.

For me, I will take the 66 complete Word of God.

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

David Fields, be proud of your message -- claim it.



    
This message has been edited by madisonchurchofchrist from IP address 99.177.249.211 on Jan 6, 2013 11:14 AM


 
 Respond to this message   
B
(no login)
74.179.242.17

Re: Did They Need It?

January 6 2013, 12:34 PM 

Surely you don't think the men who decided which books would comprise the canon were infallible. If you do, then you might as well join the Catholics and kneel to the "infallible" Pope. You say the canon is "complete" and that satisfies you. Fine. You can certainly believe that if you wish, but your "belief" in that area is based simply on the "decision" of a bunch of MORTAL MEN. They died and went to their graves like all mortals do. They had no power to perform miracles, and they certainly did not miraculously ascend to heaven as perhaps some may think.

Show me exactly (BCV) where the Bible states that Genesis through Revelation is THE COMPLETE canon.

Show me exactly (BCV) where the Bible states that mortal men centuries later would be given divine inspiration to choose which books, out of all the many books they translated, would make up the canon.

You cannot do it and never will be able to do it, because nothing like that exists in the Bible. You ASSUME that we have the "complete" canon based on the word of mortal, FALLIBLE men. Yet for all we know, there are many other books like Enoch that could also be part of the canon, but FALLIBLE men rejected them.

 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(Login Ken.Sublett)
ConcernedMembersMadison
70.193.10.59

Re: Did They Need It?

January 6 2013, 1:27 PM 

For instance, Moses does not write a history of the universe but a history of the Hebrew People. It is absolutely certain that two things happened.

First, that after the fall into musical idolatry and God sentenced Israel to "beyond Babylon" {meaning no return} the land flowing with milk and honey would be a land flowing with innocent blood because they were left to their own devices. Therefore, Moses wrote an inverted version which you can read on clay tablets defining the nature of Babylonianism to which they would be returned.

Or, second, Moses just copied the Babylonian accounts of everything.

Because of the care of the scholars, you can say that this is what Moses wrote over time. However, you cannot say that Genesis is INSPIRED in the sense that the token genealogy of the HEBREW people means that you can use the NATIONAL descent to say that God created the whole universe at 9 in the morning, November 23, 4004BC as Ussher joked.

The story of the God-abandoned Monarchy and its practices is "accurately recorded." However, the SCRIBES (hypocrites, speakers, singers, instrument players) recorded the history of the MONARCHY which had been abandoned. The practice of the Levites is NOT INSPIRED as a pattern for Rick Atchley and the ACUers to promote musical worship teams: a permission to David does not constitute a PATTERN for the church: the Spirit OF Christ defined the future REST DAY both inclusively and exclusively. He also DENIED that the Scribe's favorable account of the curse of animal sacrifices was God's command for them or us.

The BIBLE is a library: it includes those texts which described the good, bad and ugly. Those contemporaneous documents (clay tablets etal) CONFIRM the ugly story contained in the BOUND BOOK.

The Bound Book is FOR OUR LEARNING: Because the command was to use one mind and one mouth to speak that which is written for our learning, there is no role and no dole for preachers or theologians to ABSTRACT what they want.

The command was to PREACH the Word by READING the Word. In the synagogue and the ONLY command of Paul was to publically READ the word, to exort or comfort, and explain the doctrine or teaching. For instance, the letters of Paul are for our learning but not all of them define the Doctrine of Christ.

There are several types of literature in the Bible. Parables for instance were used to "hide the truth from the foundation of the world." That was the make blind and deaf the Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites meaning self-preachers, singers and instrument players.

Parallelism is COMMON. If you read the singing passages to command SINGING then you missed reading 101a: the command is to TEACH that which is written. The blind Scribes and Pharisees promote the ACT OF SINGING and do not care in the least whether Twila Paris or the praise singers SANG and twang to titillate God and the Layers By in Storers.

John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.



 
 Respond to this message   
Rocky
(no login)
98.81.111.196

"B's" Canonicity Quagmire Solution

January 7 2013, 12:36 PM 

"B", I would ask that you look up the faith passages in the Bible. I think you will find the answer to your dilemma.

