Author Topic: The RM and Unity  (Read 10569 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

blituri

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #35 on: Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 15:00:02 »
Restoring A Jewish synagogue or a Catholic cathedral.

The Spirit of Christ ordained the Qahal, synagogue or church in the wilderness: it was exclusive of vocal or instrumental rejoicing.  It was INCLUSIVE of reading and musing the Word and church was called a holy convocation. QAHAL is the primary word for the Jewish synagogue and that is why preachers cannot find it.


The Sacrificial system was IMPOSED to carry out the captivity and death sentence imposed because of musical idolatry at Mount Sinai which profaned the Sabbath: the word means "play the flute, steal your inheritance, pollute or prostitute."

The Jews always attended synagogue which quarantined them from any Sabbath activities at the pagan-like temple for the Civil-Clergy-Complex identified by Nehemiah as robbers and parasites.

Jesus endorsed a proper synagogue by standing up to read and then decently sitting down to allow discussion.

For gathering or assemblying Paul uses a form of SYNAGOGUE "which never had a praise service." Even if not outlawed in the wilderness, common decency would never permit musical entertainment when Jesus comes to be our ONLY TEACHER when the elders "teach that which has been written."

That is the way history defines the assembly long before singing as an ACT of liturgy (outlawed by the word REST) was added in 373 and divided the eastern and western churches.

There is no law of preaching, law of giving, law of singing and INSTRUMENTS are radically outlawed if you can read from Genesis to Revelation.

The Campbells defined church as "A school of Christ" and worship as "reading and musing the word of God." Just what Paul commanded Timothy to do.



« Last Edit: Fri Dec 12, 2008 - 16:24:28 by admin »

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #36 on: Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 16:13:55 »
Maybe someone can find out when they called it a RESTORATION MOVEMENT.

I think it went something said from the earliest writers: "Speak were the Bible speaks and be Silent where the Bible is silent."

Certainly, John Calvin and I believe ALL that Campbells calling themselves REFORMERS intended to CUT OFF all of the witchery which had been IMPOSED to enslave people without any BIBLICAL authority. I doubt that you can find anyone wanting to restore any of the Biblical churches which are mostly "how not to do school of the Bible."

If I wanted to RESTORE a 34 ford I might begin by REMOVING the fog lights.  If you remove the law of giving, human compositions for SANGING, sermonizing, vulgar buildings and everything not required to conduct SCHOOL OF THE BIBLE it will be restored and look nothing like any first century assembly.

If memory serves, the first time the phrase "Restoration Movement" was used to define the Stone-Campbell Movement was 1914. And I believe it was in a book by a Disciples of Christ scholar. Certainly the title of Dr. Robert Richardson's book was The Principles and Objects of the Religious Reformation Urged by A. Campbell and Others Briefly Stated and Explained, and there's his Memoirs of Alexander Campbell Embracing a View of the Origin, Progress and Principles of the Religious Reformation which He Advocated.

The phrase used by Stone and the Campbells, up through FD Srygley in 1889 was The Current Reformation or simply The Reformation. Campbell used restoration as a means to unity, until he saw that it wasn't achieving his desired goal.

Pax.

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #37 on: Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 16:23:44 »
Campbell didn't use CENI as a hermeneutic. His father certainly didn't, as he said plainly in the D & A that inferences, necessary or otherwise, aren't binding. Here are Campbell's rules of interpretation from the Christian Sytem.

CHAPTER II.

THE BIBLE.

      I. One God, one moral system, one Bible. If nature be a system, religion is no less so. God is "a God of order," and that is the same as to say he is a God of system. Nature and religion, the offspring of the same supreme intelligence, bear the image of one father; twin sisters of the same Divine parentage. There is an intellectual and a moral universe as clearly bounded as the system of material nature. Man belongs to the whole three. He is an animal, intellectual, and moral being. Sense is his guide in nature, faith in religion, reason in both. The Bible contemplates man primarily in his spiritual and eternal relations. It is the history of nature, so far only as is necessary to show man his origin and destiny; for it contemplates nature, the universe, only in relation to man's body, soul, and spirit.

      II. The Bible is to the intellectual and moral world of man, what the sun is to the planets in our system;--the fountain and source of light and life, spiritual and eternal. There is not a spiritual idea in the whole human race, that is not drawn from the Bible. As soon will the philosopher find an independent sunbeam in nature, as the theologian a spiritual conception in man, independent of THE ONE BEST BOOK.

      III. The Bible, or the Old and New Testaments, in Hebrew and Greek, contains a full and perfect revelation of God and his will, adapted to man as he now is. It speaks of man as he was, and also as he will hereafter be; but it dwells on man as he is, and as he ought to be, as its peculiar and appropriate theme. It is not, then, a treatise on man as he was, nor on man as he will be, but on man as he is, and as he ought to be; not as he is physically, astronomically, geologically, politically, or metaphysically; but as he is and ought to be morally and religiously.

      IV. The words of the Bible contain all the ideas in it;--these words, then, rightly understood, and the ideas are clearly perceived. The words and sentences of the Bible are to be translated, interpreted, and understood according to the same code of laws and principles of interpretation by which other ancient writings are translated and understood; for when God spoke to man in his own language, he spoke as one person converses with another, in fair, stipulated, and well established meaning of the terms. This is essential to its character as a revelation from God; otherwise it would be no revelation, but would always require a class of inspired men to unfold and reveal its true sense to mankind.

      V. We have written frequently and largely upon the principles and rules of interpretation, as of essential importance and utility in this generation of remaining mysticising and allegorizing. From our former writings, we shall here only extract the naked rules of interpretation, deduced from extensive and well digested premises; fully sustained, too, by the leading translators and most distinguished critics and commentators of the last and present century.

      VI. Rule 1. On opening any book in the sacred Scriptures, consider first the historical circumstances of the book. These are the order, the title, the author, the date, the place, and the occasion of it.

      The order in historical compositions is of much importance; as, for instance,--whether the first, second, or third, of the five books of Moses, or any other series of narrative, or even epistolary communication.

      The title is also of importance, as it sometimes expresses the design of the book. As Exodus--the departure of Israel from Egypt; Acts of Apostles, &c.

      The peculiarities of the author--the age in which he lived--his style--mode of expression, illustrate his writings. The date, place, and occasion of it, are obviously necessary to a right application of any thing in the book.

      Rule 2. In examining the contents of any book, as respects precepts, promises, exhortations, &c., observe who it is that speaks, and under what dispensation he officiates. Is he a Patriarch, a Jew, or a Christian? Consider also the persons addressed; their prejudices, characters, and religious relations. Are they Jews or Christians--believers or unbelievers--approved or disapproved? This rule is essential to the proper application of every command, promise, threatening, admonition, or exhortation, in Old Testament or New.

      Rule 3. To understand the meaning of what is commanded, promised, taught, &c., the same philological principles, deduced from the nature of language; or the same laws of  interpretation which are applied to the language of other books, are to be applied to the language of the Bible.

