Anyone observing "Great Communion"?

[Snargles]

4. Sorry if strong views frustrate you.

Doesn't bother me; I enjoy it.

I just hope some guy who was baptized yesterday doesn't get the wrong idea.

[Scoobydoo]

Greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,

The Lively side and the John side are both repeating their respective views but neither side is going to give an inch. The discussion has been good if it causes readers to consider their own views and to do some bible reading to see who is closer to the truth. However if a new Christian would see all of this he might think all we do is argue. We might have to past a "No Newbies Allowed" sign.

and Johnb says
1.  Most of these discussions end up with neither side giving much so nothing new there.

My response--because these discussions for the most part come from each's closed system of texts and is defended by scriptural combat..No winners here at all when this is done.

Johnb again
2. You have to repeat yourself with Lively because when you defeat his arguments he simply denies that you have and you have to show where he has fallen short.

My response--I believe the first person here above is the most accurate in describing the situation.  Since "human reasoning" is the tool on one side--it is never ever going to work out for togetherness.. One literally has to return to the texts.  And, remember, it is not that texts are used but how they are used that make or break it.


Johnb says
3. No I will not give an inch to a false theology that teaches that only those who agree with me are children of God.  I consider Lively, Scooby and others who disagree with me as my brothers in Christ even though I may be viewed as a distant cousin or "brother in error"  (That is the only kind of brother I have.)    "Whereever God has a child I have a sister or brother"  W Carl Ketcherside

My response...human reasoning is another gospel and it kills. Unfortunately, those practising it do not so understand it.

Here is a truth--Those outside looking in John 10 don't believe that they are outside since they are thinking believing acting as being inside the sheepfold.
Fact is though when the Shepherd--Jesus calls his sheep--only His sheep are going to respond to his voice--the rest of the sheep hear the voice but it is that of a stranger so they do not leave the sheepfold.

Over the years the last 35 or so--as long as I have been actively involved in these "discussions"--Those who are outside the churches of Christ--are often wanting to be more tolerant than those inside the churches of Christ.

Yet the one thing that continues to drive those outside is the fact that they are lost and considered so by the churches of Christ.

What makes one a church of Christ is the doctrine, the teaching that the church is commanded to give exactly as given or be lost themselves.

When one injects "human reasoning" as an authority and please note that Johnb and others here are quick to do so--that puts them in the wrong flock.

Again, Johnb is typical in his responses in this arena--He is not unusual and neither is myself or others of the churches of Christ in dealing with these issues.

While both sides use the scriptures--Johnb once again in thise response had done one thing that he does not see  as "hurtful" to his cause but in reality is most hurtful.

Unlike Johnb and others..the "surer path" is to refrain from using other men as authorities or as "reasons" for acting --reacting against the narrow path of truth.

The first person in this post has it right again--those who read get to make decisions.
Looking at one side using scripture and men as authorities and reasons for being contrary and then the other which uses the scripture as the authority.

From a Church of Christ standpoint--Johnb is like the rest of the world--lost and needs reclaiming and it is pure foolishness to enter discussions with folks from the churches of Christ and expect any other response.

Those in the churches of Christ are not "EQUAL" To any others--however, in the same breath the only thing that separates those in the churches of Christ is the doctrine and teaching of Christ in the New Covenant.

In our world and in our society today--when the churches of Christ surrender doctrine for the teachings of men--they join the rest of the lost in their journey in the wrong direction.

I have said or stated nothing that Johnb does not already know and many others who follow after him already know.

Since this is a church of Christ forum---understanding the basics should be important for staying here and continuing to argue for human reasoning.  You should understand that it is more than a tad bit uphill battle.

Yet Johnb speaks as one having authority--even as one considered by the churches of Christ as having left his first love. He is not alone.

I have gone to great lengths to explain this because there is a solution--One however that I do not believe that Johnb or others who believe in "human reasoning" and use it as an excuse not to follow the texts can do.

But before I give it--we need to look at the churches of Christ--There is a responsibility for each member--and a lot of us at times fail in that responsibility. Some will be willing to listen to Johnb and others and lose their inheritance--Others will listen to Johnb and react negatively or as all are wont to do at times in this medium--over react and over react in a negative manner.

