Author Topic: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"  (Read 5734 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« on: Sat Apr 11, 2009 - 16:25:01 »
FD Srygley (1856-1900) of Rock Creek, in Franklin County, AL, was a preacher in the Christian Church/Church of Christ  Srygley was a former student of TB Larimore's at his Mars Hill Academy for Males and Females, as well as Larimore’s close friend and biographer. In 1889 David Lipscomb hired Srygley as front page editor of the Gospel Advocate. Nowadays Sryley’s theology would be considered "progressive"; for one thing, he supported the American Christian Missionary Society (which Lipscomb opposed); for another he believed there were saved Christians among all the denominations (a possibility which Lipscomb allowed for). The fact that Lipscomb hired Srygley despite disagreeing with him on certain issues says a lot. The following is one of his editorials from 1889 on whether total agreement on every particular of the faith was necessary in order to produce unity:

                                     
                                      We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves.
             
 
   The Baptist and Reflector refers to the differences and discussions among "us as a people," and suggests that we ought to agree among ourselves and quit arguing with each other before we push "our plea" for the union of all Christians on the Bible much further. The brother errs, not knowing the Scriptures. Because we differ in opinions and argue questions among ourselves, it does not follow that we are not united as Christians on the Bible. We have never proposed or desired to unite Christians in any institution that is too narrow to allow them to differ in opinion or argue with each other. We are in favor of giving everybody room to think and liberty to speak for himself.  For myself, I am opposed to any institution that allows no one but the bosses or grand moguls to entertain an idea or express an opinion. For the life of me, I can't see that I am under any more obligation to agree with Alexander Campbell than he to agree with me. I would never unite with him or with anybody else on the Bible or any other condition than that I am as free as he to study the Bible. This is the only kind of union we have ever proposed, and it is the only kind that is practicable or right among men. Whenever it comes to human organizations in which no one but the framers of doctrinal standards are allowed to do any thinking, I beg to be excused. My thinking apparatus is not very large, I admit, but I claim all the room the Bible allows me in which to operate it. The Reflector evidently thinks that because every man, with us, is free to think for himself and to differ from and argue with everybody else, therefore we are not united. That is an error. We are united, and the beauty and strength of the union is to be found largely in the fact that it is a union in Christ wherein every one is allowed to study the Bible and think for himself, without being amenable to ecclesiastic authorities or doctrinal standards of human make. The Reflector seems to have the old, bigoted idea that if a man should happen to differ from me and undertake to argue a question with me, he must get out of my church and start a little concern of his own. That has been the trouble with religious bigots all along the ages. It takes just such bigotry as that to build up denominations and keep Christians apart. "We as a people," are a rather contentious set, I admit, but we have not yet given in to that idea. It is just at this point I file my objection to the Baptist Church. One must accept its doctrinal standards, written by uninspired men, or get out of it. Here is the Baptist and Reflector, for instance. It could think out some very good ideas of its own and express them in very creditable English if it only had room. But, my! Wouldn't the Baptist bosses sit down on it with a crash if it should happen some day to think a little thought all by my [sic] itself, without consulting the doctrinal standards? The basis of our union ought always to be as broad as the conditions of salvation. No man has any right to make his plea for union narrower than this. It is wrong to make anything a condition of fellowship which is not essential to salvation. We draw the line here. That which will damn a soul and separate us in the next world should divide us in this; nothing else should. 

   There are a few men among us who are trying very hard to "organize" the thing called "us as a people," so as to shut off all investigation and stop all discussion; but they are entirely too narrow in their ideas to fairly represent this reformation. They say that if something of this kind is not done very soon, "our plea" will burst into smithereens, "our organized mission work" will break all to flinders, and "we as a people" will go to smash on general principles; but I think not. The shortest route I know to such a crash is to organize us and undertake to compel us all to quit thinking and arguing and accept the conclusions and carry out the plans of "leading men and papers," without the liberty to conceive an idea or express an opinion of our own.
 
From: The New Testament Church: Editorials of F. D. Srygley which Appeared in the Gospel Advocate from 1889 to 1900, Gospel Advocate Company, 1955, pp. 193-195, a compiled series of his Gospel Advocate articles on the New Testament church posthumously published by his brother FB Srygley in 1910.


Offline Livelysword

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1066
  • Manna: 16
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #1 on: Sat Apr 11, 2009 - 17:39:21 »
FD Srygley (1856-1900) of Rock Creek, in Franklin County, AL, was a preacher in the Christian Church/Church of Christ  Srygley was a former student of TB Larimore's at his Mars Hill Academy for Males and Females, as well as Larimore’s close friend and biographer. In 1889 David Lipscomb hired Srygley as front page editor of the Gospel Advocate. Nowadays Sryley’s theology would be considered "progressive"; for one thing, he supported the American Christian Missionary Society (which Lipscomb opposed); for another he believed there were saved Christians among all the denominations (a possibility which Lipscomb allowed for). The fact that Lipscomb hired Srygley despite disagreeing with him on certain issues says a lot. The following is one of his editorials from 1889 on whether total agreement on every particular of the faith was necessary in order to produce unity:

                                     
                                      We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves.
             
 
   The Baptist and Reflector refers to the differences and discussions among "us as a people," and suggests that we ought to agree among ourselves and quit arguing with each other before we push "our plea" for the union of all Christians on the Bible much further. The brother errs, not knowing the Scriptures. Because we differ in opinions and argue questions among ourselves, it does not follow that we are not united as Christians on the Bible. We have never proposed or desired to unite Christians in any institution that is too narrow to allow them to differ in opinion or argue with each other. We are in favor of giving everybody room to think and liberty to speak for himself.  For myself, I am opposed to any institution that allows no one but the bosses or grand moguls to entertain an idea or express an opinion. For the life of me, I can't see that I am under any more obligation to agree with Alexander Campbell than he to agree with me. I would never unite with him or with anybody else on the Bible or any other condition than that I am as free as he to study the Bible. This is the only kind of union we have ever proposed, and it is the only kind that is practicable or right among men. Whenever it comes to human organizations in which no one but the framers of doctrinal standards are allowed to do any thinking, I beg to be excused. My thinking apparatus is not very large, I admit, but I claim all the room the Bible allows me in which to operate it. The Reflector evidently thinks that because every man, with us, is free to think for himself and to differ from and argue with everybody else, therefore we are not united. That is an error. We are united, and the beauty and strength of the union is to be found largely in the fact that it is a union in Christ wherein every one is allowed to study the Bible and think for himself, without being amenable to ecclesiastic authorities or doctrinal standards of human make. The Reflector seems to have the old, bigoted idea that if a man should happen to differ from me and undertake to argue a question with me, he must get out of my church and start a little concern of his own. That has been the trouble with religious bigots all along the ages. It takes just such bigotry as that to build up denominations and keep Christians apart. "We as a people," are a rather contentious set, I admit, but we have not yet given in to that idea. It is just at this point I file my objection to the Baptist Church. One must accept its doctrinal standards, written by uninspired men, or get out of it. Here is the Baptist and Reflector, for instance. It could think out some very good ideas of its own and express them in very creditable English if it only had room. But, my! Wouldn't the Baptist bosses sit down on it with a crash if it should happen some day to think a little thought all by my [sic] itself, without consulting the doctrinal standards? The basis of our union ought always to be as broad as the conditions of salvation. No man has any right to make his plea for union narrower than this. It is wrong to make anything a condition of fellowship which is not essential to salvation. We draw the line here. That which will damn a soul and separate us in the next world should divide us in this; nothing else should. 

   There are a few men among us who are trying very hard to "organize" the thing called "us as a people," so as to shut off all investigation and stop all discussion; but they are entirely too narrow in their ideas to fairly represent this reformation. They say that if something of this kind is not done very soon, "our plea" will burst into smithereens, "our organized mission work" will break all to flinders, and "we as a people" will go to smash on general principles; but I think not. The shortest route I know to such a crash is to organize us and undertake to compel us all to quit thinking and arguing and accept the conclusions and carry out the plans of "leading men and papers," without the liberty to conceive an idea or express an opinion of our own.
 
From: The New Testament Church: Editorials of F. D. Srygley which Appeared in the Gospel Advocate from 1889 to 1900, Gospel Advocate Company, 1955, pp. 193-195, a compiled series of his Gospel Advocate articles on the New Testament church posthumously published by his brother FB Srygley in 1910.




Lively:  Note that I highlighted a section above... which is what the whole message comes down to... that an individual thinks we should all just let everyone do whatever it is they please in the worship as such is not a condition of salvation... that is what we must do to become saved... that if we do whatever it is the Lord commands us to be saved...

hear
Believe
Repent
Confess
Be baptized..

That at this point... we do not have to remain faithful unto death...  that we can go and do whatever it is we please...  we can bring anything into the worship which is not outright expressed in scripture... anything where there is no command which specifically states.. thou shalt not... and even that they ignore... for when the word of God states, thou shalt not add unto his word... we do it anyway... and ignore what he plainly states... whatever we do in word or deed, do in the name of or authority of Jesus Christ... and then we ignore that authority... and go beyond his authority and do whatever it is which pleases us...


I am wondering if some would state that besides the five things listed above... that forbidding to marry or commanding to abstain from meats would be something which is a fellowship issue?  They certainly are not issues where it comes to one becoming a Christian, so we should all then be accepting of someone who teaches such is ok?  Hardly...  scripture tells us such is the doctrines of devils... and that such who teach that have departed from the faith... and there is a denominational faith out there which openly teaches these two things... of coarse to respect the rules here as much as I possibly can... I will not be naming it as it may make someone feel that I have then openly stated they are following doctrines of devils... heaven forbid anyone come to realize such a truth where it is true...  not that I think any here are of that denomination... probably not... but you can clearly read what God says about such in 1Tim 4:1-3...  but the point here is, these two things are not a matter of one becoming saved... it has to do with some who are departing from the faith who teach this... that is, to depart from the faith, you first have  had to be in the faith...  you can not depart from something you have not been in...  I could never depart from being a cub scout if I had never been a cub scout... so the idea of whatever we do after we become saved, is not a matter of salvation or fellowship is a flat out lie...  good for us we are only discussing the Editorials of F. D. Srygley....  I wonder if he ever read whosoever does not abide in the doctrines of Christ hath not God...  because it sounds like he was willing to sacrifice the truth of God for fellowship at any cost...  where as God clearly states... mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned... that is from his word... and avoid them, and not have any fellowship with them...


