|HIstorian of sorts|
|April 6 2012, 10:08 AM |
I am sorry that you don't completely understand how history works. Here is a link to a website about the most recent work of the history of the Stone Campbell movement. It involves scholars from all traditions of the Stone Campbell movement. I hope you look into this work with an open mind. Read carefully, order the book, read some more, then repost your findings. I will do the same with your posts and websites. I will also pass these along to the authors of this World History of the Stone Campbell Movement.
Blessings in your journey!
|April 6 2012, 11:30 AM |
I have posted the REAL writings between Stone and Campbell.
I showed you that Campbell showed in 1821 there there was nothing in common to unite. He held Stone in some disdain as a "denomination" builder
A few men shook hands in 1832 and the agreement went no further than the people who met with no authority. The document they all signed would NOT PERMIT what the Disciples of Christ (Methodist-Anglican-Catholic derived) did because they got spooked by Miller and thus are carriers of SDA dogma.
I showed you that in 1837 that Campbell ridiculed the notion of unity among those with nothing in common
The Christian Church gradually secting out of the Disciples always promoted "unity" by twisting all of the instrumental passages. H. Leo. Boles attended one of them in 1939 and in no uncertain terms the Disciples/Christian churches had destroyed any "fraternal" fellowship by introducing music and the society which all Bible students know is radically outlawed for the Qahal, Synagogue or Church of Christ in the wilderness.
Notice Nottingham's reason why these groups were never "unioned" because you cannot "union" congregational churches. This also shows that Hughes lies about the "apocylptic" claim for Alexander Campbell. That is because he did not care enough to read the original documents. Historians daisy chain and quoting A BOOK is never scholarship. Of course they are all defined by John as ANTICHRIST by their neo-trinity dogma.
Church "scholars" are really a laughing stock and they write only for other "scholars" totally missing Jesus who said that "doctors of the law take away the key to knowledge."
I don't write history: I post the actual documents the RECONSTRUCTIONISTS lie about seing godliness as a means of financial gain--occupation. Don't be a cultist: never trust anyone who quotes Mark 1.1 and does not post the text in context.
|This message has been edited by Ken.Sublett from IP address 22.214.171.124 on Apr 7, 2012 5:35 PM|
Re: no thanks
|April 6 2012, 9:12 PM |
1936...1937...1938...how many other such mistakes have you made? And are you sure you just mistyped a number or two? Or did you do it deliberately in order to mislead? Wouldn't that make you a change agent as well?
|April 7 2012, 5:37 PM |
The devil made me to it:=)
Stone and Campbell movements
|October 16 2012, 4:59 PM |
My understanding of the sources of division closely parallel Ken's, but I didn't read his article in depth.
Beginnings of the division were in 1849 with the creation of the American Christian Missionary Society, and it is also my understanding that the Stone and Campbell movements never really melded, and this implies that the division began even with the decision to meld the movements of Stone and Campbell. These differences mutated into the Disciples/COC and Churches of Christ as two unique groups.
The Churches of Christ did "go along with" the missionary societies for a while, and Tolbert Fanning even made a speech at the ACMS meeting about 1859. However, it was the War that at least accelerated the division if not engender it. The ACMS had become abolitionist, while Lipscomb was physically located in the South, and its best course was to maintain a "pacifist" position. Lipscomb had a touch of anabaptist theology and as a result of the ACMS political posturing, the Southern church feared organizations outside the local congregation that could ensnare the movement.
Additionally, Disciples were "headquartered" in the urban Chicago at the Disciples Divinity House and were exposed to Critical Bible Theory, while the Southern church was located among a rural constituency.
Re: Stone and Campbell movements
|October 16 2012, 5:58 PM |
That's the truth. Before 1932 both Stone and Campbell denied that there could be any kind of union: to Campbell this would be just another sectarian division. He said that union always equated to money.
During the 1932 there was no union: the agreement to fellowship on an individual basis was based on the conditions written and signed. The Disciples broke that agreement.
After 1932 Campbell mocked the idea that a few handshakes could unite the groups in a UNION which Stone thought meant defining some rules.
As long as the groups taught about the same things, was not clergy-focused, observed the Lord's Supper individuals could attend any group without being offended.
Because the Disciples fell for the Millerites and began to organize, Campbell named his publication the Millennial Harbinger. He did not approve of any of the theories.
By 1849 there was such a radical difference that even friendly visits could not happen without being offended.
The whole Stone-Campbell Movement is a Disciples lie intended to make churches of Christ feel guilty and all of the spreading of hate and bitterness has been preambled by 'You became sectarian in 1906.' That's utterly false.
1906 is the year the count of members was changed
|October 16 2012, 6:34 PM |
The year 1906 just represented the end result of all the differences that existed for at least half a century. A large number of dates can be given represent multiple turning points along the way.