The dictionary defines faith as belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof. It also defines faith as belief in and devotion to God. The Bible has much more to say about faith and how important it is. In fact, it is so important that, without faith, we have no place with God, and it is impossible to please Him (Hebrews 11:6). Faith is belief in the one, true God without actually seeing Him.

"Peace" and let's move on.

[linked image]

 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz or B
(no login)
64.234.85.24

Re: Did They Need It?

January 6 2013, 2:25 PM 

B sais "Show me exactly (BCV) where the Bible states that Genesis through Revelation is THE COMPLETE canon."

and also he said....

Show me exactly (BCV) where the Bible states that mortal men centuries later would be given divine inspiration to choose which books, out of all the many books they translated, would make up the canon."

Cannot show exactly what you claim, nor do I believe that these men were inspired. They didn't have to be inspired. They didn't WRITE....they translated. I do....HOWEVER....Believe in the Power of God to direct these men to do His Will and interpret His COMPLETE Word. Looking over all 66 books, nothing else is needed. It is PERFECT!
Again, you do as you will. Add anything that YOU you feel to be inspired....
Just keep it to yourself and don't try to push your agenda on a lost world, nor the brotherhood that has already faithfully received the Beautiful, Complete, Word of God which lacks for nothing.
2 Timothy 3
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

"All Scripture".....doesn't mean anything you so choose to add.


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

Dave Fields now appears to be discombobulated. He identified himself as "Donnie Cruz or B" in "Your Name ______________" rather than as himself.

... leaving the poster's name as it is for the reader to see. It proves that Dave is "capable" happy.gif of knowing and understanding instructions but is being defiant by continuing to identify himself as "Anonymous" [a.k.a. Annie Mouse].

Sorry, Dave, that you can edit your name, message title or message text ONLY BEFORE submitting your post -- not after it's published.

Why continue to play this game when we KNOW who you are?



    
This message has been edited by Donnie.Cruz from IP address 99.177.249.211 on Jan 6, 2013 5:05 PM


 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
99.177.249.211

Re: Did They Need It?

January 6 2013, 5:52 PM 

Dave,

You may be getting certain terminologies confused: CANONIZED, TRANSLATED, INTERPRETED, INSPIRED.

I have a few questions for you:

(1) When was the formation of the New Testament canon and by whom? (Also of the Old Testament?)

(2) You said: "Believe in the Power of God to direct these men [the mortal canonizers] to do His Will and interpret His COMPLETE Word." Interpret? You may need to clarify that assertion.

(3) So, based on that assertion, don't you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is correct in accepting certain books in the Old Testament as canonical? Tobit, Judith [I know someone named "Judith"], 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Sirach, etc.

(4) Don't you ever quote from the writings of the early church fathers for historical purposes and evidences? (I already know that you wouldn't hesitate for a moment to quote the change agent's denominationally-canonized interpretation of certain teachings from the Scripture.)

 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(Login Ken.Sublett)
ConcernedMembersMadison
70.193.10.59

Re: Did They Need It?

January 6 2013, 9:40 PM 

These books were in the original KJV: the one written in holy ghost language.

The preface promised JAIL TIME for anyone who removed these books.

Very late the publishers DID remove the books because they could save money and the Bible buyers would not notice. happy.gif

 
 Respond to this message   
B
(no login)
74.240.208.73

Re: Did They Need It?

January 7 2013, 9:18 AM 

When Dave's beliefs about the "complete" canon were challenged, he got so upset that he actually forgot who he was. Is that a "first"? Oh, I think not. happy.gif

 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
99.177.249.211

"But the instruments would not preclude a meaningful worship"

January 7 2013, 2:20 AM 

This thread, originally intended by the author David Fields to be a discussion of instrumental music in the assembly (Dave's favorite and somewhat his primary "biblical" specialty), has turned into a discussion of the canonicity of the Bible. That's fine. And it's worth the discussion further.

But for now, I'd like to revert to Dave's original premise or question: "... but the instruments would not preclude a meaningful worship to God (no more than wine would hinder a meainingful marriage celebration)...."