      Rule 4. Common usage, which can only be ascertained by testimony, must always decide the meaning of any word which has but one signification;--but when words have according to testimony (i. e. the dictionary,) more meanings than one, whether literal or figurative, the scope, the context, or parallel passages must decide the meaning: for if common usage, the design of the writer, the context, and parallel passage fail, there can be no certainty in the interpretation of language.

      Rule 5. In all tropical language, ascertain the point of resemblance, and judge of the nature of the trope, and its kind, from the point of resemblance.

      Rule 6. In the interpretation of symbols, types, allegories, and parables, this rule is supreme: ascertain the point to be illustrated; for comparison is never to be extended beyond that point--to all the attributes, qualities, or circumstances of the symbol, type, allegory, or parable.

      Rule 7. For the salutary and sanctifying intelligence of the Oracles of God, the following rule is indispensable--

      We must come within the understanding distance.

      There is a distance which is properly called the speaking distance, or the hearing distance; beyond which the voice reaches not, and the ear hears not. To hear another, we must come within that circle which the voice audibly fills.

      Now we may say with propriety say, that as it respects God, there is an understanding distance. All beyond that distance cannot understand God; all within it, can easily understand him in all matters of piety and morality. God, himself, is the centre of that circle, and humility is its circumference.

      The wisdom of God is as evident in adapting the light of the Sun of Righteousness to our spiritual or moral vision, as in adjusting the light of day to our eyes. The light reaches us without an effort of our own; but we must open our eyes, and if our eyes be sound, we enjoy the natural light of heaven. There is a sound eye in reference to spiritual light, as well as in reference to material light. Now, while the philological principles and rules of interpretation enable many men to be skillful in biblical criticism, and in the interpretation of words and sentences; who neither perceive nor admire the things represented by those words; the sound eye contemplates the things themselves, and is ravished with the moral scenes which the Bible unfolds.

      The moral soundness of vision consists in having the eyes of understanding fixed soley on God himself, his approbation and complacent affection for us. It is sometimes called a single eye, because it looks for one thing supremely. Every one, then, who opens the Book of God, with one aim, with one ardent desire--intent only to know the will of God; to such a person, the knowledge of God is easy: for the Bible is framed to illuminate such, and only such, with the salutary knowledge of things celestial and divine.

      Humility of mind, or what is in effect the same, contempt for all earth-born pre-eminence, prepares the mind for the reception of this light; or, what is virtually the same, opens the ears to hear the voice of God. Amidst the din of all the arguments from the flesh, the world, and Satan, a person is so deaf that he cannot hear the still small voice of God's philanthropy. But receding from pride, covetousness, and false ambition; from the love of the world; and in coming within that circle, the circumference of which is unfeigned humility, and the centre of which is God himself--the voice of God is distinctly heard and clearly understood. All within this circle are taught by God; all without it are under the influence of the wicked one. 'God resisteth the proud, but he giveth grace to the humble.'

      He, then, that would interpret the Oracles of God to the salvation of his soul, must approach this volume with the humility and docility of a child, and meditate upon it day and night. Like Mary, he must sit at the Master's feet, and listen to the words which fall from his lips. To such a one there is an assurance of understanding, a certainty of knowledge, to which the man of letters alone never attained, and which the mere critic never felt.

      VII. The Bible is a book of facts, not of opinions, theories, abstract generalities, nor of verbal definitions. It is a book of awful facts, grand and sublime beyond description. These facts reveal God and man, and contain within them the reasons of all piety and righteousness; or what is commonly called religion and morality. The meaning of the Bible facts is the true biblical doctrine. History is therefore the plan pursued in both Testaments; for testimony has primarily to do with faith, and reasoning with the understanding. History has, we say, to do with facts--and religion springs from them. Hence, the history of the past, and the anticipations of the future, or what are usually called history and prophecy, make up exactly four-fifths of all the volumes of inspiration.

Pax.

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #38 on: Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 16:36:46 »
I would like a reference to Alexander Campbell allowing unity based on the SEVEN ONES. Please.

At an 1841 ecumenical meeting in Lexington, Kentucky, Campbell set forth what he believed is the true ground of Christian union, what he referred to as “the catholic rule of union.

blituri

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #39 on: Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 16:45:57 »
That sounds about right: I knew that it was not a founding principle.  I wasn't aware that the Disciples used the term: they clearly subscribed to the High Church principle which gave it authority to fit the church to the culture.  The Disciples still use Scripture, Traditions and Culture.  Be calling us "historyless" the urge is to give authority to church councils but Calvin rejected that.

Of the Declaration and Address Alexander Campbell wrote:

I. That we form ourselves into a religious association under the denomination of the Christian Association of Washington, for the sole purpose of promoting simple evangelical Christianity, free from all mixture of human opinions and inventions of men.

II. That each member, according to ability, cheerfully and liberally subscribe a certain specified sum, to be paid half yearly, for the purpose of raising a fund to support a pure Gospel ministry,
        that shall reduce to practice that whole form of doctrine, worship, discipline, and government,
        expressly revealed and enjoined in the word of God.
        And, also, for supplying the poor with the holy Scriptures.

III. That this Society consider it a duty, and shall use all proper means in its power, to encourage the formation of similar associations; and shall for this purpose hold itself in readiness, upon application, to correspond with, and render all possible assistance to, such as may desire to associate for the same desirable and important purposes.


In the D&A Thomas wrote:

IV. That this Society by no means considers itself a Church,

    nor does at all assume to itself the powers peculiar to such a society;
    nor do the members, as such, consider themselves as standing connected in that relation;
    nor as at all associated for the peculiar purposes of Church association;

    but merely as voluntary advocates for Church reformation; and, as possessing the powers common to all individuals, who may please to associate in a peaceable and orderly manner, for any lawful purpose, namely, the disposal of their time, counsel, and property, as they may see cause.

V. That this Society, formed for the sole purpose of promoting simple evangelical Christianity, shall, to the utmost of its power, countenance and support such ministers, and such only, as exhibit a manifest conformity to the original standard in conversation and doctrine, in zeal and diligence;

    only such as reduce to practice that simple original form of Christianity,
    expressly EXHIBITED upon the sacred page;

    without attempting to inculcate
        anything of human authority,
        of private opinion, or inventions of men,
        as having any place in the constitution, faith, or worship, of the Christian Church,
        or anything as matter of Christian faith or duty,

       for which there can not be expressly produced a "Thus saith the Lord,
            either in express terms,
            or by approved precedent.


This RULE would not have any problem with the FOUR ONES but that was not Campbell's rule for what HE INCLUCATED.  His speaking of unity in the D&A was of friendly relations and had nothing to do with MERGING with the SECTS he was working so hard to put out of business.

The CENI affirmed by the Bible and most historic scholars was used by Campbell to mean that WE SHALL NOT IMPOSE anything not clearly commanded or exampled in the Bible.  That is NOT what the false teachers mean when they denounce the CENI. Campbell did not attempt to REFORM the SECTS because he discovered as a Presbyterian they liked their institute.