Money and religious political power, such as the big publishing houses, and grand collusions between those who want to maintain power COLOR the explanation and definition of what has happened in history. Those in theological positions in colleges are competing in the publishing world and so present results that are compatible among their academic colleagues.
History is highly interpreted, and it is fashionable in some circles, to present history in such a way as to make one's present position LOOK GOOD. There are hundreds, even thousands, and preachers and events with all kinds of importances that exerted influences that culminated in the year 1906. The expresssion "sectarian" is highly prejudicial, in that churches of great size have their peculiarities, yet they are not called sectarian.
All in all, it was easy for a church that carried over a million members to look down on a small fellowship that constituted in about 136,000 in the year 1906. That small group now constitutes about 1.4 million while the Disciples are plunging downward rapidly with about 700,000 members. All figures are approximations.
The course taught about the "Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement" are over-simplified, and downright misleading, especially to those who have studied the classics in the movements.
Just like I thought
|April 6 2012, 11:49 AM |
Funding for this project has been provided principally by Disciples of Christ Historical Society and Chalice Press.
Babylonian background to the huge cup of wine:
Now, as the Babylon of the Apocalypse is characterised by the name of "MYSTERY," so the grand distinguishing feature of the ancient Babylonian system was the Chaldean "MYSTERIES," that formed so essential a part of that system. And to these mysteries, the very language of the Hebrew prophet, symbolical though of course it is, distinctly alludes, when he speaks of Babylon as a "golden CUP." To drink of "mysterious beverages," says Salverte, was indispensable on the part of all who sought initiation in these Mysteries. These "mysterious beverages" were composed of "wine, honey, water, and flour."
From the ingredients avowedly used, and from the nature of others not avowed, but certainly used, there can be no doubt that they were of an intoxicating nature;
and till the aspirants had come under their power,
till their understandings had been dimmed,
and their passions excited by the medicated draught,
they were not duly prepared for what they were either to hear or to see.
If it be inquired what was the object and design of these ancient "Mysteries," it will be found that there was a wonderful analogy between them and that "Mystery of iniquity" which is embodied in the Church of Rome.
Their primary object was to introduce privately, by little and little, under the seal of secrecy and the sanction of an oath, what it would not have been safe all at once and openly to propound.
The time at which they were instituted proved that this must have been the case. The Chaldean Mysteries can be traced up to the days of Semiramis, who lived only a few centuries after the flood, and who is known to have impressed upon them the image of her own depraved and polluted mind. *
* AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS compared with JUSTINUS, Historia and EUSEBIUS' Chronicle. Eusebius says that Ninus and Semiramis reigned in the time of Abraham.
That beautiful but abandoned queen of Babylon was not only herself a paragon of unbridled lust and licentiousness, but in the Mysteries which she had a chief hand in forming,
Thus was this Chaldean queen a fit and remarkable prototype of the "Woman" in the Apocalypse, with the golden cup in her hand, and the name on her forehead, "Mystery, Babylon the Great, the MOTHER of harlots and abominations of the earth."
Growing convergence marks Disciples/Catholic Dialogue
|This message has been edited by Ken.Sublett from IP address 126.96.36.199 on Apr 6, 2012 11:53 AM|
Re: Ken Sublett
|April 26 2012, 1:36 PM |
THOSE INFAMOUS 28 DIVISIONS IN THE CHURCH
A few years ago, a singing group traveled the country, making a good living singing Twenty-six Miles Across the Sea. Today, change agents travel far and wide singing about 28 divisions among Churches of Christ. For them that mantra proves we are an unworthy group and that they with their ecumenical plan for unity are our saviors. A member of their team recently sent me the infamous list. It really shows how desperate change agents are to paint a false picture of their brethren in order to justify themselves in causing yet another division in the body. As we look at their list, note with me the distortions of their accusation
1. The Firm Foundation faction (1884). There was disagreement and discussion about whether those immersed without understanding the full purpose of baptism should be rebaptized. There was never an open break in fellowship. Though still discussed, the issue does not constitute a separate brotherhood.
2. Churches of Christ separation from Digressives (Sand Creek. IL, 1889). This was a declaration of one congregation declaring they would no longer fellowship digressives who were introducing instrumental music and missionary societies into churches. Had not that congregation and hundreds of others taken a stand against the apostasy of that day there would be no Churches of Christ today. All would be in the camp of the Christian Churches. This would be pleasing to our change agents. The fact is those wishing to have musical instruments and societies went out from us (I John 2:19). We continue to occupy the same ground as did the early leaders of the Restoration movement and the first Christians.
3. Black Churches of Christ. Outside of a few Black separatists, no such schism exists. Christians and congregations, be they Black or White, are brethren and fellowship each other.