Dave's fallacious premise is that "not operating a musical device in the assembly of saints" is a tradition. I disagree -- a no-activity cannot be a tradition. "Not inhaling MJ during the assembly of saints" is a not a tradition.

The reverse side is true. When "inhaling MJ during the assembly" is in place, it becomes a tradition. Likewise, "operating a musical device during singing in the assembly [even by one professional individual] is a tradition. And if one instrumental player "enhances" his worship, can you imagine when each member brings and plays his favorite instrument at the assembly?

Dave, be careful. Some may prefer inhaling the stuff to drinking the wine.

 
 Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)
130.127.42.38

Re: Did They Need It?

January 7 2013, 11:04 AM 

Donnie said....."not operating a musical device in the assembly of saints" is a tradition. I disagree -- a no-activity cannot be a tradition."

A capella, or singing only, is considered "a no-activity?" Strange indeed. Singing is not an activity?

Donnie, I just don't play your game....never have. So you just play the game with you, B, Ken....and be happy with it. You can call me Annie Mouse, JJ, Dave (David) Fields, Piney, Oakley, or whatever you like. I will not give any credence to your questioning of my identity as I never have given such credence to any of this websites' evil ways and immoral gossip. I come here for one reason and one reason only....that is to dispel any rumors of what you consider to be the truth. You interpret the Gospel to fit and suit your needs, likes and desires. You put down churches of our Lord who hold Him close. There may be some members of those churches that you list who are doing wrong (as in every congregation), but when actual names and locations of congregation are mentioned then you also condemn those who are trying to do God's Will and more inclusively.....you condemn Christ, which you will dearly pay for one day, unless you change and repent.

Revelations 2
18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;
19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.

Donnie, the above church, addressed by our Lord, was he not saying that this church was doing good for our Lord. REMEMBER this....this is also the same church that Jezebel attended.

In Matthew Henry's commentary of Revelation 2 he says this....."2. A faithful reproof for what was amiss. This is not so directly charged upon the church itself as upon some wicked seducers who were among them; the churchs fault was that she connived too much at them."

YOU, DONNIE, and the others here, have take it upon yourself to heartily condemn, by NAME, congregations of our Lord Jesus. Even with Thyatira, the Lord complimented those who were working to do His Will. You and your legions of evil here have, again, taken it upon yourself, to TRY and put down these churches of our Lord. Do you believe that you have the same right as Jesus to condemn congregations of our Lord Jesus?

As for the men who translated the KJV.....there had to be some sort of INTERPRETING for them to go from Greek and Hebrew. This interpreting would NOT change the meaning of the original Scriptures. Would that suffice for your "You may need to clarify that assertion."?

Donnie, if God would have wanted the Apocryphya to be included with the 66 books, then it would have been. However, God's Word is complete with the 66 books. The whole point here is that you and many others do not believe that God, in His Power and Majesty, has brought and guarded His Word to the point where it is today. That would be.....COMPLETE....and LACKING OF NOTHING.

Everything we do in worship is a tradition. Some were started by the first century church, some were not.
Using a pitch pipe and a PA system is man-made (non-first century), but not wrong. They do not come in conflict with Scripture.
A piano is a man-made tradition also, but not wrong as it is also doesn't come in conflict with Scripture.
Is a capella a man-made tradtion? Just because we were told that the first century church sung we aren't told if they employed the use of any instruments to accompany their singing. We also aren't told if the apostles ever exercised, but ASSUME that they did.

1 Corinthians 9:24
Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize.

Can we assume that the first century church, then, also used instruments? No, but that is not what needs to be seen here. What is evident....is that to speak that instrumental music is wrong just because the first century church didn't employ them isn't the key here. We are told to sing......whether we sing a capella or with instruments....then we do what God has told us. So B, your " do EXACTLY what Jesus tells you to do" doesn't apply here....never will. Did Jesus instruct all men to wear a beard and a mustache? By your reasoning, if Jesus didn't tell you to do this, then one who wears a beard or mustache is in error.

Galatians 5
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 5
3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for Gods holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.