Good motives are rarely enough when your goals are too high. The CENI as a rule for OUR not INCLUCATING anything else is radically different from the charge of using SILENCE to be EXCLUSIVE.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #39 on: Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 16:45:57 »



Offline zoonance

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8529
  • Manna: 233
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #40 on: Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 17:57:20 »

marc

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #41 on: Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 20:01:06 »
I don't know; I don't care for his tracts.

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #42 on: Thu Dec 11, 2008 - 11:47:04 »
Thomas Campbell argued in the D & A that nothing could be made a test of fellowship that didn't have a "thus saith the Lord" behind it. This doesn't necessarily exclude, in my view, churches adopting practices or traditions not specifically commanded in the NT (CoCs do this all the time anyway), as the D & A is usually interpreted to forbid, but only means such things cannot be made into terms of communion. To be consistent with his own views, he would have had to agree that the use or non-use of IM was a matter of opinion, as Scripture nowhere addresses the issue. To argue from the Bible's silence that IM is a sin is to violate his stated goal to speak only "where the Bible speaks." That reason is why TB Larimore, though personally opposed to IM, refused to argue for or against IM and the other issues being hotly debated in the S-C Reformation in the latter half of the 19th century.

To try to force an instrument into a church where the majority of the members didn't want one would be a sin, however to tell a church whose members overwhelmingly did wish to use it, that it was a sin, would itself also be a sin, and a violation of the S-C dedication to respect the silence of the Bible. Larimore reasoned that if scripture didn't address those issues, he had no right to legislate for his brethren what was right.

I might personally disapprove of IM, as Larimore did, however since the NT nowhere addresses IM, I have no business telling those who use IM that they're wrong or refusing to fellowship them, as Larimore refused to withdraw from or condemn his brethren who used IM.

Pax.

Offline Snargles

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1777
  • Manna: 48
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #43 on: Thu Dec 11, 2008 - 12:15:14 »
Code: [Select]
I might personally disapprove of IM, as Larimore did, however since the NT nowhere addresses IM, I have no business telling those who use IM that they're wrong or refusing to fellowship them, as Larimore refused to withdraw from or condemn his brethren who used IM.

Wasn't this true of McGarvey, also? Seems to me he left a congregation that went IM but he said that use of an instrument shouldn't be a test of fellowship.

Offline zoonance

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8529
  • Manna: 233
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #44 on: Thu Dec 11, 2008 - 12:53:48 »
I think a problem is that the RM started out trying to do two things: unify all the Christians, restore the "Ancient Order of Things." Stone was more of a unifier and Campbell was more of a restorer. As a post-mil, Campbell thought the sooner he could get everyone into one church the sooner the Lord would return to earth. In other words, he was trying to manipulate the second coming. Stone was willing to leave many things up to the individual believers where Campbell wanted everyone to think like he did. Trying to accomplish two goals meant that we couldn't accomplish either. The DoC have taken the more liberal route and allowed in many different beliefs in the interest of unity. The CoC (my people) have taken the pharisitical approach and said "Everyone is welcome as long as they believe exactally like we do."

We won't be able to have unity until we all realize unity should be based on the scriptural stuff (JC=God, love your neighbor, love the Lord and follow his commandments) instead of the physical stuff (no IM, following 1st century worship practices, literal interpretation of scripture without allowinf for the effect of culture).
[/b]



Doctrine and Practices.  How should these reflect the "UNITY" that Jesus prayed for as the head of His body.   Is His body an accurate reflection of the Head?   What would a "Unity Movement" in obedience to His prayer look like today then?  If not in accuracy, does a pursuit of truth matter?  If not in spirit, does repentance and obedience matter?  Unity is not just a personal sense of Kumbaya while standing in front of a mirror.   Unity is .... unity between all brothers and sisters in Christ.    How would that be recognized?  Do we even reflect that unity on this Forum?


http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=65bd1e280187eabbb039


I did like some of the things he said.  I liked it because that is what I WANT to believe, not so much because he did an outstanding presentation of Biblical Unity.    My questions remain unanswered.  Why is such a simple question so difficult to both grasp and achieve?  If it really is just "sinful man" (insert some scitzophrenic theology points here) getting in the way of the obvious scriptural solution?  If so, what is the obvious?   We then have a personal responsibility to 'display' the obvious immediately.

blituri

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #45 on: Thu Dec 11, 2008 - 14:27:48 »
No, it is not true of McGarvey nor is it true of Campbell!

Lee says:Thomas Campbell argued in the D & A that nothing could be made a test of fellowship that didn't have a "thus saith the Lord" behind it. This doesn't necessarily exclude, in my view, churches adopting practices or traditions not specifically commanded in the NT (CoCs do this all the time anyway), as the D & A is usually interpreted to forbid, but only means such things cannot be made into terms of communion.

The Declaration and Address specificially does not speak of DENOMINATIONS but of INDIVIDUALS: It says NOTHING about tests of fellowship but of INDIVIDUALS judging INDIVIDUALS for the private opinions they hold.  Campbell writes under the premise that the SECTS limited DENOMINATIONAL PARTICIPATION based on their personal opinions for which they had no express authority.  As a Calvinists who watched the State Presbyterians of Scotland ADOPT the use of instruments which SPLIT the group into MANY sects, Thomas Campbell can be represented by dozens of his fellow Biblical Presbyterians who wrote extensively on the use of instruments. The BASIS was making a test of fellowship DENOMINATIONALLY on something not SPECIFICIALLY commanded in the Bible.

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

FROM the series of events which have taken place in the Churches for many years past, especially in this Western country, as well as from what we know in general of the present state of things in the Christian world, we are persuaded

    that it is high time for us not only to think, but also to act, for ourselves;
           to see with our own eyes,
           and to take all our measures
           directly and immediately from the Divine standard;
    to this alone we feel ourselves Divinely bound to be conformed,
    as by this alone WE must be judged.

    We are also persuaded that as no man can be judged for his brother,
          so no man can judge for his brother;
          every man must be allowed to judge for himself,
         as every man must bear his own judgment-
         -must give account of himself to God.


From reading 101a we understand that those LEAVING the EXCLUSIVE sects must not IMPOSE anything which is not from the "divine standard."

A.  Because the OTHERS are the EXCLUSIVIE Sects even when DENOUNCING INSTRUMENTS through all of Campbell's experience, they ALSO are bound by the Divine Word.

B. His standard was that they should INCLUDE only what is commanded in the Divine Standard.

C. We are also of opinion that as the Divine word is equally binding upon all,
          so all lie under an equal obligation to be bound by it,
          and it alone; and not by any human interpretation of it;


D. Because it was the SECTS whom he identified as JUDGING and EXCLUSIVE, they do not have any right to judge those who THINK FOR THEMSELVES from the DIVINE STANDARD

E. Those denominational groups who excluded both Thomas and Alexander because of THEIR THEACINGS from the Bible, have NO RIGHT to exclude them unless the REFORMERS practices VIOLATE specific CENI.
 
                  and that, therefore, no man has a right to judge his brother,
                   except in so far as he manifestly violates the express letter of the law.