4. Those opposed to baptistries (ca. 1900). While a few folks a century ago questioned the use of baptistries, I challenge the promoters of the list to find us even one congregation holding such a view today.
5. Those who insisted on an order of worship (1888). True, a tiny handful of brethren argued that Acts 2:42 provided an order of worship. They have long since died out. No such schism exists today.
6. Sommerism. Daniel Sommer was a strong minded, legalistic preacher who had a following that spread into several states. He flourished from 1890-1940. W. Carl Ketcherside led this group after Bro. Sommer's passing but he eventually swung to the opposite extreme of liberalism leaving chaos and confusion among his followers. The survivors, who describe themselves as mutual edification churches, still carry on but are small and few in number. Many of them enjoy fellowship with mainstream congregations.
7. Anti-Sunday School, anti literature and anti-women teachers were not three separate schisms but one. Such churches still exist but in many places now have fellowship with the larger brotherhood.
8. One cup churches. Some of the anti-Bible class churches also insisted on using only one cup in communion. They divided among themselves over such issues as "fermented or unfermented wine;" "whether the loaf should be broken by the one presiding or by the partaker." Of this group he lists, some who advocated "no plate for communion bread; some who debated whether "to have Or not to have a handle on the communion cup" and some that insisted that "communion must be taken around the table." That a legalistic splinter group should continue to divide among themselves is not the responsibility of the mainstream churches, nor should we bear the blame for their foolishness.
9. Premillennialism. In the 1920s a few preachers, led by Robert H. Boll, began to promote the false doctrine of premillennialism and found a following in a handful of churches. The brotherhood rejected their message and they were gradually excluded from fellowship. A few such churches exist today. Most have faded away.
10. In the 1950's a group arose that opposed cooperation of churches in evangelism, benevolent homes operated by the church and eating in meetinghouses. These are the only significant schism that has continued to flourish. Today there is some fellowship between members of the two groups and that will likely increase in coming years. Within this group was a schism led by Charles Holt and a more liberal minded minority.
11. In the late 1950s and 60s, W. Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett, formerly of the Sommerite camp, swung to the opposite extreme of liberalism. They called for unity in diversity and embraced the Christian Churches and other denominational bodies in their fellowship. They worked unceasingly to influence and seduce young preachers of the  mainstream churches. The message of the change movement bears the stamp of these two false teachers.
12. Differing views on divorce and remarriage have been warmly discussed by preachers and writers from 1960 to the present. While differences were pronounced and convictions were deeply held, no separate body of people emerged over this issue.
13. Tongue-speaking and supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit were claimed by a tiny handful in the 1960s. Probably not more than a dozen preachers dabbled in this Pentecostal practice. All either left the church ceased to be used by our churches. No schism occurred.
14. Ira Rice's Contending for the Faith group. Bro. Rice led an on-going war against anything and anyone he perceived as liberal. His harsh and indiscriminate approach alienated him from most main-stream churches. Even many who opposed liberalism as much as he, refused to use or approve of his tactics. These brethren do not constitute a separate body of people.
15. The International Churches of Christ. This group otherwise known as the Cross-roads or Boston Movement were a group of young zealots who embraced a cultish program of control over their members. They flourished for some 20 years but now appear to be disintegrating.
16 To this list I will add The Change Movement. This is the merging and flowering of several past groups under a new banner. In its ranks one finds Ketcherside's Unity in Diversity disciples; those who yearn for a Pentecostal experience; those who have lost their faith in the inspiration and authority of the Word of God, those who desire an ecumenical fellowship with denominational bodies, especially with the Disciples of Christ and Christian Churches; those who have embraced the agenda of feminism and those who have been caught up in the philosophy of Postmodernism. The issues of this movement are virtual identical to those that led to the separation of Churches of Christ and Christian Churches a century ago.
The authors of the infamous list of schisms badly want to paint the Lord's Church as a flawed and failed movement that must be changed by their more enlighten group. The exaggerations of such a list are telling. While there have been issues and trends, actual brotherhood schisms amount to some eight rather than 28. While eight is too many and those responsible will have to answer to God for their actions, it is unfair and unreasonable to blame the church for the failure of some of her disgruntled members. To do so is like blaming godly parents who have raised six faithful children, for the failure of one child who has chosen to abandon the faith.
|This message has been edited by Ken.Sublett from IP address 188.8.131.52 on May 1, 2012 1:49 PM|
Re: Ken Sublett
|May 17 2012, 11:42 PM |
Brian's comment is too vile to post.
|This message has been edited by Ken.Sublett from IP address 184.108.40.206 on May 18, 2012 10:08 AM|
Re: Ken Sublett
|May 19 2012, 11:28 AM |
...as opposed to your lies?