Rom 16:17  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Rom 16:18  For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.


2Co 6:14  Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
2Co 6:15  And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
2Co 6:16  And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2Co 6:17  Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
2Co 6:18  And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.


Eph 5:8  For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
Eph 5:9  (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
Eph 5:10  Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
Eph 5:11  And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
Eph 5:12  For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
Eph 5:13  But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.


1Ti 4:1  Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2  Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3  Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4  For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5  For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.


1Ti 6:3  If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
1Ti 6:4  He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
1Ti 6:5  Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.


2Ti 3:1  This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2Ti 3:2  For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
2Ti 3:3  Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
2Ti 3:4  Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
2Ti 3:5  Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.




Remember now... Nadab and Abihu were condemned and burned up for offering up strange fire which God had not commanded them...


Offline memmy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11973
  • Manna: 322
  • Gender: Female
  • Blessings
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #2 on: Sat Apr 11, 2009 - 19:13:35 »
You can't even see with your own eyes that you add to God's word by what you say is unauthorized. It IS NOT in there. Therefore you ADD.

Very, very amazing.

marc

  • Guest
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #3 on: Sat Apr 11, 2009 - 19:45:57 »
It would be interesting if Lively considered the context of the verses he quoted and saw what was truly important.  It would be pretty amazing if he did that, actually.

He doesn't seem to realize that he's stumbled onto a group of people who have been where he is, who know all the arguments before he makes them, and who have realized that they all miss the point.

He doesn't realize that he's preaching a flat Earth doctrine to people who have been to the Moon.

Offline memmy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11973
  • Manna: 322
  • Gender: Female
  • Blessings
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #4 on: Sat Apr 11, 2009 - 20:08:03 »
Wow Marc. That was profound.  ::amen!::

Offline memmy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11973
  • Manna: 322
  • Gender: Female
  • Blessings
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #5 on: Sat Apr 11, 2009 - 20:17:23 »
By the way Lee, your studies never cease to amaze me. Thank you always for sharing!

Offline Livelysword

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1066
  • Manna: 16
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #6 on: Sat Apr 11, 2009 - 21:33:26 »
You can't even see with your own eyes that you add to God's word by what you say is unauthorized. It IS NOT in there. Therefore you ADD.

Very, very amazing.


Lively:  There is nothing here to discuss...  scripture still states "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."

Deu 12:32  What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

When one states we are to play instruments of music in the worship of God.. he has add thereto to the commandments of God...  God says... thou shalt not...




blituri

  • Guest
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #7 on: Sat Apr 11, 2009 - 21:38:01 »
Yes, I am always amazed at how Lee and others can read something and give it a twist of the wrist to make it support the instrumental sectarians.

Lee's misunderstood quote: But, my! Wouldn't the Baptist bosses sit down on it with a crash if it should happen some day to think a little thought all by my [sic] itself, without consulting the doctrinal standards? The basis of our union ought always to be as broad as the conditions of salvation.

Simple reading grasps that he would not unite with the Baptist bosses!

Lee's misunderstood quote: No man has any right to make his plea for union narrower than this. It is wrong to make anything a condition of fellowship which is not essential to salvation. We draw the line here. That which will damn a soul and separate us in the next world should divide us in this; nothing else should.

The Disciples said that instruments were NOT worship and if they were it would be sinful.
The instrumental churches MADE instruments not necessary to salvation a CONDITION OF FELLOWSHIP.

You would have to repudiate Srygley and the TRUE record to agree with Lee.

What Lee can't grasp is that those who IMPOSED instruments VIOLATED Srygleys contition.

What Lee cannot face--and that is tragic--is that individual congregations were in happy fellowship and even the Disciples were almost universally opposed to instruments: some that it violated the clear teachingsof the Bible and some on the fact that it would NOT be expedient because it would sow discord among that part of the congregations who knew the Bible and history.

Those who IMPOSE something "not required" to carry on the works of that group are by definition the SECTARIANS.  They know beforehand that the instrument would make instruments "a condition of fellowship which is not essential to salvation."  J.W.McGarvey and others driven out when instruments were driven in and common sense understands that when you strike up the band you MAKE worshipping with instrumental music a CONDITION of fellowship.  And the "get over it or get out" was and is a common "spirit."

Lee and a few friends make those who BLED the guilty party and insist that the SHOOTER has the superior standing.  An early example: "The man is guilty for his own death because he didn't protect himself from the spear." 

The instrumental sect DID THAT.  Based on historical facts he was saying that making instruments a condition of fellowship was something that would damn a soul and separate us in the next world. It would be borderline borderline to suggest that Srygly BLAMED those who did NOT worship with and imposed condition they knew to be sin--if they were Bible and history literate.

    1. The Christian Baptist (1823-30) was edited by Alexander Campbell with emphasis on "A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things." Campbell's Millennial Harbinger (1830-70) continued this emphasis but moderated to promote the missionary society and similar organizations unauthorized by the ancient order of things.

    2. The Gospel Advocate (1855-61, 1865-present) has been edited by Tolbert Fanning, William Lipscomb, David Lipscomb, E.G. Sewell, F.D. Srygley, J.C. McQuiddy, A.B. Lipscomb, H. Leo Boles, James A. Allen, Foy E. Wallace, Jr., John T. Hinds, B.C. Goodpasture, J. Roy Vaughn, Ira North and Guy N. Woods jointly, and F. Furman Kearley. In the early years, the Gospel Advocate was a stalwart in defending the Bible pattern against the onslaught of instrumental music and missionary societies.

F.B. Srygley said of "the second generation of writers for the Advocate," "Soft preaching was not characteristic of the preaching of any of them" (Gospel Advocate, 2 Mar. 1939, p. 193)..


I think the INTENTION was to say that Srygley WOULD NOT let instruments divide a church.

I worry a lot about people who are so adamant about the "guilty party" know fully well that the tiny number of those who have been subverted to DIVIDE by adding instruments WOULD NOT let any competent Bible student just read the Bible text passages.

As far as I can read ALL of those who have DIVIDED their congregation subscribe to the "scholarly view" that the Church of Christ should merge the Old Testament rituals with the New Testament PASSIONATE worship. But, Jesus warned us that doctors of the law take away the key to knowledge: these were and are Scribes and Pharisees Jesus called hypocrites by pointing to preaching their own thoughts, singing and playing instruments.

Here is one of the latest REVISIONING the church.  It defines the Church in the Wilderness and the Sacrificial System as abandonment to worship the starry host as Stephen warned us at his peril:

http://www.piney.com/Hicks.Gathered.html

Offline Livelysword

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1066
  • Manna: 16
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #8 on: Sat Apr 11, 2009 - 21:48:42 »
It would be interesting if Lively considered the context of the verses he quoted and saw what was truly important.  It would be pretty amazing if he did that, actually.

He doesn't seem to realize that he's stumbled onto a group of people who have been where he is, who know all the arguments before he makes them, and who have realized that they all miss the point.

He doesn't realize that he's preaching a flat Earth doctrine to people who have been to the Moon.


Lively:  many people know the arguments... and to know the arguments does not make what people teach contrary to the word of God valid..  Yet I do not see one verse which teaches the use of instruments of music in the NT church worship of God..  now, you can argue all you want, seeing you know arguments... but I really want to see the verses which teach it... can you bring the verses which teach God has commanded it for the NT church worship...  if not, all your argument is based upon your own beliefs and not the bible...  Here is the real problem... you did not know others on in this world understood the truth of God and knew that God has not authorized the use of IM in the NT church worship... that others have studied this out as well, and actually go by what the word of God teaches and know God has not authorized such for the NT church worship...  So, now those of you who have taught that instruments of music are fine to play in the NT church worship are being found out that you have taught falsely, and have not stuck to the word of God, but have gone beyond the word of God and added to the worship that which God has not commanded...  you are found out and got no way out of if... and all you can do is sit here and toss accusations back and forth... but never ever bring a verse which teaches its use in the NT church worship...  what I would be interesting in hearing is just exactly which sect of the church of Christ you people here who are advocating the use in instruments of music in the NT church worship belong to...  which sect?

HRoberson

  • Guest
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #9 on: Sat Apr 11, 2009 - 21:54:34 »
It would be interesting if Lively considered the context of the verses he quoted and saw what was truly important.  It would be pretty amazing if he did that, actually.

He doesn't seem to realize that he's stumbled onto a group of people who have been where he is, who know all the arguments before he makes them, and who have realized that they all miss the point.

He doesn't realize that he's preaching a flat Earth doctrine to people who have been to the Moon.


Lively:  many people know the arguments... and to know the arguments does not make what people teach contrary to the word of God valid..  Yet I do not see one verse which teaches the use of instruments of music in the NT church worship of God..  now, you can argue all you want, seeing you know arguments... but I really want to see the verses which teach it... can you bring the verses which teach God has commanded it for the NT church worship...  if not, all your argument is based upon your own beliefs and not the bible...  Here is the real problem... you did not know others on in this world understood the truth of God and knew that God has not authorized the use of IM in the NT church worship... that others have studied this out as well, and actually go by what the word of God teaches and know God has not authorized such for the NT church worship...  So, now those of you who have taught that instruments of music are fine to play in the NT church worship are being found out that you have taught falsely, and have not stuck to the word of God, but have gone beyond the word of God and added to the worship that which God has not commanded...  you are found out and got no way out of if... and all you can do is sit here and toss accusations back and forth... but never ever bring a verse which teaches its use in the NT church worship...  what I would be interesting in hearing is just exactly which sect of the church of Christ you people here who are advocating the use in instruments of music in the NT church worship belong to...  which sect?