The Declaration and Address INCLUDES those who AGREE with the Declaration and Address: it would be beyond the pale to think that the Campbells intended to FELLOWSHIP exactly those they were ABANDONING because they DID NOT follow Biblical standards and JUDGED those who followed the Bible rather than their CREEDS.

V. That this Society, formed for the sole purpose of promoting simple evangelical Christianity,
       shall, to the utmost of its power, countenance and support such ministers,


Countenance means: to extend approval or toleration to : sanction

      and such only,
      as exhibit a manifest conformity to the original standard in conversation and doctrine, in zeal and diligence;

      only such as reduce to practice that simple original form of Christianity,
      expressly EXHIBITED upon the sacred page;


Campbell EXPLICITELY and LOUDLY said that he WOULD NOT FELLOWSHIP those who did not

      reduce to practice that simple original form of Christianity,
      expressly EXHIBITED upon the sacred page;


He would NOT support those who did not follow the EXPRESS Word of God:

      Support means a (1): to promote the interests or cause of (2): to uphold or defend as valid or right

Campbell said that he would NOT extend approval, tolerate, sanction or support those who DO NOT trust the Word for out faith and practice.

Lee can you grasp that? You need to throw away your "scholarly" junk and read the truth.

The Reformers absolutely followed the CENI principle.
They ABSOLUTELY meant

    without attempting to inculcate
        anything of human authority,
        of private opinion, or inventions of men,
        as having any place in the constitution, faith, or worship, of the Christian Church,
        or anything as matter of Christian faith or duty,

       for which there can not be expressly produced a "Thus saith the Lord,
            either in express terms,
            or by approved precedent.


I worry about people who twist that to say that the Campbells intended to INCLUDE those who did not agree to NOT ATTEMPTING to Inclucate anything not SPECIFICIALLY commanded.

The following statement makes me wonder if you have ever read the Bible: assuredly ALL recorded historical scholars and founders of denominations KNEW that God uses the INSTRUMENT as a MARK of those who told God to shut His Face. That needs no proving.

To be consistent with his own views, he would have had to agree that the use or non-use of IM was a matter of opinion, as Scripture nowhere addresses the issue.

If this was REMOTELY true, then Campbell would not INCLUCATE anything of HUMAN AUTHORITY.  If he would not INCLUCATE then he would not SUPPORT instruments.

If the Bible DOES NOT speak of instruments tnen YOU are judging others and INCLUCATING human opinion which is WILL WORSHIP.

But, literacy 101a knows that MUSIC is sourced from Satan or Lucifer the singing and harp playing prostitute, warriors, sacrificial exorcists, prostitutes and Sodomites

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #46 on: Thu Dec 11, 2008 - 16:05:09 »
Apparently Campbell considered all of his reading audience his brothers, because he says:

You are all, dear brethren, equally included as the objects of our love and esteem. With you all we desire to unite in the bonds of an entire christian unity--Christ alone being the head, the centre, his word the rule--an explicit belief of, and manifest conformity to it, in all things-- the terms. 


Proposition 3 of the D & A:

3. That in order to this, [walking by the same rule, minding and speaking the same thing and being perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment, from Prop. 2] nothing ought to be inculcated upon christians as articles of faith; nor required of them as terms of communion; but what is expressly taught, and enjoined upon them, in the word of God. Nor ought any thing be admitted, as of divine obligation, in their church constitution and managements, but what is expressly enjoined by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles upon the New Testament church; either in express terms, or by approven precedent.

This can be interpreted as saying, not that nothing not "expressly enjoined" in the NT can be admitted into the worship of the church, but that such cannot be made into a test of fellowship, in other words, such cannot be made into essentials that are required of people in order to be saved or to become a member of the church. Because earlier he writes:

It is, to us, a pleasing consideration that all the churches of Christ, which mutually acknowledge each other as such, are not only agreed in the great doctrines of faith and holiness; but are also materially agreed, as to the positive ordinances of Gospel institution; so that our differences, at most, are about the things in which the kingdom of God does not consist, that is, about matters of private opinion, or human invention. What a pity, that the kingdom of God should be divided about such things!! Who, then, would not be the first amongst us, to give up with human inventions in the worship of God; and to cease from imposing his private opinions upon his brethren; that our breaches might thus be healed?

It is these "matters of private opinion" that TC says ought not to be made into terms of communion. He doesn't say that churches can ONLY do those things which are specifically commanded. For example, he doesn't say that church X can't use IM because it isn't commanded, only that it has no right to impose IM on church Y. He doesn't say that church Z shouldn't form a missionary society, because that's not in the Bible, hence would be a sin, only that church Z cannot impose its missionary society as an essential requirement, as a test of fellowship, on churches Y and X.

No, I may be wrong, but I think TC's focus is not on making sure everyone is doing everything "by the book" so much as it is in making sure that they don't impose their non-essential opinions (doctrines) as essential terms of fellowship. He wants to make sure that anything any individual or church requires as an essential test of fellowship actually is an essential test of fellowship according to the NT. Because you'll notice that, conspicuous by their abscence are the things that TC considers essential. TC doesn't give us any specifics. He doesn't set forth his idea of what the "ancient order" should look like. Preseumably all the churches had the essentials down already but were dividing because of their making non-essentials into essentials and binding those on everyone else. So TC is more concerned with making sure that these individuals and churches don't continue binding non-essentials on each other. If they'll stop doing that, then they can unite upon the essential items they all already share in common anyway.

Which is basically, it seems to me, what AC was saying to Andrew Broaddus in the 1840s when he argued for his "catholic" unity upon the "seven ones" of Ephesians 4.

Pax.

Offline kingdom-heir

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 82
  • Manna: 5
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #47 on: Fri Dec 12, 2008 - 16:35:26 »
I'm interested in others' thoughts about unity, how to acheive it, and how this relates to our past, present, and future practices in the RM.  I have some ideas but would like to hear from others first.  Are we really a unity movement?  Should we be?

My reply to your question about HOW to achieve unity, is what saith the Scriptures? I spent about 3 days doing just that and I made a list of all the verses related to that query. Then I put them together in an order that seems to be very instructive. If I could run this keyboard as efficiently as blituri and Lee Freeman I'd write it out. I wish you all would read these verses and maybe even write them out! Ep 4:11-14; Ph 1:27; Rm 16:17; 2 Tm 3:16,17; 4:2-4; Mk 12:29-31; Jn 13:34; 1 Co 13; Mt 20:25-28; 1 Peter 5:1-3; Mt 18:15-17; Ph 2:1-4; Rm 12:3-5; 2 Tm 2:23-25; Rm 14:19; Ga 5:26- 6:1; Rm 15:1; 2 Co 6:14; 1 Jn 2:15,16; 
 And the last is; Jesus' commandments - Matthew ch. 5,6,7
He that hath My commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me. - If a man love Me, he will keep My words. Jn 14:21,23
« Last Edit: Fri Dec 12, 2008 - 17:52:38 by kingdom-heir »

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #48 on: Sat Dec 13, 2008 - 11:20:14 »
All saved Christians are members of the one true church no matter what the SOF says. So all saved Christians are united by virtue of their salvation and being added to the church by God (see Acts 2:47). Alexander Campbell agreed with this. He said that after a person believes in Jesus and is baptized, they are saved and added to the church by God. It doesn't matter whether they hold Calvinist, Arminian, Methodist, Quaker, Baptist, Episcopalian, etc. views. Though Campbell didn't say it, it doesn't even matter whether they believe in using IM or not. If they believe and are baptized they're saved and added to the church by God.