Johnb side does not have a lock on frustration and anger.

Please stop now and scroll back up and re read Johnb's response--Now myself and Lively and others from the churches of Christ could adequately and just as determinedly make the same response--and add a topping or two.

That is where the discussions are at this point. and that seems to me to be the point the first person here is making.

But we can all do better.  As late as 5 years ago I would of pretty much attacked Johnb and left him more bitter than he is now. I can do that because over the years I have learned which buttons to push and even better when to push them. Knowing the doctrine of Johnb and having learned how to exploit them and even exploiting them to get the desired results at the time.

So, what is your goal in doing these things?  What do you want to accomplish? Where are you willing to push to get that goal? How hard are you willing to work to accomplish that goal? Then, is it the right goal?

So, for me, I changed my goal? This is a church of Christ forum--but if it wasn't--what is the goal? 

So, here are mine--I believe strongly in the power of the Word of God to accomplish what God wants with individuals--and, it is easier to obtain that goal if one does not destroy the adversary in the discussion. 
[1]So winning is not the goal any longer--or, always having the last word. One needs to understand the limitations of this forum and others like it or even mailing lists.

[2] The Word can do what I cannot do--change hearts\minds of others on God's timeframe.

[3] What I can do is a better job of presenting the texts--and not pre determine the ground upon which it lands nor the reaction the ground has when it lands.

[4] I can stay with the texts--leave human reasoning to others  I can allow others over time to amend their decisions{most times }

[5] I can plant or water and not worry unduly about which is needed by just staying with the texts.

There are a couple of more but now to the how we can all get back and stay with the texts.

Choose to do so--Stay with one text--in this forum everyone who wishes can have input and then when another text is brought in--put those texts side by side and that eliminates the primary weapon of our common adversary and that is scriptural combat.

This is very very hard to do. And it is not being done her. It is granted somewhat inconvient because it costs to do so.

SCoobydoo

[Snargles]

Scooby, you say we should not use human reason but how else are we to understand scripture? The Bible was written in a language other than English and in multiple cultures different from ours. Like Paul told Timothy, we have to study the scriptures (which implies reasoning), we can't just read it once and take it at face value. Without reason we would read what Jesus said about plucking out an eye that offends us and would all be pulling our our eyes or we would read Paul's advice to Timothy and stop drinking water and switch to wine. Some parts of scripture are more important than others: "repent and be baptized" is more important than "when you come bring me my cloak I left behind." Human reasoning helps us to distinguish the important from the incidental and helps us to translate first century Mediterranean culture to 21st century American culture.

[Livelysword]

The Lively side and the John side are both repeating their respective views but neither side is going to give an inch. The discussion has been good if it causes readers to consider their own views and to do some bible reading to see who is closer to the truth. However if a new Christian would see all of this he might think all we do is argue. We might have to past a "No Newbies Allowed" sign.

1.  Most of these discussions end up with neither side giving much so nothing new there.

2. You have to repeat yourself with Lively because when you defeat his arguments he simply denies that you have and you have to show where he has fallen short.

3. No I will not give an inch to a false theology that teaches that only those who agree with me are children of God.  I consider Lively, Scooby and others who disagree with me as my brothers in Christ even though I may be viewed as a distant cousin or "brother in error"  (That is the only kind of brother I have.)    "Whereever God has a child I have a sister or brother"  W Carl Ketcherside

4. Sorry if strong views frustrate you.

Lively:  I do not need to give an inch, as I am right...  the lesson of foot washing is not to command them to wash feet.  It is to command them to serve one another, a lesson in humility.  The foot washing is simply an example of such.  Again, other faithful Christians have the same identical view I do of the verses and what it is teaching...  Obviously they were able to receive the lesson.  But it is obvious that not all people are able to receive this lesson, and I will leave it at that...

[Scoobydoo]

Snargles, greetings in Christ from sunny Texas

you asked

Scooby, you say we should not use human reason but how else are we to understand scripture?

My response--the issue of "human reasoning" HERE is wielded like a broadsword to deny the teaching, I might add the clear and plain teaching of the texts. 
Using "human reasoning" as "THE REASON" for not needing to follow the texts.