I'm not in a sect; you might be though.

Offline Livelysword

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1066
  • Manna: 16
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #10 on: Sat Apr 11, 2009 - 22:25:54 »
Yes, I am always amazed at how Lee and others can read something and give it a twist of the wrist to make it support the instrumental sectarians.

Lee's misunderstood quote: But, my! Wouldn't the Baptist bosses sit down on it with a crash if it should happen some day to think a little thought all by my [sic] itself, without consulting the doctrinal standards? The basis of our union ought always to be as broad as the conditions of salvation.

Simple reading grasps that he would not unite with the Baptist bosses!

Lee's misunderstood quote: No man has any right to make his plea for union narrower than this. It is wrong to make anything a condition of fellowship which is not essential to salvation. We draw the line here. That which will damn a soul and separate us in the next world should divide us in this; nothing else should.

The Disciples said that instruments were NOT worship and if they were it would be sinful.
The instrumental churches MADE instruments not necessary to salvation a CONDITION OF FELLOWSHIP.

You would have to repudiate Srygley and the TRUE record to agree with Lee.

What Lee can't grasp is that those who IMPOSED instruments VIOLATED Srygleys contition.

What Lee cannot face--and that is tragic--is that individual congregations were in happy fellowship and even the Disciples were almost universally opposed to instruments: some that it violated the clear teachingsof the Bible and some on the fact that it would NOT be expedient because it would sow discord among that part of the congregations who knew the Bible and history.

Those who IMPOSE something "not required" to carry on the works of that group are by definition the SECTARIANS.  They know beforehand that the instrument would make instruments "a condition of fellowship which is not essential to salvation."  J.W.McGarvey and others driven out when instruments were driven in and common sense understands that when you strike up the band you MAKE worshipping with instrumental music a CONDITION of fellowship.  And the "get over it or get out" was and is a common "spirit."

Lee and a few friends make those who BLED the guilty party and insist that the SHOOTER has the superior standing.  An early example: "The man is guilty for his own death because he didn't protect himself from the spear." 

The instrumental sect DID THAT.  Based on historical facts he was saying that making instruments a condition of fellowship was something that would damn a soul and separate us in the next world. It would be borderline borderline to suggest that Srygly BLAMED those who did NOT worship with and imposed condition they knew to be sin--if they were Bible and history literate.

    1. The Christian Baptist (1823-30) was edited by Alexander Campbell with emphasis on "A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things." Campbell's Millennial Harbinger (1830-70) continued this emphasis but moderated to promote the missionary society and similar organizations unauthorized by the ancient order of things.

    2. The Gospel Advocate (1855-61, 1865-present) has been edited by Tolbert Fanning, William Lipscomb, David Lipscomb, E.G. Sewell, F.D. Srygley, J.C. McQuiddy, A.B. Lipscomb, H. Leo Boles, James A. Allen, Foy E. Wallace, Jr., John T. Hinds, B.C. Goodpasture, J. Roy Vaughn, Ira North and Guy N. Woods jointly, and F. Furman Kearley. In the early years, the Gospel Advocate was a stalwart in defending the Bible pattern against the onslaught of instrumental music and missionary societies.

F.B. Srygley said of "the second generation of writers for the Advocate," "Soft preaching was not characteristic of the preaching of any of them" (Gospel Advocate, 2 Mar. 1939, p. 193)..


I think the INTENTION was to say that Srygley WOULD NOT let instruments divide a church.

I worry a lot about people who are so adamant about the "guilty party" know fully well that the tiny number of those who have been subverted to DIVIDE by adding instruments WOULD NOT let any competent Bible student just read the Bible text passages.

As far as I can read ALL of those who have DIVIDED their congregation subscribe to the "scholarly view" that the Church of Christ should merge the Old Testament rituals with the New Testament PASSIONATE worship. But, Jesus warned us that doctors of the law take away the key to knowledge: these were and are Scribes and Pharisees Jesus called hypocrites by pointing to preaching their own thoughts, singing and playing instruments.

Here is one of the latest REVISIONING the church.  It defines the Church in the Wilderness and the Sacrificial System as abandonment to worship the starry host as Stephen warned us at his peril:

http://www.piney.com/Hicks.Gathered.html



Lively:  The reason they want to subscribe to the "scholarly view" that the church of Christ should merge the Old Testament rituals with the New Testament worship is so they can impose the use of instruments of music into the NT church worship via the OT command to use them... because there is no New Testament scripture which authorizes it... 

Thanks for the post...

blituri

  • Guest
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #11 on: Sun Apr 12, 2009 - 14:57:56 »
We know that Srygley knew that one tolerates diversity but the Baptist dogma and instrumental music he did not tolerate.  He believed that doctrine was what was recorded in Scripture and that Dogam which comes out of the "silence" of people's own imagination was both wrong and divisive.

http://www.therestorationmovement.com/srygley,fd.htm

In November, 1889, he became one of the editors of the  Gospel Advocate  through the influence of Brother  J. C. McQuiddy. When he began his work of writing for the Advocate, he held to his views of organized mission work as expressed in the  Old Path Guide. He was asked to write in the  Advocate  against the missionary societies. He would not agree to do this, but did agree to be true to his convictions and follow where the Bible led him. He also agreed to make a thorough study of this question from the light of Scriptural teachings. He really entertained the hope that he would teach those who were opposed to societies the error of their way, but he soon found that there was no authority in the New Testament for such organization. He studied the question earnestly and prayerfully, and finally reached the conclusion that organized human societies, other than the local congregation, for the preaching of the gospel, were sinful and should be condemned. He had the courage of his conviction and began writing with emphasis about the New Testament church, together with its organization and mission. He studied the church from every angle as revealed in the New Testament. He wrote much about it, and no one of his day, and probably no one since his time, had a clearer conception of the New Testament church and its mission than did F. D. Srygley.

Because he refused fellowship with the Baptists based on their view of the Bible and organization, and would not fellowship instrumental music, when tested against the DOCTRINE of the New Testament he rejected the Missionary Society.

Because the view of the Campbells was that they the SECTS were divisive and wrong, and he believed that what  became the Church of Christ (Pre laws of preaching, giving and singing) were the only ones based on Scripture only, he also believed that ALL of the sects were wrong.

The Disciples practiced unity ONLY on their terms. The neo-Disciples preach unity but sow discord and have no interest in "unity" other than as away to destroy those who paid their bills. Therefore, there never was and never will be "unity" with people who radically twist Scripture as Hicks etal of LU and most of the "writing" misleaders are interested in trying to destroy the Words of Scripture by defining them as "fractured errors" whic WE are free to use in writing ourselves into the text: that is clearly stated in one of the latest visioning the assembly as a Jewish sacrificial system oozed into the New Testament dispensation.

All of these "church of Christ" writers are an embarassment to any Bible reader.

http://www.piney.com/Hicks.Gathered.html

Offline mandalee65

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2943
  • Manna: 128
  • Gender: Female
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #12 on: Sun Apr 12, 2009 - 17:06:43 »
Blituri, I disagree with you 100%, but thank you for making a post that I can understand!

HRoberson

  • Guest
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #13 on: Sun Apr 12, 2009 - 18:01:15 »
The Disciples practiced unity ONLY on their terms.

Yes. And Jesus upbraided them about it.

And then they upbraided each other.

Then they wrote a creed or two to figure out what "their terms" were.

Wouldn't it be cool if we would use God's terms rather than Man's?

Offline Livelysword

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1066
  • Manna: 16
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #14 on: Sun Apr 12, 2009 - 20:23:22 »
We know that Srygley knew that one tolerates diversity but the Baptist dogma and instrumental music he did not tolerate.  He believed that doctrine was what was recorded in Scripture and that Dogam which comes out of the "silence" of people's own imagination was both wrong and divisive.

http://www.therestorationmovement.com/srygley,fd.htm

In November, 1889, he became one of the editors of the  Gospel Advocate  through the influence of Brother  J. C. McQuiddy. When he began his work of writing for the Advocate, he held to his views of organized mission work as expressed in the  Old Path Guide. He was asked to write in the  Advocate  against the missionary societies. He would not agree to do this, but did agree to be true to his convictions and follow where the Bible led him. He also agreed to make a thorough study of this question from the light of Scriptural teachings. He really entertained the hope that he would teach those who were opposed to societies the error of their way, but he soon found that there was no authority in the New Testament for such organization. He studied the question earnestly and prayerfully, and finally reached the conclusion that organized human societies, other than the local congregation, for the preaching of the gospel, were sinful and should be condemned. He had the courage of his conviction and began writing with emphasis about the New Testament church, together with its organization and mission. He studied the church from every angle as revealed in the New Testament. He wrote much about it, and no one of his day, and probably no one since his time, had a clearer conception of the New Testament church and its mission than did F. D. Srygley.

Because he refused fellowship with the Baptists based on their view of the Bible and organization, and would not fellowship instrumental music, when tested against the DOCTRINE of the New Testament he rejected the Missionary Society.

Because the view of the Campbells was that they the SECTS were divisive and wrong, and he believed that what  became the Church of Christ (Pre laws of preaching, giving and singing) were the only ones based on Scripture only, he also believed that ALL of the sects were wrong.

The Disciples practiced unity ONLY on their terms. The neo-Disciples preach unity but sow discord and have no interest in "unity" other than as away to destroy those who paid their bills. Therefore, there never was and never will be "unity" with people who radically twist Scripture as Hicks etal of LU and most of the "writing" misleaders are interested in trying to destroy the Words of Scripture by defining them as "fractured errors" whic WE are free to use in writing ourselves into the text: that is clearly stated in one of the latest visioning the assembly as a Jewish sacrificial system oozed into the New Testament dispensation.

All of these "church of Christ" writers are an embarassment to any Bible reader.

http://www.piney.com/Hicks.Gathered.html



Lively:  While others I see are in disagreement.. I would be in agreement...