THIS is the basis of our unity-this and our shared proclamation of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Because Jesus didn't die for IM, or baptism, or women's role, or any of the other stuff we routinely argue and divide over. He died to save and redeem the world.

Pax.

blituri

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #49 on: Sat Dec 13, 2008 - 16:44:27 »
"The imaginations of the human heart are only evil continually." That is why your imaginations are not worthy of consideration especially when you call Thomas a liar when he said:

Thomas Campbell argued in the D & A that nothing could be made a test of fellowship that didn't have a "thus saith the Lord" behind it. This doesn't necessarily exclude, in my view, churches adopting practices or traditions not specifically commanded in the NT (CoCs do this all the time anyway), as the D & A is usually interpreted to forbid, but only means such things cannot be made into terms of communion.

V. That this Society, formed for the sole purpose of promoting simple evangelical Christianity,
       shall, to the utmost of its power, countenance and support such ministers
,

Countenance means: to extend approval or toleration to : sanction.  You can say whatever comes out of your own head but either Tomas or someone else is terminal.

      and such only,
      as exhibit a manifest conformity to the original standard in conversation and doctrine, in zeal and diligence;

      only such as reduce to practice that simple original form of Christianity,
      expressly EXHIBITED upon the sacred page;


Campbell EXPLICITELY and LOUDLY said that he WOULD NOT FELLOWSHIP those who did not

      reduce to practice that simple original form of Christianity,
      expressly EXHIBITED upon the sacred page;


This is where the sectarians who use the Law of Silence slip off the edge:

Campbell said He would ONLY SUPPORT those who defended the Biblical commands.
Silly Simon always says: "BUT, he did NOT say that he would NOT sanction or support those who DISAGREED with him.

He would NOT support those who did not follow the EXPRESS Word of God:

Support means a (1): to promote the interests or cause of (2): to uphold or defend as valid or right

Campbell said that he would NOT extend approval, tolerate, sanction or support those who DO NOT trust the Word for out faith and practice.

Thomas Campbell has all of his Presbyterian history to DENY that he would fellowship or contenance or support those who USED instrumental music in violation of direct commands available for the literate Bible reader.

Alexander Campbell would probably preach at Saint Peters but he WOULD NOT preach in a church IF THEY USED the organ. YOU can guess, but we have recorded history

HERE IS THOMAS WHO DEFINED WORSHIP:

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

"The author and ultimate object of our holy religion, is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, by his Spirit, speaking in Christ and his holy apostles.

    "The principle of this holy religion within us, is faith, a correspondent faith; that is, a belief, or inwrought persuasion by, and according to, the word of truth, in all points corresponding to the revelation which God has made of himself through Jesus Christ by the Spirit. Hence, being rooted and grounded in the truth of this revelation, by faith in the divine testimony,

        we contemplate and worship God inwardly;
        that is, adore and reverence him in our souls,
        according to the characters and attributes under which he has revealed himself to us.

Thus we worship the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit, relying upon his teachings in and by the word, to lead us into all the truth which he has testified for our edification and salvation; and also upon his internal influence to excite, instruct, and comfort us, by the truth; to help our infirmities, and to enable us to think and pray as we ought, both as to the matter and manner of our prayers. See Rom. viii. 26, and Jude 22, 21, with a multitude of other scriptures.

Thus we have the internal religion, the habitual worship of the real believer, the sincere bible-taught christian with its principle; which is the faith above described. See Rom. x. 12-15.


The Campbells would have grown up singing the metrical Psalms--ONLY -- and violently opposed to instrumental music: so much so that he belonged to a group separated from the State Presbyterians in Scotland who ADOPTED the Anglican form of worship.

    "The next immediate ordinance of the christian religion, namely,

        the reading, I mean the musing upon, or studying the Holy Scriptures;
        taking them up in their connexion, and meditating upon the subjects they propose to our consideration,
        with a fixed contemplation of the various and important objects which they present.

    This dutiful and religious use of the bible, (that most precious, sacred record of the wonderful works of God,

the only authentic source of all religious information
,) is inseparably connected with, and indispensably necessary to, the blissful and all-important exercises of prayer and praise.

    "And again, 'Be you filled with the Spirit; speaking to yourselves, in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; giving thanks always to God and the Father, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Eph. v. 18-20.

    "Hence it is evident, that if we would be spiritually minded, spiritually exercised in this delightful and heavenly employment,

        we must be filled with the Spirit;
        and if we would be filled with the Spirit,
        we must be filled with the word;
        the word of Christ must dwell in us richly;
        for we have no access to the Spirit but in and by the word.


The "scholars" you defend relying on the college prank called POSTMODERNISM deny that it is lying because the OLDEN Scriptures have been fractured and we are at liberty to WRITE our own version.  That may be why Campbell said that he WOULD ONLY COUNTENANCE AND SUPPORT those who "spoke where the Bible spoke."  Now, you and the musical sectarians have a NEW STYLE of logic when you say that he DID NOT say that he WOULD NOT COUNTENANCE those who imposed music WITH NO NEED for any Biblical proof and KNOWING that they were sowing discord clearly because they wanted to ATTRACT the world with pagan practices called WITCHCRAFT.



Offline zoonance

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8529
  • Manna: 233
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #50 on: Sat Dec 13, 2008 - 16:59:51 »
Is it OK to sing christmas carols and celebrate Christmas without IM?

blituri

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #51 on: Sat Dec 13, 2008 - 17:44:49 »
Only if you break into a poor widow's house, eat up her food, and tell her that the spirit told you that you should steal her house and put her out in the cold: let her find a warm dog to sleep with.  I hear that "grey hairs" are expendable in the new "theaters for holy entertainment."

Tell her that you had a vision to change the title of her house to your name because she was convicted of sectarianism for not inviting in all of the aristocrates of Muddy Street to sing to comfort eternally-infant and infantile Jesus.  Really happened at my old Seattle Church.

I just ran across another definition of a hypocrocrite: he/she/it is a rhapsoidoi as a nearos meaning 2. of things, new, humnoi. There's that New Style of Singing again grouped as a hypocrite including interpreter or expounder II. in Att., one who plays a part on the stage, actor, 2. of an orator, poikilos [poetry, songs] one who delivers, recites, declaimer

As defined by Pindar:

Pindar Nemean 8. 1] Queenly Season of Youth, herald of the divine embraces of Aphrodite [ZOE], you who rest in the eyes of young girls and boys, and carry one man in the gentle arms of compulsion, but handle another man differently...

a Lydian crown embroidered with song, glory from Nemea in the double foot race for Deinias and his father Megas. For prosperity that is planted with a god's blessing is more abiding for men; [18] such prosperity as once loaded Cinyras with wealth in sea-washed Cyprus. I stand with feet lightly poised, catching my breath before I speak. [20] For many stories have been told in many ways.
     But to find something new and submit it to the touchstone for testing is danger itself.
     Words are a dainty morsel for the envious; and envy always clings to the noble, and has no quarrel with worse men.
     [23] Envy devoured the son of Telamon, throwing him onto his own sword.