In either Galatians or Ephesians or any NT passage.....note that instrumental music is not listed as sinful. If it isn't listed or inferred as sinful....then if man makes it a sin.....then he has added to the Word of God.

Dave Fields


    
This message has been edited by Donnie.Cruz from IP address 99.177.249.211 on Jan 7, 2013 9:53 PM


 
 Respond to this message   
B
(no login)
74.179.205.141

Re: Did They Need It?

January 7 2013, 3:15 PM 

It is difficult for rebellious folks to adhere to the neither-add-to-nor-take-from command. Instrumental music must NOT be added, because only vocal music is specified in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16. Don't even begin to start comparing vocal music with that PA system nonsense again, because electronic sound amplification is not even addressed in the New Testament. That type of amplification did not exist in the first century, and even if it had been, it would still not have been addressed, because it has NOTHING to do with the context of the message of the New Testament. On the other hand, the kind of music God would have us use is definitely addressed in the New Testament, and that is vocal music, yet God omits instrumental music. But man, in his never-ending desire to please himself, insists that instruments are not sinful in worship, because God doesn't explicitly condemn them by name.

God does not have to make an exhaustive list of every act, deed, practice, and object on this earth that is sinful. He issued the neither-add-to-nor-take-from (NATNTF) command, which covers everything that He doesn't mention by name.

Rebellious people just don't seem to care that adding more to, or taking from, a command than what God has already specified therein is a SIN. The NATNTF command forbids altering any of God's existing commands to please man.

God specifies vocal music. If you sing a cappella, you comply with God's command; if you ADD instrumental music, you violate the NATNTF command, which is a sin. God need not waste His time saying, "Adding instrumental music is sinful," because the NATNTF command already makes that obvious to the discerning.

Jesus specifies bread and fruit of the vine for the Lord's Supper. If you take those, you comply with Jesus' command; if you substitute or add pizza and soft drinks, you violate the NATNTF command, which is a sin. Jesus need not waste His time saying, "Adding or substituting pizza and soft drinks is sinful," because the NATNTF command already makes that obvious to the discerning.

Along with faith, Jesus specifies that baptism is required for salvation (Mark 16:16). Peter also says that baptism is required for remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and that baptism saves us (1 Peter 3:21). If you believe and are baptized, you comply with Jesus' command, your sins are forgiven after baptism, and you are saved; if you dismiss baptism and say you are saved with sins forgiven the moment you believe, you violate the NATNTF command, which is a sin. Jesus and Peter need not waste their time saying, "Removing baptism from the salvation issue is sinful," because the NATNTF command already makes that obvious to the discerning.

We cannot be faithful Christians unless we are willing to do exactly as God/Jesus instructs us in the New Testament. Be satisfied with His teachings and stop wasting time trying to create ludicrous loopholes to please yourselves.

 
 Respond to this message   
Rocky (right on que)
(no login)
98.81.111.196

Re: Did They Need It?

January 7 2013, 6:05 PM 

God did not condemn IM, "B" did.

off topic:

Nothing new here. I will sit this one out. "B", BTW, you are officially off the SBC watch list (no longer a threat). happy.gif

 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(Login Ken.Sublett)
ConcernedMembersMadison
70.193.7.125

Re: Did They Need It?

January 7 2013, 1:34 PM 

I told you about the MASSED MULTITUDES whom God blinded and made deaf BECAUSE of musical idolatry at Mount Sinai.

And I told you that Christ the ROCK defined the role of the ONLY purpose for assembling the people: to Rest, Read and Rehearse the Word (only) of God (only). Vocal or instrumental rejoicing or high-sounding rhetoric was FORBIDDEN because you don't out your gender when God speaks when the leaders of sub-groups of ten families PREACH the Word by READING the Word.

The Ekklesia-synagogue continued with ONE more ACT: the Lord's Supper to REMEMBER that it was Jesus Who died for the right to be MASTER TEACHER and ONE MEDIATOR between man and God. Musical Worship teams violate MANY direct commands and the approved example of Jesus, the commands of the apostles and the historic church of Christ.