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #15 on: Tue Apr 14, 2009 - 14:18:06 »
Lively, Srygley was not advocating a post-modern "anything goes" attitude. He was simply making one of the key arguments driving the Stone-Campbell Reformation, namely that there are essential doctrines and non-essential doctrines in Scripture. Unity came through an agreement on those essential doctrines, with individual people and congregations free to disagree on the peripheral doctrines.

Srygley, who was considered a "sound" gospel preacher by the brotherhood his entire career, understood, as did Campbell, that true Scriptual unity came through an agreement based upon the gospel, nothing else. Christian denominations had been using doctrinal uniformity as a basis of unity for centuries with the result of only creating more division. Srygley understood that when the NT admonished people to hold to the same doctrine, it had those essential teachings related to Christ, the gospel, and salvation in mind-not doctrines such as IM, whether missionary societies were scriptural or not, whether ministers should be paid, located, or any of the other issues making the rounds in 1889.

Just ask yourself "What did Jesus die for?" Did Jesus die for acapella music? Did Jesus die for the non-use of missionary societies? For baptism? For doctrine in general?

It is sad that modern, 20th and 21st century Churches of Christ have forgotten, ignored, or swept under the rug the teachings of our fathers in the faith like Campbell and Srygley. Were either man here today I'm not sure they'd recognize the church they helped to build.

Pax.
« Last Edit: Tue Apr 14, 2009 - 17:14:23 by Lee Freeman »

Offline Livelysword

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1066
  • Manna: 16
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #16 on: Tue Apr 14, 2009 - 14:45:10 »
Lively, Srygley was not advocating a post-modern "anything goes" attitude. He was simply making one of the key arguments driving the Stone-Campbell Reformation, namely that there are essential doctrines and non-essential doctrines in Scripture. Unity came through an agreement on those essential doctrines, with individual people and congregations free to disagree on the peripheral doctrines.

Srygley, who was considered a "sound" gospel preacher by the brotherhood his entire career, understood, as did Campbell, that true Scriptual unity came through an agreement based upon the gospel, nothing else. Christian denominations had been using doctrinal uniformity as a basis of unity for centuries with the result of only creating more division. Srygley understood that when the NT admonished people to hold to the same doctrine, it had those essential teachings related to Christ, the gospel, and salvation in mind-not doctrines such as IM, whether missionary societies were scriptural or not, whether ministers should be paid, located, or any of the other issues making the rounds in 1889.

Just ask yourself "What did Jesus die for?" Did Jesus die for acapella music? Did Jesus die for the non-use of missionary societies? For baptism? For doctrine in general?

It is sad that modern, 20th and 21st century Churches of Christ have forgotten, ignored, or swept under the rug the teachings of our fathers in the faith like Campbell and Srygley. Were either man here today I'm not sure they'd recognize the church they held to build.

Pax.



Lively:  and I could not disagree more on some issues here... particularly the reason why Jesus Died... what he died for... he died for his beliefs... his teachings... his doctrines...  since the doctrine of Instrumental music is not his doctrine... he did not die for it..  since singing is his doctrine... he did die for that...  since the use of missionary societies is not something Jesus taught, it is not something he died for...  since he did teach the church was to do the work... and he established the church as his doctrine... he died for the church... and the work it was to do...  since the teachings of Christ teach one is to pay the preacher... the laborer is worthy of his reward... then Christ died that his preachers may be partakers of the milk of the flock...  he did not die so they would not be partakers of the milk of the flock...  since Jesus taught the doctrine of baptism and its purpose to be for the forgiveness of sins... then Jesus died for baptism, that we might have forgiveness of sins...   Jesus did die for doctrine in general... all the doctrines he taught, that is what he died for... that we might be partakers of the truth with him...  and if the two men you mentioned were here today... they certainly could have discussions on what they taught if such were perfectly right and true...  but over all I know Campbell did teach some very important things which did bring about a return to what the bible teaches... and to depart from the man made religions which do not hold to the truth of the gospel...

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #17 on: Tue Apr 14, 2009 - 17:37:30 »
Lively,  Jesus didn't die for anybody's doctrine. Jesus died to redeem sinners. Yes, doctrine is important, but doctrine itself doesn't save us. Doctrine points to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, which alone saves. Doctrine, in scripture, derives its meaning and authority from the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. There's a big difference between the gospel, or Jesus, and doctrines.

What did Jesus say? And if I be lifted up I will draw all men unto my doctrine?" No, he said "I will draw all men unto ME."

Bro. Charles Louis Loos  said it well:

Another common evil tendency is to glory in doctrines.  This very ready error is to be found boldly on the surface everywhere throughout the whole history of the Church. It is, indeed, one of the most common of the unfortunate aberrations of the human mind manifested in Christian history. Men very early, in the first years of the Church, began to grow in very devoted love with favorite doctrines, and mistook thus, altogether, the true object proposed in our religion, of our faith and our love, our trust, our joy, and glorying. It is substituting the means and the statement of the object, for the final object itself to be reached by these means. . . . We truly call it idolatry and apostacy; for men's hearts, by it, stray away from Him as the only true object of our devotion....How often do we see men rudely, and almost impiously, carry on a carnal warfare among men, not out of love to Christ and humanity, not glorying and rejoicing, like Paul, in a crucified Redeemer, but in a doctrine, having nothing but this doctrine and its triumphs in their eyes and hearts. These men only aim to convert men to their doctrines, and not to Christ. With them the favorite doctrine, and not Christ, is the first and the last, the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end...

Doctrines do not save us; we are saved by Christ. Doctrines do not cleanse us from our sins; it is the efficacious blood of Christ. We are not converted to doctrines, but to God. We do not believe in doctrines, but in Christ. We are not baptized into them, but into Christ. We do not hope in them, trust in them, glory in them, but in Christ Jesus the Lord.

He that makes a doctrine the object of and end of his glorying errs, whether the doctrine be true or false. But it is the testimony of all experience, and a logical result, that such glorying soon perverts and corrupts a true doctrine into a false one. We say, Give up not one jot or tittle of heaven's holy truth. Contend earnestly for it. Make ever a broad, impassable distinction between the truths of the Bible and human errors. But remember, all these divine lights are only designed to illuminate your pathway to Christ and his Cross; they are but the Divine forces to bring you to him. Reserve the worship and glorying of your redeemed, joyful soul for him alone, as the End of all. Rest not with the doctrine; bow not before it. Never stand still till you have arrived at the feet of Jesus on the Cross; and thence, by the power of the Cross, press forward to the eternal throne of Him who is the "King of kings and Lord of Lords. . . ."


I can't say this any better, save to say what Paul did, that he wanted to glory only in the cross of Christ.

Without the cross, the Lord's Supper is just a snack, and baptism is just getting wet.

The Stone-Campbell goal was to unite all sincere believers on the gospel. As Robert Richardson said:

It is true, indeed, that we earnestly plead for the adoption of the Bible alone, and that we concur with the whole Protestant world in the . . . saying . . . that "the Bible is the religion of Protestants." . . . The whole Bible is certainly to be believed; the Bible  alone is to be recieved as the standard and fountain of divine truth; but it is not to be forgotten that the Bible contains much more than Christianity, and much more even of Christianity itself than is necessary to the object now before us-Christian unity and cooperation.  To say that the Bible is our religion, is true, in the sense that the Bible contains our religion.- But Judaism is as much a religion of the Bible as Christianity. . . There needs no more fruitful source of error and confusion than the Bible alone, if every portion of it be equally binding upon the Christian, and equally important to Christianity. . . .

It was not proposed, in this reformation, to take the Bible alone in the general and indefinite sense of Protestantism. It was not to be regarded as a great creed, requiring commentaries and expositions; nor as a store-house of proof-texts to sustain any and every doctrine  which might be broached by men. It was to be taken as an instructor, a guide-book, a revealer of the secrets of heaven... And all men were to gather around it, and unite as learners, as disciples, to aid and assist each other in acquiring a knowledge of divine things. No one was to dogmatize; to theorize; to speculate; to intrude into things unseen; to introduce questions untaught. Nothing, in short, was to be regarded as a matter of faith or duty unless there could be produced for it, from the scriptures themselves, "A thus saith the Lord," either in express terms, or by approved precedent.

This, then, was not to adopt indefinitely the Bible as "our religion," but to look for our religion in the Bible. . . .

The very abundance of the religious information furnished by the Bible, the multiplicity of its details . . . seem to have led religious teachers to encumber the gospel with unnecessary aid, to complicate it with remote and refined deductions, and to conceal, at length, its beautiful simplicity beneath the appendages by which they sought to protect or to adorn it. Men seem to have lost sight of the obvious distinction which is to be made between the Bible and the Gospel. . . .

Yet it might be a very proper inquiry whether the conversion of the world might not be more rapidly accomplished by presenting, in the first instance, the gospel itself . . . for universal acceptance. It should never be forgotten that the Apostles and first preachers of the gospel had no Bibles, and not even a New Testament, to distribute; and that there was no such thing among the early Christians as a formal union upon the "Bible alone." Nay, rather, it was a union upon the Gospel alone . . .

That confession upon which the believing penitent may be admitted to the blessings which Christianity confers, should be the only test of orthodoxy, and the only rallying cry amongst the host of the redeemed. Now the gospel, as defined by Paul, consists of the following facts: "That Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures." . . .  Let the Bible be our spiritual library; but let the Gospel be our standard of orthodoxy. Let the Bible be our test of Christian character and perfection, but let the Christian confession be our formula of Christian adoption and of Christian union. In a word, let the Bible be to us every thing designed by its Author, but let "Christ crucified" be not only our peace with God, but our peace with one another.
(Robert Richardson, "Reformation No. IV," MH September, 1847)

Please consider what I've said. I used to think exactly the way you do; it seemed as plain as the nose on my face, but now I see it for the dangerous idolatry of worshipiong doctrines that it really was. If your eye leaves Jesus, and focuses upon any doctrine(s), no matter how true, you'll sink like a lead weight. I know because I did! Thank the Lord he showed me Christ and him crucified!