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #52 on: Sun Dec 14, 2008 - 12:26:24 »
Thomas Campbell would've asked "What hath Pindar to do with Jesus?" Seeing as how he wanted to limit himself strictly to the language of scripture, that'd be a fair question it seems to me. ::pondering::

Pax.

Offline ole Jake

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • Manna: 27
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #53 on: Wed Jan 07, 2009 - 21:53:33 »
I'm interested in others' thoughts about unity, how to acheive it, and how this relates to our past, present, and future practices in the RM.  I have some ideas but would like to hear from others first.  Are we really a unity movement?  Should we be?

My reply to your question about HOW to achieve unity, is what saith the Scriptures? I spent about 3 days doing just that and I made a list of all the verses related to that query. Then I put them together in an order that seems to be very instructive. If I could run this keyboard as efficiently as blituri and Lee Freeman I'd write it out. I wish you all would read these verses and maybe even write them out! Ep 4:11-14; Ph 1:27; Rm 16:17; 2 Tm 3:16,17; 4:2-4; Mk 12:29-31; Jn 13:34; 1 Co 13; Mt 20:25-28; 1 Peter 5:1-3; Mt 18:15-17; Ph 2:1-4; Rm 12:3-5; 2 Tm 2:23-25; Rm 14:19; Ga 5:26- 6:1; Rm 15:1; 2 Co 6:14; 1 Jn 2:15,16; 
 And the last is; Jesus' commandments - Matthew ch. 5,6,7
He that hath My commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me. - If a man love Me, he will keep My words. Jn 14:21,23

What do those verses mean and how do you know for certain they mean what you say they do?


Offline admin

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
  • Manna: 224
  • Gender: Male
  • Sheriff of these parts
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #54 on: Tue Mar 10, 2009 - 22:55:03 »
I don't think unity has been possible since the fall of Eden. If everyone would just agree with me we'd all be united and happy.  ::joker::

Offline Bon Voyage

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16049
  • Manna: 408
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #55 on: Tue Mar 10, 2009 - 23:02:44 »
I don't think unity has been possible since the fall of Eden. If everyone would just agree with me we'd all be united and happy.  ::joker::

If you agreed with me, you would agree with God, for I agree with God because I agree with God's Word.

blituri

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #56 on: Sat Mar 14, 2009 - 13:05:39 »
Statement on another forum: The bad habit of making ones opinions out to be the commands of God did not really take root in the Churches of Christ until the split over instrumental music and missions came about and the most extreme among us took control, some one hundred years ago. A short time when considering churches. Maybe a hundred years from now, Churches of Christ can look back on the last hundred years as a temporary wondering in the wilderness

This is the almost-total mantra of those trying to UNITE that which never EXISTED: as a guilt trip the effort is to continue the discord in an attempt to convert those to the use of instruments who NEVER used instruments: not even in their Catholic roots did anyone do "congregational singing with instrumental accompaniment."  Those organs introduced into Cathedrals but NOT by the priests were used by monks and professionals. That is where they got their foot into the door by continuing their entertainment as PROCESSIONALS, intermissions and recessionals.  In fact, the Catholics had never sliped into any form of tuneful singing because the Bible is not meltrical and cannot be sung in a tuneful sense.  "Melody as tunefulness belongs to the 19th century" and even now means "a series of single notes."  Melody has no connection to HARMONY.  Harmonia in the Greek of the time still meant nothing more than UNISON singing of a scale whose notes in the Greek was "the normal inflections of the human voice."   MOVING TOGETHER also had a sexual or "goose clapping" meaning so that the lust has always been to FORCE people to MOVE TOGETHER where the music word DEMANDS dance.

The false mantra is that the Church of Christ sectarianed out of the Christian Church in the 1906 census. Surprise! The Christian church did not exist in 1906 and would not BEGIN to sect out of the Disciples until 1927 and finally DIScounted by the Disciples in 1971.  So, why would you believe that when the Christian Church sected out of the Disciples and therefore split the DISCIPLES. Good for them: those now pushing confiscation under the ploy of "unity" meetings cannot even feel honest.  They gave that up after massive sowing of discord after 25 years of almost total failure. Some of them have expressed regret over the extended effort to CONVERT happy churches to instruments because the division is worse than before: that what happens when you tie the tails of two cats together and hang them on a clothesline.  Union is NOT unity and scratches abound.  Collecting in about a dozen out of numbers which may be 18000 congreations world-wide has had the DESIRED RESULT that lots of Biblical and Historical rebuttals have giving the non-instrumental churches more material from Genesis to Revelation and all of recorded history which will work better than "a law of singing" and Gopher wood.  ;-)

The Christian Church SHOULD be UNITED with the Disciples of Christ if they want to restore the only thing busted.  They will not because most of them never believed in the denominational structure or society TO WHICH the Church of Christ was never UNITED.  However, they brought out six or seven things that the Church of Christ would not approve of. That's their right: both they and the betrayers of their own congregations do not have the right to blame the Church of Christ none of whose ROOTS used instruments and many of them wrote the best material LONG BEFORE 1906: namely the Presbyterians who first began their writings when the Scotch Presbyterian State church adopted instruments and the same STATE organization as the State church of England.  These "worship" rituals like the Temple in Jerusalem were STATE SERVICES like Washington Cathedral.  The first Free Black Methodist church added instruments when DIVISION caused them to be short of cash: they held performances with instruments and it worked so well that they brought them INTO the house.

The NACC had begun their guilt trip even before 1927 planting O.E.Payne's book into key Church of Christ hands: I have an original copy with "return after reading demand."  This tricked them into in the Boswell-Hardeman debates.  Maybe Donnie can track down Dr. Crump's review at CM: Center of Meaning!  This is based on Payne's collection of all of the PSALLO passages: too bad, too sad they ALL point to older males trying to seduce a younger male!  Even then, psallo a warfare and pollution word EXCLUDES anything but plucking a string with your FINGERS.

J.F.Burnett in 1921 refuting what became The Stone-Campbell Movement.

http://www.piney.com/Stone.Campbell.Burnett.html

After another effort to confiscate churches H. Leo Boles wrote in 1939  You can find Al Maxey's denying Boles' his right to explain that unity never existed and cannot exist and need not exist any more than uniting with the Presbyterns.

http://www.piney.com/Unity.Boles.html

Boles speaks of  "unity" from 1832 to 1849 but that consisted only of the few churches which met together.  John Smith defines the "terms" of that agreement to agree but this agreement was quickly violated by the Disciples or Christian Churches when the Baptist converts demanded an organizational structure.