Just how many times does the Spirit OF Christ have to say THOU SHALT NOT to constitute AUTHORITY. Furthermore, quoting isolated verses proves that ALMOST NO preacher or scholar can bring themselves to Teach that which is written for our learning. Now, Silly Sally and Simple Simon understands that you would NEVER teach the writings of Einstein accompanied by an effeminate worship team with or without instruments. Here is something to LEARN you how to grasp that 1 + 1 = 2. That will help prevent teaching that 0 + 0 = 10

[linked image]

That means that YOU do not have authority from Christ to destroy the School of Christ and make it into something up to half of the owners see as obscene and most of the rest just tolerate and wait for a funeral.

Jesus commanded that we teach and observe what HE commanded to be taught and observe. Too bad that YOU cannot honor that request by whining that you can't find instruments because you refuse to DEFINE WORDS and look at the parallels.

A Christian is a Disciple: a Disciple is a STUDENT. A disciple of Christ is baptized in water INTO the Word to be enable to be taught by Jesus Christ. A MUSICATOR is a FORNICATOR because he-she-it SELLS their body talents for fame or fortune. Corrupting the Word means "selling learning at wholesale or ADULTERY."


 
 Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)
130.127.42.38

Re: Did They Need It?

January 7 2013, 7:23 PM 

B said "Be satisfied with His teachings and stop wasting time trying to create ludicrous loopholes to please yourselves."

That is exactly what you do when you set up a capella to be your tradition and god.

B also said "Jesus specifies bread and fruit of the vine for the Lord's Supper. If you take those, you comply with Jesus' command; if you substitute or add pizza and soft drinks, you violate the NATNTF command, which is a sin."

Some believe that you can only use grape juice, while others believe that only wine is to be used. Some believe that they can both be used.
Some believe that singing vocally is only Scriptural, while others believe that the Scripture is still adhered to if one employs the AID of the instrument and therefore does NOT prohibit the command to sing and thus one does what God asks.

B, a square peg will never fit in a round hole......unless you force it....which causes damage.


happy.gifhappy.gifhappy.gifhappy.gifhappy.gif

Dave Fields


    
This message has been edited by Donnie.Cruz from IP address 99.177.249.211 on Jan 7, 2013 9:56 PM


 
 Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)
130.127.42.38

Re: Did They Need It?

January 7 2013, 7:36 PM 

B, you said "God does not have to make an exhaustive list of every act, deed, practice, and object on this earth that is sinful."
God has already listed every sin known to man. Name something that occurs, in thought or deed, which isn't listed?

Dave Fields


    
This message has been edited by Donnie.Cruz from IP address 99.177.249.211 on Jan 7, 2013 9:55 PM


 
 Respond to this message   
B
(no login)
74.240.239.111

Re: Did They Need It?

January 7 2013, 10:24 PM 

When God explicitly commands vocal music in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 yet omits instrumental music from both passages, discerning Christians will take note, observe the NATNTF command, and stop where God stops; they will have a cappella singing but omit instrumental music. Rebel "Christians," on the other hand, will forge ahead with their own agenda, ignore the NATNTF command, and add instrumental music with such lame "justifications" as "God didn't say not to have IM," "God doesn't condemn IM by name," "IM makes worship more meaningful," "IM accompanies and enhances the singing," and so forth.

And then some people continue to close their minds against the possibility that mortal men rejected some books that really could be inspired works and, hence, deserve a place in the biblical canon. Would those people's faith be shattered if Enoch turned out to be one of those inspired books? Since the Scriptures do not state how many books actually comprise the biblical canon, would those people stubbornly limit God's Word to 66 books if more books were proven to be inspired?

 
 Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)
64.234.85.24

Re: Did They Need It?

January 7 2013, 11:59 PM 

B said "And then some people continue to close their minds against the possibility that mortal men rejected some books that really could be inspired works and, hence, deserve a place in the biblical canon."

Mortal men, again, yes.....but led by God to translate His Word. That's your problem. You do not trust God to have the Power to have these men translate the Word. Do you believe yourself to be led by God B? If they were rejected and deserve a place within the ALREADY COMPLETE Word of God, then tell us.....which books should be added? What man or group of men has the right and honor to add them? You B? You up for the task of ADDING to the Word of God? You've done it already when you added instrumental sin to the Word.