Pax.
« Last Edit: Tue Apr 14, 2009 - 22:32:07 by Lee Freeman »

Offline Livelysword

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1066
  • Manna: 16
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #18 on: Tue Apr 14, 2009 - 19:14:35 »
Lively,  Jesus didn't die for anybody's doctrine. Jesus died to redeem sinners. Yes, doctrine is important, but doctrine itself doesn't save us. Doctrine points to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, which alone saves. Doctrine, in scripture, derives its meaning and authority from the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. There's a big difference between the gospel, or Jesus, and doctrines.

What did Jesus say? And if I be lifted up I will draw all men unto my doctrine?" No, he said "I will draw all men unto ME."

Bro. Charles Louis Loos  said it well:

Another common evil tendency is to glory in doctrines.  This very ready error is to be found boldly on the surface everywhere throughout the whole history of the Church. It is, indeed, one of the most common of the unfortunate aberrations of the human mind manifested in Christian history. Men very early, in the first years of the Church, began to grow in very devoted love with favorite doctrines, and mistook thus, altogether, the true object proposed in our religion, of our faith and our love, our trust, our joy, and glorying. It is substituting the means and the statement of the object, for the final object itself to be reached by these means. . . . We truly call it idolatry and apostacy; for men's hearts, by it, stray away from Him as the only true object of our devotion....How often do we see men rudely, and almost impiously, carry on a carnal warfare among men, not out of love to Christ and humanity, not glorying and rejoicing, like Paul, in a crucified Redeemer, but in a doctrine, having nothing but this doctrine and its triumphs in their eyes and hearts. These men only aim to convert men to their doctrines, and not to Christ. With them the favorite doctrine, and not Christ, is the first and the last, the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end...

Doctrines do not save us; we are saved by Christ. Doctrines do not cleanse us from our sins; it is the efficacious blood of Christ. We are not converted to doctrines, but to God. We do not believe in doctrines, but in Christ. We are not baptized into them, but into Christ. We do not hope in them, trust in them, glory in them, but in Christ Jesus the Lord.

He that makes a doctrine the object of and end of his glorying errs, whether the doctrine be true or false. But it is the testimony of all experience, and a logical result, that such glorying soon perverts and corrupts a true doctrine into a false one. We say, Give up not one jot or tittle of heaven's holy truth. Contend earnestly for it. Make ever a broad, impassable distinction between the truths of the Bible and human errors. But remember, all these divine lights are only designed to illuminate your pathway to Christ and his Cross; they are but the Divine forces to bring you to him. Reserve the worship and glorying of your redeemed, joyful soul for him alone, as the End of all. Rest not with the doctrine; bow not before it. Never stand still till you have arrived at the feet of Jesus on the Cross; and thence, by the power of the Cross, press forward to the eternal throne of Him who is the "King of kings and Lord of Lords. . . ."


I can't say this any better, save to say what Paul did, that he wanted to glory only in the cross of Christ.

Without the cross, the Lord's Supper is just a snack, and baptism is just getting wet.

The Stone-Campbell goal was to unite all sincere believers on the gospel. As Robert Richardson said:

It is true, indeed, that we earnestly plead for the adoption of the Bible alone, and that we concur with the whole Protestant world in the . . . saying . . . that "the Bible is the religion of Protestants." . . . The whole Bible is certainly to be believed; the Bible  alone is to be recieved as the standard and fountain of divine truth; but it is not to be forgotten that the Bible contains much more than Christianity, and much more even of Christianity itself than is necessary to the object now before us-Christian unity and cooperation.  To say that the Bible is our religion, is true, in the sense that the Bible contains our religion.- But Judaism is as much a religion of the Bible as Christianity. . . There needs no more fruitful source of error and confusion than the Bible alone, if every portion of it be equally binding upon the Christian, and equally important to Christianity. . . .

It was not proposed, in this reformation, to take the Bible alone in the general and indefinite sense of Protestantism. It was not to be regarded as a great creed, requiring commentaries and expositions; nor as a store-house of proof-texts to sustain any and every doctrine  which might be broached by men. It was to be taken as an instructor, a guide-book, a revealer of the secrets of heaven... And all men were to gather around it, and unite as learners, as disciples, to aid and assist each other in acquiring a knowledge of divine things. No one was to dogmatize; to theorize; to speculate; to intrude into things unseen; to introduce questions untaught. Nothing, in short, was to be regarded as a matter of faith or duty unless there could be produced for it, from the scriptures themselves, "A thus saith the Lord," either in express terms, or by approved precedent.

This, then, was not to adopt indefinitely the Bible as "our religion," but to look for our religion in the Bible. . . .

The very abundance of the religious information furnished by the Bible, the multiplicity of its details . . . seem to have led religious teachers to encumber the gospel with unnecessary aid, to complicate it with remote and refined deductions, and to conceal, at length, its beautiful simplicity beneath the appendages by which they sought to protect or to adorn it. Men seem to have lost sight of the obvious distinction which is to be made between the Bible and the Gospel. . . .

Yet it might be a very proper inquiry whether the conversion of the world might not be more rapidly accomplished by presenting, in the first instance, the gospel itself . . . for universal acceptance. It should never be forgotten that the Apostles and first preachers of the gospel had no Bibles, and not even a New Testament, to distribute; and that there was no such thing among the early Christians as a formal union upon the "Bible alone." Nay, rather, it was a union upon the Gospel alone . . .

That confession upon which the believing penitent may be admitted to the blessings which Christianity confers, should be the only test of orthodoxy, and the only rallying cry amongst the host of the redeemed. Now the gospel, as defined by Paul, consists of the following facts: "That Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures." . . .  Let the Bible be our spiritual library; but let the Gospel be our standard of orthodoxy. Let the Bible be our test of Christian character and perfection, but let the Christian confession be our formula of Christian adoption and of Christian union. In a word, let the Bible be to us every thing designed by its Author, but let "Christ crucified" be not only our peace with God, but our peace with one another.
(Robert Richardson, "Reformation No. IV," MH September, 1847)

Please consider what I've said. I used to think exactly the way you do; it seemed as plain as the nose on my face, but now I see it for the dangerous idolatry of worshipiong doctrines that it really was. If your eye leaves Jesus, and focuses upon any doctrine(s), no matter how true, you'll sink like a lead weight. I know because I did! That the Lord he showed me Christ and him crucified!


Pax.



Lively:  Lee... I started to read... first paragraph is where I stopped... why?  Because its wrong right from the start...  you are wrong on the first paragraph...  You need to do a study on bible doctrines and the doctrines of Jesus Christ and their importance...  Jesus died because of his teachings... they were being rejected....  the teachings or doctrines which he taught and which he died for are the doctrines which bring us salvation in Christ... and anyone who does not abide in the doctrines of Jesus Christ hath not God...  now, how much more important can doctrine be to the death of Christ?  And why should I even go down the rest of the post and look over it and post any corrections which need to be posted there if you yourself are not even willing to change and fix what you have wrong in the first paragraph...??  Why should I waste my time if you have no desire to change obvious errors in your beliefs?  Study out some of the examples below... carefully... look them over and think about what it is they say...



Mar 11:18  And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.


Joh 7:14  Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught.
Joh 7:15  And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?
Joh 7:16  Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
Joh 7:17  If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
Joh 7:18  He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.
Joh 7:19  Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?


Rom 16:17  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Rom 16:18  For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.


1Ti 1:9  Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Ti 1:10  For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
1Ti 1:11  According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.


1Ti 4:16  Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.


1Ti 6:1  Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.


1Ti 6:3  If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
1Ti 6:4  He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
1Ti 6:5  Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.


2Ti 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


2Ti 4:2  Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
2Ti 4:3  For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;


Tit 2:6  Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded.
Tit 2:7  In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,
Tit 2:8  Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.
Tit 2:9  Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;
Tit 2:10  Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.


Heb 6:1  Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
Heb 6:2  Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
Heb 6:3  And this will we do, if God permit.


2Jn 1:9  Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
2Jn 1:10  If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
2Jn 1:11  For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.



Now note some things in doctrine as well which are wrong doctrine and how the Lord feels about them as well... for all doctrine is not the doctrine of the Lord... nor is he pleased with any doctrine which is not his...



Rev 2:14  But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
Rev 2:15  So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.


Rev 2:24  But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.




Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #19 on: Tue Apr 14, 2009 - 23:18:37 »
Lively, the doctrine that saves us is Jesus Christ and him crucified. When scripture admonishes us to observe the right doctrine, it is THIS doctrine that it has in mind. It was THIS doctrine that the Docetists or possibly a group of proto-Gnoistics challened in II John. If you read that whole text without ripping verses out of context, you will see that the false doctrine John condemns is this Gnostic or Docetic doctrine that insisted that Jesus Christ had not been physically incarnated, but was a spirit-being and not a true human being. Jesus and his death, burial and resurrection is what the Bible is all about:

Acts 2:36-37:

"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

Baptism Lord and Christ? Doctrine Lord and Christ? When the people heard baptism and doctrine proclaimed as Lord and Christ they asked "What must we do?"

Acts 8:35-36:

Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"


Notice that the baptism came after Philip had preached Jesus. He didn't preach baptism and then add Jesus' death, burial and resurrection as an afterthought.


I Corinthians 2:3:

When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

Galatians 3:1-4:

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?

II Timothy 2:8:

Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal.

Paul suffered to the point of being chained, for what? Baptism? Weekly communion? Acapella music? Paul was stoned by the Jews for what? Preaching weekly communion? History tells us that Paul was martyred in Rome. Why did Paul (and Peter and the other early Christian martyrs) suffer death? Did the Romans throw them into the Circus Maximus to fight lions and gladiators because they preached a five-step plan culminating in baptism by immersion? But Jesus. Why was Jesus crucified and resurrected? Do you really believe that Jesus died to give us a better form of law and doctrine? Paul answers that question in Galatians 4:4-5:

But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.

Galatians 3:21-22:

Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

Paul emphatically says that no law, whether the Law of Moses or the Church of Christ's set of NT commandments, could impart life. Only faith in Jesus can impart life.