The Jewish leaders in the time of Jesus were past masters of doing this as they had some 611 man made scribal laws--that effectively mad null and void the Mosaic law.

Those words in the texts say the same exact same thing to each one who reads it. For those who want to be saved but not in the command given by God simply use "human reasoning" to teach and preach a false system of salvation--all in the name of God.

"Human Reasoning" in effect makes each one their own authority with the full power to deny any other human reasoning. And that is what is happening here.

It is a fact, that all of us are human beings and that our minds are to be used in arriving at what the scriptures teach. That is not the issue.  The issue comes when folks do not want or like what is happening with what they want to believe or practice in religion. So the opposition[to whatever by whomever] uses the lame duck excuse that is human reasoning--and continues on the path they want--and, that is not always bad--if it is the correct path. If it isn't and the texts can illuminate the right path for all of us--human reasoning becomes a deadly excuse to lose one's spiritual inheritance.

And then human reasoning has to learn to "WALK BY FAITH" or lose it all.

Scoobydoo

[Livelysword]

Snargles, greetings in Christ from sunny Texas

you asked

Scooby, you say we should not use human reason but how else are we to understand scripture?

My response--the issue of "human reasoning" HERE is wielded like a broadsword to deny the teaching, I might add the clear and plain teaching of the texts. 
Using "human reasoning" as "THE REASON" for not needing to follow the texts.

The Jewish leaders in the time of Jesus were past masters of doing this as they had some 611 man made scribal laws--that effectively mad null and void the Mosaic law.

Those words in the texts say the same exact same thing to each one who reads it. For those who want to be saved but not in the command given by God simply use "human reasoning" to teach and preach a false system of salvation--all in the name of God.

"Human Reasoning" in effect makes each one their own authority with the full power to deny any other human reasoning. And that is what is happening here.

It is a fact, that all of us are human beings and that our minds are to be used in arriving at what the scriptures teach. That is not the issue.  The issue comes when folks do not want or like what is happening with what they want to believe or practice in religion. So the opposition[to whatever by whomever] uses the lame duck excuse that is human reasoning--and continues on the path they want--and, that is not always bad--if it is the correct path. If it isn't and the texts can illuminate the right path for all of us--human reasoning becomes a deadly excuse to lose one's spiritual inheritance.

And then human reasoning has to learn to "WALK BY FAITH" or lose it all.

Scoobydoo

Lively:  There is nothing wrong with using human reasoning... in fact I believe God expects us to reason through things... but the question is, during such reasoning, are our conclusions/inferences necessary conclusions/inferences...  I may reason all types of things, but none of them may necessarily be true...  but that does not mean we are not to use human reasoning to come to the knowledge of the truth... we simply have to rightly divide the word of truth...

[Johnb]

Quote Snargles
I just hope some guy who was baptized yesterday doesn't get the wrong idea.

I doubt they would be here.  However, if they are they probably are looking for answers and have the maturity to understand religious debate. 

[Snargles]

Getting back to where this thread started, "the Great Communion", we had as an insert in last Sunday's church bulletin a reprint of an article in the November Gospel Advocate written by Phil Sanders about the GC. In it Sanders writes "This call for unity asks the churches of Christ (supposedly of the American Restoration Movement) to set aside their convicitons on a number of serious biblical issues and grant fellowship to some in error and some who are not Christians at all (according to the teachings of scripture.)" He shows that he considers the DoC to be "not Christians at all" when he later says "To fellowship the Disciples of Christ, churches of Christ would have to set aside the teachings of the Word of God in exchange for a human tradition, violate their consciences and recognize as brethren those who have never scripturally come to Christ."

With the opposition we are receiving from Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and atheists it is sad to read such strong words directed against a group of Christians who are trying to follow the word of God but who come to different conclusions than we do. Sanders is willing to reunite with the DoC and the ICC/CoC whenever they start doing church exactly the same way we do it. There is no room for discussion; you are us or you are lost.

[Scoobydoo]

Snargles, greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,

Phil Sanders is correct. Totally correct.  But this is not the first time this has come up.
One thing I see time and time again--are those outside the church of Christ seeking those in the church of Christ to accept them--with all the doctrinal error that leads in the wrong way.