Everything that we need is in the ALREADY COMPLETE Word of God. Leave it alone!!!

Dave Fields


    
This message has been edited by Donnie.Cruz from IP address 99.177.249.211 on Jan 8, 2013 1:22 AM


 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
99.177.249.211

Dave:::: "Mortal men ... but led by God to translate His Word"

January 8 2013, 2:30 AM 

There must have been a war of "Biblical Canons" in the 16th and 17th centuries.

"Books included in the Christian biblical canons of both the Old and New Testament were decided at the Council of Trent (1546), by the Thirty-Nine Articles (1563), the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), and the Synod of Jerusalem (1672) for the Catholic Church, the Church of England, Calvinism and the Orthodox Church respectively.


Included by Roman Catholics, Orthodox, but excluded by Jews, Samaritans and most Protestants:
  • Tobit
  • Judith
  • 1 Maccabees
  • 2 Maccabees
  • Wisdom (of Solomon)
  • Ben Sira
  • Baruch, includes Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah)
  • Additions to Daniel
  • Additions to Esther

Included by Orthodox (Synod of Jerusalem):
  • 1 Esdras (see Esdras for other names)
  • 3 Maccabees
  • 4 Maccabees (in appendix but not canonical)
  • Prayer of Manasseh
  • Psalm 151

Included by Russian and Ethiopian Orthodox:
  • 2 Esdras


Well, Dave, I am curious as to which one is your preference in terms of the "Christian Biblical Canon." Would you prefer what was decided at the Council of Trent (1546) for the Roman Catholic Church or the Westminster Confession of Faith for Calvinism (1647)?

It shouldn't matter to you since, as you said, "Mortal men, again, yes.....but led by God to translate His Word." Correct? And your implication is that God led mortal men at the Council of Trent to "translate" His word. Based on that bold assertion, you must believe, then, that the Catholic Bible which includes the Apocryphal books is also a "COMPLETE Word of God" even though more books [than 66] are included.

 
 Respond to this message   
B
(no login)
74.240.211.200

Re: Dave:::: "Mortal men ... but led by God to translate His Word"

January 8 2013, 8:58 AM 

Dave has yet to show us where the Scriptures explicitly state that 66 books (Genesis through Revelation) comprise THE COMPLETE biblical canon.

Dave also has yet to show us where the Scriptures explicitly state that God would appoint and "lead" certain MORTAL men centuries later to translate all those ancient texts and then decide which of them would become the "canon" and which of them would be tossed aside as "uninspired."

Dave keeps saying that God "led" the men to translate. Perhaps, but the Scriptures don't explicitly tell us that, now do they?

 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
99.177.249.211

Apostolic Tradition vs. Man-Made Tradition

January 8 2013, 1:28 AM 

Dave,

Unlike those of us who are unwilling to compromise the truth, you continue to: (a) belittle the church that Christ built, (b) downgrade its scriptural standards, (c) misrepresent the fact that churches of Christ (with the exception of a few congregations whose mis-LEADERS have chosen to apostatize) DO NOT ENGAGE in operating man-made, inanimate, lifeless musical devices in the assembly of saints.

Unlike you, I must defend the church that Christ established. Contrary to your erroneous characterization of "church tradition," the Scripture says differently about "the tradition ... received of us [the apostles]" (II Thess. 3:6).

Surprise! Surprise! The church of Christ does not follow man-made traditions (with the exception of certain congregations that "behave" just like "the other nations," a.k.a. [DENOMI-]nations). Rather, the church of Christ follows the teachings of Christ and His apostles.

It is not that we should reject apostolic tradition -- it is for the church to follow. "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" (II Thess. 2:15).

Rather, it is that we should reject man-made traditions. The Scripture speaks about man-made traditions. The church is warned to "beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Col. 2:8).