Colossians 1:13-14:

For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Because if doctrine, any doctrine, could impart life, then Jesus' death was a cruel cosmic joke.

I know all the old CoC arguments because I cut my teeth on them. Jesus didn't die merely to obtain the authority to command us to obey certain doctrines in order to be saved. Paul is clear that NO law or doctrine ever saved anyone, or could save anyone.

You can't see this now, because I couldn't either at first. But God was slowly working on me showing me how I had traded his gospel of grace for a false gospel of law that kept me a prisoner, still in my sins, desperately trying to obey perfectly, yet knowing I never could, and being mortally afraid of God. For the first twenty or so years of my life I was a Christian mainly because I was afraid of God. The God I served was an angry God who arbitrarily commanded precise obedience to specific commands on pain of eternal hellfire. That was literally my God for the first twenty years or so of my life. If I can spare anyone that kind of fear, I'd like to do it. I had no idea Romans 8:1-ff was even in the Bible!

You might like to read that passage in the NIV, NAS, NRSV, or even the NKJV. And the ones I posted above.

You might also log onto Hans Rollmann's Restoration Movement website and read Alexander Campell's The Christian System. Campbell says everything I've said here about the cross being the great central theme of the Bible (actually that's a phrase of his).

So yes doctrine is important, but Jesus didn't die to give us doctrine. Doctrine can't save us. We obey God's doctrine BECAUSE he has saved us by the death and resurrection of his Son.

Pax.




« Last Edit: Wed Apr 15, 2009 - 08:43:17 by Lee Freeman »

Offline Livelysword

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1066
  • Manna: 16
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #20 on: Wed Apr 15, 2009 - 02:54:14 »
Lively, the doctrine that saves us is Jesus Christ and him crucified. When scripture admonishes us to observe the right doctrine, it is THIS doctrine that it has in mind. It was THIS doctrine that the Docetists or possibly a group of proto-Gnoistics challened in II John. If you read that whole text without ripping verses out of context, you will see that the false doctrine John condemns is this Gnostic or Docetic doctrine that insisted that Jesus Christ had not been physically incarnated, but was a spirit-being and not a true human being. Jesus and his death, burial and resurrection is what the Bible is all about:

Acts 2:36-37:

"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

Baptism Lord and Christ? Doctrine Lord and Christ? When the people heard baptism and doctrine proclaimed as Lord and Christ they asked "What must we do?"

Acts 8:35-36:

Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"


Notice that the baptism came after Philip had preached Jesus. He didn't preach baptism and then add Jesus' death, burial and resurrection as an afterthought.


I Corinthians 2:3:

When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

Galatians 3:1-4:

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?

II Timothy 2:8:

Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal.

Paul suffered to the point of being chained, for what? Baptism? Weekly communion? Acapella music? Paul was stoned by the Jews for what? Preaching weekly communion? History tells us that Paul was martyred in Rome. Why did Paul (and Peter and the other early Christian martyrs) suffer death? Did the Romans throw them into the Circus Maximus to fight lions and gladiators because they preached a five-step plan culminating in baptism by immersion? But Jesus. Why was Jesus crucified and resurrected? Do you really believe that Jesus died to give us a better form of law and doctrine? Paul answers that question in Galatians 4:4-5:

But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.

Galatians 3:21-22:

Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

Paul emphatically says that no law, whether the Law of Moses or the Church of Christ's set of NT commandments, could impart life. Only faith in Jesus can impart life.

Colossians 1:13-14:

For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Because if doctrine, any doctrine, could impart life, then Jesus' death was a cruel cosmic joke.

I know all the old CoC arguments because I cut my teeth on them. Jesus didn't die merely to obtain the authority to command us to obey certain doctrines in order to be saved. Paul is clear that NO law or doctrine ever saved anyone, or could save anyone.

You can't see this now, because I couldn't either at first. But God was slowly working on me showing me how I had traded his gospel of grace for a false gospel of law that kept me a prisoner, still in my sins, desperately trying to obey perfectly, yet knowing I never could, and being mortally afraid of God. For the first twenty or so years of my life I was a Christian mainly because I was afraid of God. The God I served was an angry God who arbitrarily commanded precise obedience to specific commands on pain of eternal hellfire. That was literally my God for the first twenty years or so of my life. If I can spare anyone that kind of fear, I'd like to do it. I had no idea Romans 8:1-ff was even in the Bible!

You might like to read that passage in the NIV, NAS, NRSV, or even the NKJV. And the ones I posted above.

You might also log onto Hans Rollmann's Restoration Movement website and read Alexander Campell's The Christian System. Campbell says everything I've said here about the cross being the great central theme of the Bible (actually that's a phrase of his).

So yes doctrine is important, but Jesus didn't die to give us doctrine. Doctrine can't save us. We obey God's doctrine BECAUSE he has saved us by the death and resurrection of his Son.

Pax.







Lively:  Believe it or not... what you are writing above is about doctrine... the death, burial, and resurrection is doctrine...  preaching Christ and him crucified is doctrine... its a particular doctrine being taught...  them foolish Galatians were being taught false doctrine from the Judizers... Paul teaches them of the true doctrine, and that based upon how they received the Spirit... by the hearing of faith, or by the works of the law?  The true doctrine is, by the hearing of faith, not by keeping the law....  translating us out of darkness and into his kingdom is a doctrinal teaching...  having redemption even the forgiveness of sins through Christ is a doctrine... its a teaching whereby one gets his sins forgiven...  deal strictly with the first paragraph you had posted...

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #21 on: Wed Apr 15, 2009 - 09:03:50 »
Lively, had you bothered to read all of my post before my last one, you would've seem where I admitted that the death, burial and resurrection is a doctrine. However its the CHIEF doctrine, the cornerstone of the faith as Peter puts it, from which all other doctrine receives its authority and purpose. As a kid growing up in the 70s at a very "sound," conservative Church of Christ, what I was taught, or came away with if it wasn't taught in so many words, was that the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus was just one doctrine among many doctrines. But isn't just one doctrine among many doctrines-its the hub of the wheel! Its the one doctrine without which all of the other doctrines are meaningless. Imagine an architect saying to a client that the foundation of his proposed building wasn't really any more important than the roof, or the walls, that the carpeting inside was actually just as important as the foundation. Should the client allow that architect to design his building? Or what if the contractor said that the material used in the foundation really wasn't any more important than what kind of tile was used in the restrooms. Would anyone in their right mind hire such a contractor? Well, its the same with the gospel. The gospel is "God's power to save," but not if we emasculate or adulterate it by removing Jesus and his cross from the center or try to sneak law in by the back door and tack commandments onto the gospel. Jesus did not die so that his doctrine could save us and give us life, because no doctrine, not even Christ's, could do that. Paul was emphatic about that to the Galatians, and though he specifically used the Law of Moses as his example because they were trying to make everyone become Jews before they became Christians, Paul's point was that no system of law can ever save anyone. Jesus the great NT lawgiver isn't any better for us than Moses the original OT lawgiver. If any kind of law or doctrine could save us, Jesus' death was really a sick, demented joke by a cruel God. Only Jesus atoning sacrifice could save us. If Jesus is just another lawgiver, then according to Paul we're all still screwed big time because we're all still sinners.

So, yes, the gospel is doctrine, However its also more than just a doctrine. Salvation involves putting my personal faith and trust in Christ and his sacrifice to save me.

Pax.

Offline memmy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11973
  • Manna: 322
  • Gender: Female
  • Blessings
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #22 on: Wed Apr 15, 2009 - 13:03:42 »
 ::amen!:: Lee!!

HRoberson

  • Guest
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #23 on: Wed Apr 15, 2009 - 22:42:30 »
The Gospel isn't doctrine if doctrine defines the Gospel.

Doctrine comes from the Gospel, not the other way around.

In a real sense, we don't believe Jesus' message, we don't believe the things He did.

We believe Jesus. Jesus is the embodiment of the Gospel. The Gospel describes Jesus, it does not define Him.

Our job is to follow Him, first and foremost.

The rest of our poor understanding and ego issues will figure themselves out just fine if we follow Him.

Offline Arkstfan

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
  • Manna: 93
  • Moderator
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #24 on: Wed Apr 22, 2009 - 08:23:30 »
Wow. Jesus died for acapella.

Funny how Jesus was the fulfillment of the Mosaic covenant.

Regular sacrifice of animals replaced with his blood to atone for sins.

Regular ritual washing replaced with one washing.

The festivals pointed to his coming work.

When followers of that covenant became followers of his covenant the question arose about what to keep and what to discard. The Jewish believer who abstained from the unclean foods, was circumcised, kept the holy days, and worshiped with instruments were told:
Eat what you want, don't condemn those who don't do the same, don't try to force them to agree.
Circumcision, proceed as you like, don't condemn those who do differently, don't try to force it upon others.
Holy Days, do as you choose don't condemn those who don't observe them with you and don't demand they join you.

Instruments nothing is said. They all gave it up without creating a stir or it just wasn't a big deal?

While many a church of Christ preacher proclaims the Synagogue didn't have instruments, reading Jewish history fails to support that, especially the further you were from the Temple.

If Christ died for singing then why do abandon the singing of the time?

This presented little that to modern ears would appear worthy the name of melody, being, like the Greek melodies which have been deciphered, entirely of the character of a cantillation; that is, a recitation dependent on the rhythm and sequence of the words of the text instead of on the notes of the tune, and influenced by the syntactical structure of the sentence instead of by the metrical form of the musical phrase. Nor would the style of singing, nasal, shrill, and alternately full of intricate graces and of sudden pressures on emphatic notes, altogether commend itself to Western ears as graceful or harmonious.

If Jesus died for singing then in our arrogance why do we reject the singing he died for?

Offline Denise

  • Follower of Christ, not man/woman.
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 70
  • Manna: 5
  • Gender: Female
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #25 on: Sat Apr 13, 2013 - 16:08:49 »
I can't wait to read more of this guy Srygley!  I don't remember ever reading anything (accept what is in the bible) that has had such a positive effect on me then this.  This is exactly what I believe would bring true unity (which we already have in the Holy Spirit but some don't get that but need to understand and practice it).