Go back and get behind the GC issue and the IM issue and you have something solid to chew on. One may not like the chewing but it is there for all to see.

Men who do not walk by faith but believe that they do...want those who do walk by faith to accept them and cannot for the life of them understand why that won't happen..

The churches of Christ are not the "authors" of the scripture but followers by [a] faith and by obedience.

So the GC is not a good thing--when it is done on man's terms and not God's. And not being a prophet but a student of some history--those outside the body\church of Christ are not going to get it..

Let me give you an example of exactly how this works out.  It is the example of Cain and Abel.
The issue between then and for that matter between most folks and the churches of Christd today is not that the church of Christ "is better believers" because both Cain and Abel believed in God.

The issue that GC raises--is what got Cain into trouble with God...Not Cain.  And that was "disobedience".

The issue that IM raises is identical.. In my 39 years in the churches of Christ I have witnessed time and time again--those who have left wanting to accept us as brothers and getting bent out of shape when we do not.

You see, to those who have left the GC is viewed differently than those of us within the churches of Christ.  When the split occured the churches of Christ got the very short end of the stick.

Now, years later, the groups that left the church of Christ are declining and the churches of Christ are growing and once again they{those who have left us} are again knocking on the door seeking to make us like them--it has never ever worked.

Scoobydoo

[HRoberson]

Getting back to where this thread started, "the Great Communion", we had as an insert in last Sunday's church bulletin a reprint of an article in the November Gospel Advocate written by Phil Sanders about the GC. In it Sanders writes "This call for unity asks the churches of Christ (supposedly of the American Restoration Movement) to set aside their convicitons on a number of serious biblical issues and grant fellowship to some in error and some who are not Christians at all (according to the teachings of scripture.)" He shows that he considers the DoC to be "not Christians at all" when he later says "To fellowship the Disciples of Christ, churches of Christ would have to set aside the teachings of the Word of God in exchange for a human tradition, violate their consciences and recognize as brethren those who have never scripturally come to Christ."

With the opposition we are receiving from Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and atheists it is sad to read such strong words directed against a group of Christians who are trying to follow the word of God but who come to different conclusions than we do. Sanders is willing to reunite with the DoC and the ICC/CoC whenever they start doing church exactly the same way we do it. There is no room for discussion; you are us or you are lost.

Sanders' comment "(supposedly of the American Restoration Movement)" illustrates a head-in-the-sand stupidity. Those who are in error include Sanders, so I wonder if he would fellowship himself (unless of course, he would argue that he has everything figured out).

He really isn't worth reading if this is his approach "scholarship."

[Scoobydoo]

Hroberson,greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,

Thank you for butressing my point so well.

Scoobydoo

[Mere Nick]

Getting back to where this thread started, "the Great Communion", we had as an insert in last Sunday's church bulletin a reprint of an article in the November Gospel Advocate written by Phil Sanders about the GC. In it Sanders writes "This call for unity asks the churches of Christ (supposedly of the American Restoration Movement) to set aside their convicitons on a number of serious biblical issues and grant fellowship to some in error and some who are not Christians at all (according to the teachings of scripture.)" He shows that he considers the DoC to be "not Christians at all" when he later says "To fellowship the Disciples of Christ, churches of Christ would have to set aside the teachings of the Word of God in exchange for a human tradition, violate their consciences and recognize as brethren those who have never scripturally come to Christ."

With the opposition we are receiving from Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and atheists it is sad to read such strong words directed against a group of Christians who are trying to follow the word of God but who come to different conclusions than we do. Sanders is willing to reunite with the DoC and the ICC/CoC whenever they start doing church exactly the same way we do it. There is no room for discussion; you are us or you are lost.

Then Bro. Sanders appears to be wrong.  From my understanding of it this was not a call for anyone to set aside any convictions about anything but to ask folks to get together and remember Christ.  Does he actually think that when he does meet with folks for communion he actually knows the conviction in every other heart and mind in the room?  Only if he eats alone.

[HRoberson]

Hroberson,greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,

Thank you for butressing my point so well.

Scoobydoo

?