To even say Stone-Campbell Movement (a Leroy Garrett scam) is to mislead people. Boles notes that in 1934 after the "meeting" in 1932.

"In The Christian Messenger for November, 1834, is quoted an article from the Millennial Harbinger (Campbell's paper) as follows:

    "Or does he (Stone) think that one or two individuals, of and for themselves, should propose and effect a formal union among the hundred of congregations scattered over this continent, called Christians or Disciples, without calling upon the different congregations to express an opinion or a wish upon the subject?

    We discover, or think we discover, a squinting at some sort of precedency or priority in the claims of the writer of the above article," etc.

"It is well known that Mr. Campbell insisted upon immersion before believers were received into fellowship, to which Stone answered:

    "We cannot, with our present views, unite on the opinions that unimmersed persons cannot receive remission of sins."

    And though later on he came to believe in immersion in water for the remission of sins, there is no evidence that he ever made it a test of fellowship, without which he could not have been a member of the Disciples of Christ.


Minimal, bare-bone honesty would insist that having a vew UNITE on terms which CAMPBELL approved, denied that the the terms which Stone repudiated meant unity but only "ability to meet at times on the TERMS articulated by John Smith in the Boles paper".  Because the Christians ADDED the missionary society with a first attempt not long afterward and then IMPOSED instruments in a few of THEIR congregations even the agreement AMONG THE FEW was betrayed and made even assemblying together when the organ pumped impossible.  Only a few churches of Christ even agreed to "meeting together on Sunday Morning" because the Disciples-Christian church had more Anglican roots.  Campbell preached anywhere he was invited but demanded that the organ be silenced.

Therefore, it is really a bad lie to blame the Church of Christ with its Baptist and Presbyterian roots with SECTING OUT of that which they NEVER UNITED.  That is why the NACC seduced only those who were ALREADY DETERMINED to "lift up and move" (meaning heresy) that which belonged to the OWNERS into "unity" with the Christian Churches which "unity" NEVER existed at any time or place.  If I visit a Baptist church which uses instruments no one can say that I am therefore UNITED with them.

The Stoneites adopted the Shouting Methodists and the "music" thing which really got started at Cane Ridge when the powerful singing and polyrhythmic hand clapping of the Black groups had a huge effect on people. My wife's roots at the time of Cane Ridge, Flemingsburg etal resulted in the Pilgrim Holiness Church.  At that time Stone held not a single thing in common with what became the Church of Christ. He was willing to silence all doctrinal discussion because he believed that UNITY was the only important thing.  However, never ever was their unity with Stone's beliefs: even Stone was forced to change when the charismatic altar call in Alabama utterly failed: when they began to preach baptism (understood by any mother with her Bible) the people found relief from their real and felt guilt.


Offline lancelot

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
  • Manna: 13
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #57 on: Sun Apr 05, 2009 - 21:14:20 »
I'm interested in others' thoughts about unity, how to acheive it, and how this relates to our past, present, and future practices in the RM.  I have some ideas but would like to hear from others first.  Are we really a unity movement?  Should we be?

I think we can all have unity simply by making assertions and never opening a Bible or examinging what it says.  Just SAY stuff and hope people will listen to our own voices.  ::eek::

But on a different note, Eph.4 (does it matter?) gives the attitudes of unity, the beginning unity (the one's) and the means to attain a continued unity.

Lancelot

marc

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #58 on: Sun Apr 05, 2009 - 21:16:16 »
That explains it; I have noticed that you make a lot of unscriptural assertions, such as claiming that other doctrines can be equated with the identity of Jesus.

Yes, it says to keep the unity of the Spirit (He gave it to us, we just have to keep it) in the bond of peace, then lists the ways that we already are unified.  Too bad so many use this great unity passage to separate themselves from others.

Offline lancelot

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
  • Manna: 13
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #59 on: Sun Apr 05, 2009 - 21:29:44 »
(1) That explains it; I have noticed that you make a lot of unscriptural assertions, such as claiming that other doctrines can be equated with the identity of Jesus.

(2) Yes, it says to keep the unity of the Spirit (He gave it to us, we just have to keep it) in the bond of peace, then lists the ways that we already are unified.  Too bad so many use this great unity passage to separate themselves from others.

(1) Marc, your statement is totally false.  I did not equate other doctrines (such as the Galatian heresy (Gal.1:6-9) and the falling away (I Tim.4:1-4) with the specific doctrine John was discussing in II John 9ff about the identify of Jesus.

My point in discussing the other two was to examine whether one could legitimately aid someone teaching one of those first two without participating in their evil deeds also.  How is it possible to support a missionary of the first two and not participate in THEIR evil deeds when it one supports a missionary in II John 9ff about that specific false doctrine and DOES participate in his evil deed?  The first two condemned men and the last condemned men, but supporting only one would result in participation in the evil deed?

I ask you not to misrepresent me.

(2) Actually, a lot of folks want unity without the one's and want unity without the further teaching and adherence to the teaching of God.  In other words, they want to keep their doctrines and have union.

Lancelot

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #60 on: Sat Apr 11, 2009 - 11:25:39 »
Would the deeds, say, of a Baptist missionary who teaches faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and adult believer's baptism, yet simply doesn't stress remission of sins connected with baptism, be considered evil? I was taught that they were as a kid, because they were not teaching the whole truth, but were instead willfully teaching the traditions of men. But now it seems to me that the heresy of the Docetists or proto-Gnostics, of II John, which denied the literal, bodily incarnation of Jesus, hence his literal, bodily, death, burial and resurrection, was a way more serious type of false teaching. These people believed matter and the physical universe were created by a wicked evil demiurge often associated with the Jewish God YHWH, were exclusivist, arrogant and condescending, etc. To me this is serious error, whereas not mentioning remission of sins when one teaches the necessity of being baptized, isn't. God remits my sins at baptism whether I'm consciously aware of that or not. But not to believe that Jesus was God incarnate-that's a serious error.

Anyway, the Church of Christ used to be Baptist. Which of our "traditions of men" are we teaching as part of the gospel?

True unity will not come about through doctrinal uniformity. That's been tried repeatedly down through the centuries and where has it gotten us?

I like what Dr. Robert Richardson wrote in 1847 in his Millennial Harbinger article Reformation No. IV:

It may be asserted, we presume, as a truth at length established by the world's experience, that the various parties or divisions which constitute Christendom can agree only in the general truths and facts of Christianity. To these there has always been a very marked and obvious assent. But when we descend to particularize; to the minutiae which may be descried by minds of microscopic intelligence; to the nice distinctions which may be drawn by the acumen of metaphysicians, we find as marked and striking a contradiction. The history of Christianity, indeed, from its very origin until now, might surely suffice to show how vain and hopeless is the attempt to induce the world to adopt any particular set of opinions or system of doctrines which can be devised by human skill. . . .

Were we, indeed, asked to define theoretically, in terms the most brief and expressive the reformation which we urge, we should denominate it-
A generalization of Christianity. It is in this character that it presents a basis of Christian union. It is in this point that it lays aside the differences; the peculiarities; the distinctions, which disunite and mark out sects; and retains the agreements, the universalities, the identities which secure harmony and peace.  . . .