It is wrong to make anything a condition of fellowship which is not essential to salvation. We draw the line here. That which will damn a soul and separate us in the next world should divide us in this; nothing else should.

   
From: The New Testament Church: Editorials of F. D. Srygley which Appeared in the Gospel Advocate from 1889 to 1900, Gospel Advocate Company, 1955, pp. 193-195, a compiled series of his Gospel Advocate articles on the New Testament church posthumously published by his brother FB Srygley in 1910.
« Last Edit: Sat Apr 13, 2013 - 16:12:34 by Denise »

Offline e.r.m.

  • Church of Christ
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6825
  • Manna: 74
  • Gender: Male
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #26 on: Sun Apr 14, 2013 - 12:50:53 »
FD Srygley (1856-1900) of Rock Creek, in Franklin County, AL, was a preacher in the Christian Church/Church of Christ  Srygley was a former student of TB Larimore's at his Mars Hill Academy for Males and Females, as well as Larimore’s close friend and biographer. In 1889 David Lipscomb hired Srygley as front page editor of the Gospel Advocate. Nowadays Sryley’s theology would be considered "progressive"; for one thing, he supported the American Christian Missionary Society (which Lipscomb opposed); for another he believed there were saved Christians among all the denominations (a possibility which Lipscomb allowed for). The fact that Lipscomb hired Srygley despite disagreeing with him on certain issues says a lot. The following is one of his editorials from 1889 on whether total agreement on every particular of the faith was necessary in order to produce unity:

                                     
                                      We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves.
             
 
   The Baptist and Reflector refers to the differences and discussions among "us as a people," and suggests that we ought to agree among ourselves and quit arguing with each other before we push "our plea" for the union of all Christians on the Bible much further. The brother errs, not knowing the Scriptures. Because we differ in opinions and argue questions among ourselves, it does not follow that we are not united as Christians on the Bible. We have never proposed or desired to unite Christians in any institution that is too narrow to allow them to differ in opinion or argue with each other. We are in favor of giving everybody room to think and liberty to speak for himself.  For myself, I am opposed to any institution that allows no one but the bosses or grand moguls to entertain an idea or express an opinion. For the life of me, I can't see that I am under any more obligation to agree with Alexander Campbell than he to agree with me. I would never unite with him or with anybody else on the Bible or any other condition than that I am as free as he to study the Bible. This is the only kind of union we have ever proposed, and it is the only kind that is practicable or right among men. Whenever it comes to human organizations in which no one but the framers of doctrinal standards are allowed to do any thinking, I beg to be excused. My thinking apparatus is not very large, I admit, but I claim all the room the Bible allows me in which to operate it. The Reflector evidently thinks that because every man, with us, is free to think for himself and to differ from and argue with everybody else, therefore we are not united. That is an error. We are united, and the beauty and strength of the union is to be found largely in the fact that it is a union in Christ wherein every one is allowed to study the Bible and think for himself, without being amenable to ecclesiastic authorities or doctrinal standards of human make. The Reflector seems to have the old, bigoted idea that if a man should happen to differ from me and undertake to argue a question with me, he must get out of my church and start a little concern of his own. That has been the trouble with religious bigots all along the ages. It takes just such bigotry as that to build up denominations and keep Christians apart. "We as a people," are a rather contentious set, I admit, but we have not yet given in to that idea. It is just at this point I file my objection to the Baptist Church. One must accept its doctrinal standards, written by uninspired men, or get out of it. Here is the Baptist and Reflector, for instance. It could think out some very good ideas of its own and express them in very creditable English if it only had room. But, my! Wouldn't the Baptist bosses sit down on it with a crash if it should happen some day to think a little thought all by my [sic] itself, without consulting the doctrinal standards? The basis of our union ought always to be as broad as the conditions of salvation. No man has any right to make his plea for union narrower than this. It is wrong to make anything a condition of fellowship which is not essential to salvation. We draw the line here. That which will damn a soul and separate us in the next world should divide us in this; nothing else should. 

   There are a few men among us who are trying very hard to "organize" the thing called "us as a people," so as to shut off all investigation and stop all discussion; but they are entirely too narrow in their ideas to fairly represent this reformation. They say that if something of this kind is not done very soon, "our plea" will burst into smithereens, "our organized mission work" will break all to flinders, and "we as a people" will go to smash on general principles; but I think not. The shortest route I know to such a crash is to organize us and undertake to compel us all to quit thinking and arguing and accept the conclusions and carry out the plans of "leading men and papers," without the liberty to conceive an idea or express an opinion of our own.
 
From: The New Testament Church: Editorials of F. D. Srygley which Appeared in the Gospel Advocate from 1889 to 1900, Gospel Advocate Company, 1955, pp. 193-195, a compiled series of his Gospel Advocate articles on the New Testament church posthumously published by his brother FB Srygley in 1910.




Lively:  Note that I highlighted a section above... which is what the whole message comes down to... that an individual thinks we should all just let everyone do whatever it is they please in the worship as such is not a condition of salvation... that is what we must do to become saved... that if we do whatever it is the Lord commands us to be saved...

hear
Believe
Repent
Confess
Be baptized..

That at this point... we do not have to remain faithful unto death...  that we can go and do whatever it is we please...  we can bring anything into the worship which is not outright expressed in scripture... anything where there is no command which specifically states.. thou shalt not... and even that they ignore... for when the word of God states, thou shalt not add unto his word... we do it anyway... and ignore what he plainly states... whatever we do in word or deed, do in the name of or authority of Jesus Christ... and then we ignore that authority... and go beyond his authority and do whatever it is which pleases us...


I am wondering if some would state that besides the five things listed above... that forbidding to marry or commanding to abstain from meats would be something which is a fellowship issue?  They certainly are not issues where it comes to one becoming a Christian, so we should all then be accepting of someone who teaches such is ok?  Hardly...  scripture tells us such is the doctrines of devils... and that such who teach that have departed from the faith... and there is a denominational faith out there which openly teaches these two things... of coarse to respect the rules here as much as I possibly can... I will not be naming it as it may make someone feel that I have then openly stated they are following doctrines of devils... heaven forbid anyone come to realize such a truth where it is true...  not that I think any here are of that denomination... probably not... but you can clearly read what God says about such in 1Tim 4:1-3...  but the point here is, these two things are not a matter of one becoming saved... it has to do with some who are departing from the faith who teach this... that is, to depart from the faith, you first have  had to be in the faith...  you can not depart from something you have not been in...  I could never depart from being a cub scout if I had never been a cub scout... so the idea of whatever we do after we become saved, is not a matter of salvation or fellowship is a flat out lie...  good for us we are only discussing the Editorials of F. D. Srygley....  I wonder if he ever read whosoever does not abide in the doctrines of Christ hath not God...  because it sounds like he was willing to sacrifice the truth of God for fellowship at any cost...  where as God clearly states... mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned... that is from his word... and avoid them, and not have any fellowship with them...


Rom 16:17  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Rom 16:18  For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.


2Co 6:14  Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
2Co 6:15  And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
2Co 6:16  And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2Co 6:17  Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
2Co 6:18  And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.


Eph 5:8  For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
Eph 5:9  (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
Eph 5:10  Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
Eph 5:11  And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
Eph 5:12  For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
Eph 5:13  But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.


1Ti 4:1  Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2  Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3  Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4  For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5  For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.


1Ti 6:3  If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
1Ti 6:4  He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
1Ti 6:5  Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.


2Ti 3:1  This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2Ti 3:2  For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
2Ti 3:3  Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
2Ti 3:4  Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
2Ti 3:5  Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.




Remember now... Nadab and Abihu were condemned and burned up for offering up strange fire which God had not commanded them...


I agree. We should absolutely not split fellowship for issues smaller than the five you mentioned. But for bigger ones yes. I think LDS believe in those five, but also got the nature of God all wrong. They cannot be part of the fellowship. But issues such as instruments, standing or sitting during the Lord's supper, should not split churches. Although if a church baptizes Biblically, but then recognizes and accepts non-biblical baptisms as valid, I would not place membership with that church.
« Last Edit: Sun Apr 14, 2013 - 12:54:59 by e.r.m. »

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17566
  • Manna: 201
  • Gender: Male
  • carrying Torah scroll
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #27 on: Sun Apr 14, 2013 - 16:43:50 »

 The basis of our union ought always to be as broad as the conditions of salvation. No man has any right to make his plea for union narrower than this. It is wrong to make anything a condition of fellowship which is not essential to salvation. We draw the line here. That which will damn a soul and separate us in the next world should divide us in this; nothing else should. 

Lively:  Note that I highlighted a section above... which is what the whole message comes down to... that an individual thinks we should all just let everyone do whatever it is they please in the worship as such is not a condition of salvation... that is what we must do to become saved... that if we do whatever it is the Lord commands us to be saved...

hear
Believe
Repent
Confess
Be baptized..

That at this point... we do not have to remain faithful unto death...  that we can go and do whatever it is we please...  we can bring anything into the worship which is not outright expressed in scripture... anything where there is no command which specifically states.. thou shalt not... and even that they ignore... for when the word of God states, thou shalt not add unto his word... we do it anyway... and ignore what he plainly states... whatever we do in word or deed, do in the name of or authority of Jesus Christ... and then we ignore that authority... and go beyond his authority and do whatever it is which pleases us...

What seems to be missing here is the call to "go on to maturity" (Heb 6.1)  Salvation is what just gets us in the door. We are newborns.  But we must not stay newborns.  It is fine for a 2 year old to act like a 2 year old.  But how about when a 20 year old acts like a 2 year old?  Should they not be either disciplined within the congregation or asked to leave?

We must grow into adults.  Where does that fit into that equation?

Offline apostle

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 392
  • Manna: 21
  • You are now free to move about the Kingdom...
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #28 on: Sun Apr 14, 2013 - 17:34:35 »
Syrgley, rest his soul, was light years ahead of his CoC compatriots.  Unfortunately, even he stopped short. 