I'll simplify matters for you, Dave. Here are examples of MAN-MADE traditions that the church is to reject:

  1. Offer of prayers for the dead
  2. Use of wax Candles for their rituals
  3. Veneration of angels and dead saints
  4. Worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term, "Mother of God"
  5. Priests began to dress differently from the laity
  6. Extreme Unction
  7. Doctrine of Purgatory, first established by Gregory the Great
  8. Prayers directed to Mary, or to dead saints
  9. Papacy: of pagan origin; the title of pope or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas
  10. Kissing of the Pope's feet
  11. Worship of the cross, images and relics
  12. Baptism of bells, instituted by Pope John XIV
  13. Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV
  14. Fasting on Fridays and during Lent
  15. Celibacy of the priesthood: decreed by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII
  16. Rosary, or prayer beads introduced by Peter the Hermit
  17. Worship with musical instruments
  18. ... etc. ... etc. ... etc.
Obviously, the above activities and practices are traditions of the Roman Catholic Church. And its members are willing to defend their traditions, although many of them are actually heresies and are of pagan nature.

Here's an observation: I think you, Dave, may be willing to reject most of the man-made traditions listed above. But you are willing to surely defend ONE man-made tradition -- worship with musical instruments. Uh-oh. Does anyone recall the historical fact relating to when instrumental music in worship in "Christianity" began? I know that this man-made tradition was originated by the Roman Catholic Church and propagated by Protestant Churches.

 
 Respond to this message   
 
< Previous Page 1 2 3 4 58 Next >
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

This web site is not part of or approved by any Church!

...........................THE BOOK

What Happened at the Madison Church of Christ?


There are thousands of churches being taken over across America.

This book is only about one of those churches. It's about the Madison Church Of Christ. By studying the methods used here along with the resource references you might be able to inoculate your church. At the very least you will recognize the signs early on.

Many of the current members of the Madison Church of Christ still don't know what happened.
Some never will know! This book is for them as well.

Madison Church of Christ was a 60 year old church. At one time it was one of the largest churches in the US, and the largest Church of Christ.

It thrived for many years on the vision of it's elders and those of it's ministers. Those visions undoubtably came from the the inspired word of Jesus Christ.

At sometime in the last 10 years there was a deliberate plan by a majority of the elders to take the Madison Church of Christ into a more worldly realm.

They used secrecy, covert planning, and outside sources to scheme and to change the format and direction of the Madison Church of Christ.

The Elders knew that the membership would never approve such a plan. Using the tools of the "Community Church Movement"(consultants, books, seminars, meetings,planters,seeders) they slowly started initiating change so it was never noticed by the members until it was too late.....

At the heart of the plan was the fact that old members were going to be driven off so new techniques could be used to go out and reach the unchurched through new "Contemporary Holy Entertainment" methods developed by the "Community Church Movement"

Old members had to be kept on board long enough to get their plans ready, or the funds would not be there to pay for the new building. So by the plans very nature, it had to be secret.

The church had no plan in effect to renew or approve elders. There was never any need. The elders had always been "as approved by God". 10 of the last 15 elders would begin to shed some doubt on that.

The Elders did not even need a majority at first, because some of the elders went along unwittingly.

This edition starts shortly after some of the members begin to smell something strange in January 2001. Later editions may go back and fill in some of the timeline.

To even start to understand whats happening here, you must read the background materials in the first of the book.

This is only the first edition, and not the end. New editions will be printed as needed. To keep abreast of current changes, please visit our web site; http://www.concernedmembers.com/madison

Here is the list of players;

5 Godly Elders
10 Not so Godly Elders
120 "Deacons" (allegiance unknown)
2,800 - 4,000 church "members"
2 "teners" (people who have publicly confessed to have broken all ten commandments)
Unknown number of "sinners" (This is what the 10 elders call us.)
Unknown number of "demons" (Flying everywhere, to many to count)
 

Click Here......The Book is Available Now FREE

Place your banner ad here.           See all banner ads

...ConcernedMembers.com ...About ...Links Library ...Sunday School in Exile ...Help Warn Others


FastCounter by bCentral

CM Visit Counter as of 6/25/2015
2,101,394

Site Visits Since 6/30/2015
page counter