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. . . . Men seem to have lost sight of the obvious distinction which is to be made between the Bible and the Gospel. . . 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 .  .  . . 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.

Pax.

marc

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #61 on: Sat Apr 11, 2009 - 15:25:13 »
(1) That explains it; I have noticed that you make a lot of unscriptural assertions, such as claiming that other doctrines can be equated with the identity of Jesus.

(2) Yes, it says to keep the unity of the Spirit (He gave it to us, we just have to keep it) in the bond of peace, then lists the ways that we already are unified.  Too bad so many use this great unity passage to separate themselves from others.

(1) Marc, your statement is totally false.  I did not equate other doctrines (such as the Galatian heresy (Gal.1:6-9) and the falling away (I Tim.4:1-4) with the specific doctrine John was discussing in II John 9ff about the identify of Jesus.

Just saw this.

Quote
Why are you again ignoring the principle?  I simply used several examples of false teaching referred to in the NT and asked if one could support the missionary who taught that false teaching, per the idea of II John.

Lancelot

That, Sir, is equating.

« Last Edit: Sat Apr 11, 2009 - 16:07:58 by marc »

blituri

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #62 on: Mon Apr 13, 2009 - 14:15:44 »
Old Lee certainly continues to amaze!

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

Robert Richardson V II-X: The schismatic and partisan spirit which in Kentucky and elsewhere had induced the Baptists to exclude the Reformers from their communion, was still steadily extending itself through the denomination.

In Eastern Virginia, a conference of eight churches belonging to the Dover Association had been called in December, 1830, at which a report of a committee of nine was adopted, setting forth the alleged errors of "Campbellism,"

    and recommending a declaration of non-fellowship with all who should persist in them.

Robert Richardson: "This discourse [of Walter Scott], being widely circulated in pamphlet form, had a powerful effect in imparting clearness and definiteness to the views of the Reformers upon this important subject. It was the first time it had been publicly brought forward in so particular a manner, and the clear scriptural evidence presented in the discourse was generally received as decisive of the questions involved. This result was much aided by Mr. Campbell's warm commendation of the sentiments which it contained.

        A.C. "Brother Walter Scott," said he--"who in the fall of 1827, arranged the several items of faith, repentance, baptism, remission of sins, the Holy Spirit and eternal life, restored them in this order to the Church under the title of Ancient Gospel, and successfully preached it for the conversion of the world--has written a discourse on the fifth point (viz., the Holy Spirit), which presents the subject in such an attitude as cannot fail to make all who read it understand the views entertained by us, and, as we think, taught by the apostles in their writings. We can recommend to all the disciples this discourse as most worthy of a place in their families, because it perspicuously, forcibly and with a brevity favorable to an easy apprehension of its meaning, presents the subject to the mind of the reader. Our opponents, too, who are continually misrepresenting, and many of them no doubt misconceiving, our views on this subject, if they would be advised by us, we would request to furnish themselves with a copy, that they may be better informed on this topic, and, if they should still be conscientiously opposed, that they may oppose what we teach, and not a phantom of their own creation."

Richardson: It was because Mr. Campbell opposed the popular notions of special illuminations and mystic influences of the Holy Spirit upon the heart, that he became obnoxious to the charge of undervaluing the exercises of the heart. In a very courteous review, published this year, of the Extra on remission, Andrew Broaddus remarked:

    Baptists: "The great error which lies at the bottom of Mr. Campbell's theory, of the actual forgiveness of sins in baptism, appears to consist in an  of the exercises of the heart, and attaching to external conduct or action the importance which really belongs to those exercises."

"I doubt not," said Mr. Campbell, in reply, "that Mr. Broaddus thinks this is all correct,
and yet a more unjust representation of my views was never penned.


Contrary to the 'historians' and "Encyclopedia writers" and changelings, the Baptists certainly THOUGHT that Campbell taught that baptism was FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS.  The lie still shouted are still telling was that "the Reformers did not consider the heart part of the physical immersion."

    A.C. I cannot blame Mr. Broaddus for censuring in strong terms a view of Christianity against which such a charge could fairly lie. I would join with him and denounce such a representation of Christianity as leaves the heart of man not only out of view, but in the background. How often have we said that the greatest objection we have against the whole system we oppose is because of its impotency on the heart?

That means as they assuredly preach that the Spirit imposes on the heart of mankind and affects total conversion.  That leaves the human heart OUT of the gospel: That is, the baptized BECAUSE they were already saved.

Campbell clearly says that Baptism is FOR the remission of sins and the RESULT is the gift of the holy spirit. 

This Peter defines to be the use of baptism, the answer [request for] of a good conscience. This produces a pure heart, and then the consummation is love--love to God and man."

Richardson:
Mr. Campbell believed that as in nature the position of the earth in reference to the sun is changed in order to the production of summer fruits, so in religion the internal state of the sinner in reference to God is changed through the faith and obedience of the gospel, so that the heavenly influences might produce their proper effects. 

It is a fact that the BAPTISTS disfellowshipped the Reformers for their teachings and they were forced to establish congregations.

I think vendettas are not seemly.
 

blituri

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #63 on: Mon Apr 13, 2009 - 14:37:46 »
Would the deeds, say, of a Baptist missionary who teaches faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and adult believer's baptism, yet simply doesn't stress remission of sins connected with baptism, be considered evil?

No Baptist would connect remission of sins to baptism: They deny it. The term BELIEVER'S BAPTISM is as old as paganism: it says that one is WASHED as a sign that they have been PURIFIED internally by some charismatic experience. The Apollo or Apollyon connected with the "locusts" or MUSES in Revelation was known as the WASHER. The speakers, singers and instrument players John called sorcerers drove them into an "experience" which THEY confessed to be madness.

This is the condemned form of "prophesying" or lord, lord sayers: Jesus says that God does not know their name

After they have experienced their WASHING their bodies were normally sweaty, dirty or even sexually polluted. Then, after they rehearsed their "beside themselves ecatacy FOR WHICH we hire "worship teams," THEN they were washed in water.

Believer's baptism is BECAUSE OF their salvation or remission of sins or "purification." People get TRICKED into believing in an alien system.  Harold Bloom writing on the religious sects says that "the Baptists are a Gnostic religion with no connection to historic Christianity."  It is a fact that the largest "distinctly American" religion collects more people, founds more colleges, trains more preachers and spends more money being forced to REFUTE each and every passage about baptism and the definition of words. They can and often do declare that Isaiah, Malachi, Jesus, Peter, Paul and ALL recorded church history are liars. That is because I have found no historic scholar who says "baptism DOES NOT SAVE" who doesn't quickly add "without faith."  To Luther Sola fide depened on Sola Scriptura because you cannot have "Christian" faith about something you have not READ: Neo-Calvinist deny that.  Because Sola Scriptura produced Sola Fide the DEMAND was Sola Baptisma.  In his wordy way, Calvin says about the same thing.

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