Believers in Jesus Christ disagree on whether we are saved by the five steps or the four spiritual laws or sola fide, or by remaining faithful unto death.  So, unity cannot be built upon doctrinal agreement regarding even such fundamentals.  Such levels of agreement have never produced anything but better-defined division. Unity cannot be predicated upon doctrine, on specific human understanding of the divine.  Campbell, that most rational of brothers, was essentially wrong in this rational idealism.  Anything less than Jesus Himself is insufficiently elemental to provide a solid basis for unity.  We should not demand doctrinal understanding of things which are about Jesus, in order to recognize one another as IN Jesus.  We are not one in truth, we are one in Him who is The Truth.  We must know one another after the Spirit, not after the intellect.

Even such a stripped-down unity basis as Srygley offers has already --in this very thread-- demonstrated its capacity for creating endless debate rather than unity. 

Unity is in Jesus alone, not in what we think about Jesus.

Offline e.r.m.

  • Church of Christ
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6825
  • Manna: 74
  • Gender: Male
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #29 on: Sun Apr 14, 2013 - 21:43:28 »

 The basis of our union ought always to be as broad as the conditions of salvation. No man has any right to make his plea for union narrower than this. It is wrong to make anything a condition of fellowship which is not essential to salvation. We draw the line here. That which will damn a soul and separate us in the next world should divide us in this; nothing else should. 

Lively:  Note that I highlighted a section above... which is what the whole message comes down to... that an individual thinks we should all just let everyone do whatever it is they please in the worship as such is not a condition of salvation... that is what we must do to become saved... that if we do whatever it is the Lord commands us to be saved...

hear
Believe
Repent
Confess
Be baptized..

That at this point... we do not have to remain faithful unto death...  that we can go and do whatever it is we please...  we can bring anything into the worship which is not outright expressed in scripture... anything where there is no command which specifically states.. thou shalt not... and even that they ignore... for when the word of God states, thou shalt not add unto his word... we do it anyway... and ignore what he plainly states... whatever we do in word or deed, do in the name of or authority of Jesus Christ... and then we ignore that authority... and go beyond his authority and do whatever it is which pleases us...

What seems to be missing here is the call to "go on to maturity" (Heb 6.1)  Salvation is what just gets us in the door. We are newborns.  But we must not stay newborns.  It is fine for a 2 year old to act like a 2 year old.  But how about when a 20 year old acts like a 2 year old?  Should they not be either disciplined within the congregation or asked to leave?

We must grow into adults.  Where does that fit into that equation?
I agree. How this fits in, if I understand correctly, division is the antithesis of maturity. A person can mature in a unified church.

Offline e.r.m.

  • Church of Christ
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6825
  • Manna: 74
  • Gender: Male
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #30 on: Sun Apr 14, 2013 - 21:54:58 »
Syrgley, rest his soul, was light years ahead of his CoC compatriots.  Unfortunately, even he stopped short. 

Believers in Jesus Christ disagree on whether we are saved by the five steps or the four spiritual laws or sola fide, or by remaining faithful unto death.  So, unity cannot be built upon doctrinal agreement regarding even such fundamentals.  Such levels of agreement have never produced anything but better-defined division. Unity cannot be predicated upon doctrine, on specific human understanding of the divine.  Campbell, that most rational of brothers, was essentially wrong in this rational idealism.  Anything less than Jesus Himself is insufficiently elemental to provide a solid basis for unity.  We should not demand doctrinal understanding of things which are about Jesus, in order to recognize one another as IN Jesus.  We are not one in truth, we are one in Him who is The Truth.  We must know one another after the Spirit, not after the intellect.

Even such a stripped-down unity basis as Srygley offers has already --in this very thread-- demonstrated its capacity for creating endless debate rather than unity. 

Unity is in Jesus alone, not in what we think about Jesus.
Under this paradigm, IN Jesus is still defined differently by different encounterers of Jesus.
In Jesus involves all about his character, his teachings, etc., not just his existence.

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17566
  • Manna: 201
  • Gender: Male
  • carrying Torah scroll
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #31 on: Mon Apr 15, 2013 - 05:31:14 »
I agree. How this fits in, if I understand correctly, division is the antithesis of maturity. A person can mature in a unified church.

IMO, division is a symptom of immaturity rather than the cause of it.

There are real issues of doctrine and practice.  But rather than sitting down and discussing the differences and working together to a solution, we "pick up our toys and leave." Just like a bunch of pre-schoolers. 

To be sure, once that pattern is well established it becomes self-sustaining. That is probably what you are talking about.

"Let us press on to maturity." (Heb 6.1) Part of that is breaking the self-sustaining pattern of separation and isolation.


Asher (Kieth) Intrater wrote a book a couple of decades ago called "Covenant Relationships." It is based on Matt 18.15-17

15 If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

He expands on that to say how it even can be used for different groups with different understandings.  He describes the process as this:

Pray Talk Pray Talk Pray Talk Pray Talk

Repeat until you come into agreement.
« Last Edit: Mon Apr 15, 2013 - 05:36:50 by DaveW »

Offline e.r.m.

  • Church of Christ
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6825
  • Manna: 74
  • Gender: Male
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #32 on: Mon Apr 15, 2013 - 09:50:29 »
I agree. How this fits in, if I understand correctly, division is the antithesis of maturity. A person can mature in a unified church.

IMO, division is a symptom of immaturity rather than the cause of it.

There are real issues of doctrine and practice.  But rather than sitting down and discussing the differences and working together to a solution, we "pick up our toys and leave." Just like a bunch of pre-schoolers. 

To be sure, once that pattern is well established it becomes self-sustaining. That is probably what you are talking about.

"Let us press on to maturity." (Heb 6.1) Part of that is breaking the self-sustaining pattern of separation and isolation.


Asher (Kieth) Intrater wrote a book a couple of decades ago called "Covenant Relationships." It is based on Matt 18.15-17

15 If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

He expands on that to say how it even can be used for different groups with different understandings.  He describes the process as this:

Pray Talk Pray Talk Pray Talk Pray Talk

Repeat until you come into agreement.
I agree. To my understanding, the ICOC and mainline Cocs have been in talks for a while to work together once more. I have also found out that the mainline conmunity has a lot of unifying to do.

Offline apostle

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 392
  • Manna: 21
  • You are now free to move about the Kingdom...
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #33 on: Mon Apr 15, 2013 - 10:26:36 »
Syrgley, rest his soul, was light years ahead of his CoC compatriots.  Unfortunately, even he stopped short. 

Believers in Jesus Christ disagree on whether we are saved by the five steps or the four spiritual laws or sola fide, or by remaining faithful unto death.  So, unity cannot be built upon doctrinal agreement regarding even such fundamentals.  Such levels of agreement have never produced anything but better-defined division. Unity cannot be predicated upon doctrine, on specific human understanding of the divine.  Campbell, that most rational of brothers, was essentially wrong in this rational idealism.  Anything less than Jesus Himself is insufficiently elemental to provide a solid basis for unity.  We should not demand doctrinal understanding of things which are about Jesus, in order to recognize one another as IN Jesus.  We are not one in truth, we are one in Him who is The Truth.  We must know one another after the Spirit, not after the intellect.

Even such a stripped-down unity basis as Srygley offers has already --in this very thread-- demonstrated its capacity for creating endless debate rather than unity. 

Unity is in Jesus alone, not in what we think about Jesus.
Under this paradigm, IN Jesus is still defined differently by different encounterers of Jesus.
In Jesus involves all about his character, his teachings, etc., not just his existence.
Yes, there are different views about what it is to be "in Christ", but we have to address these for ourselves, not for the believer next to us.  The problem really has not been the different perspectives, but our ready rejection of believers who may not hold the exact same perspective as we do.

I don't think I have met anyone who suggested that the person who accepts that Jesus lived is, by that affirmation alone, "in Christ".  Certainly being in Christ does not ignore any facet of his character or his instruction to us.  However, we enter this relationship by faith, not by our competence in the character and doctrine areas.  We develop in those areas, as God rears us as his sons. 

Offline grain of salt

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 570
  • Manna: 21
Re: F. D. Srygley's "We Ought to Agree Among Ourselves"
« Reply #34 on: Mon Apr 15, 2013 - 10:56:00 »
I agree. How this fits in, if I understand correctly, division is the antithesis of maturity. A person can mature in a unified church.

IMO, division is a symptom of immaturity rather than the cause of it.

There are real issues of doctrine and practice.  But rather than sitting down and discussing the differences and working together to a solution, we "pick up our toys and leave." Just like a bunch of pre-schoolers. 

To be sure, once that pattern is well established it becomes self-sustaining. That is probably what you are talking about.

"Let us press on to maturity." (Heb 6.1) Part of that is breaking the self-sustaining pattern of separation and isolation.


Asher (Kieth) Intrater wrote a book a couple of decades ago called "Covenant Relationships." It is based on Matt 18.15-17

15 If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

He expands on that to say how it even can be used for different groups with different understandings.  He describes the process as this:

Pray Talk Pray Talk Pray Talk Pray Talk

Repeat until you come into agreement.
I agree. To my understanding, the ICOC and mainline Cocs have been in talks for a while to work together once more. I have also found out that the mainline conmunity has a lot of unifying to do.

All of Christianity has a lot of unifying to do.  I suppose I've come to the point that I feel just as much an imperative to unify with Catholics and Baptists as I do other CofCs who believe things I don't agree with.

A criticism of disunity is often leveled at Churches of Christ.  The thing is, though, that disunity exists across Christianity, or else we wouldn't have multiple denominations and competing traditions.

Of course, I suppose it often comes down to which issues we're willing to compromise on for the sake of unity or else stand our ground and be who we are and hold to what each group or denomination believes to be the "truth."

That is, of course, not a pretty picture.  Unfortunately, it's an ugly truth about the general state of Christiandom (and, I'm not excluding myself or my particular affiliation from that umbrella, in case anyone assumes otherwise).
« Last Edit: Mon Apr 15, 2013 - 10:59:58 by grain of salt »

 

     
anything