Sound doctrine, no Love

[Imaginosis]

I was recently involved with a Christian Reconstruction church, and learned some good lessons. Although this church may have been doctrinally sound, I made two disturbing observations:

1) There was no love in the church.

2) There was a lack of discernment. They had all these scriptures memorized but lacked the wisdom to apply them. For example, rather than accept the truth that the body of Christ is diverse, many in the congregation wanted to homogenize the church, making people conform to their preferences, rather than God's. I'm a finger, you be a finger. I'm a nose, you be a nose.

You can have the right doctrine, but lack love and discernment.

[PatrickHanson1]

I was recently involved with a Christian Reconstruction church, and learned some good lessons. Although this church may have been doctrinally sound, I made two disturbing observations:

1) There was no love in the church.

2) There was a lack of discernment. They had all these scriptures memorized but lacked the wisdom to apply them. For example, rather than accept the truth that the body of Christ is diverse, many in the congregation wanted to homogenize the church, making people conform to their preferences, rather than God's. I'm a finger, you be a finger. I'm a nose, you be a nose.

You can have the right doctrine, but lack love and discernment.
I agree with you completely on your last statement. Although, if I understood you correctly, you visited only one congregation. I believe it is equally important to attend a congregation that is sound doctrinally and full of love. This was a problem early on in the Church 1 Cor 13, and I doubt, but it would be nice if a church today has it figured out.
Patrick Hanson

[Frame1520]

Not all RM churches are created equally. The churches I have been involved in are indeed very loving, caring, scripturally accurate churches. People can fall into the trap, however, of focusing so much on doctrine that they forget people, and forget that Jesus himself told us to love one another.

I'd check out some other churches in the RM, if that is your desire. But not all are created equal. Same is true of a lot of denominational churches as well. The trick is to make sure the church does not loose focus of its purpose, and forget that reaching the lost will not work if we are cold and unreceptive to those who may visit.

[Imaginosis]

People can fall into the trap, however, of focusing so much on doctrine that they forget people, and forget that Jesus himself told us to love one another.On further thought, they were off on certain doctrines, such as 1 Cor. 12. God has made all people different, from various cultures, ethnicities, and backgrounds.

What's so ironic is that this church preaches societal transformaton but doesn't accept the various parts of the body of Christ, which causes the body to limp along. This, in turn, empedes societal transformation because it takes a healthy body of Christ to effectively impact society. Irony of Ironies!!

[MrJim]

I was recently involved with a Christian Reconstruction church, and learned some good lessons. Although this church may have been doctrinally sound, I made two disturbing observations:



"Reconstruction"? Are we talking about the same thing? Reconstructionists are those Dominion Theology folks...not the same as "restoration".

[Mrs. Enigma]

I have noticed the same kind of thing that the OP presented.

[Frame1520]

On further thought, they were off on certain doctrines, such as 1 Cor. 12. God has made all people different, from various cultures, ethnicities, and backgrounds.


What was their doctrinal issue with I Cor. 12? You sparked my curiosity...Did they say that this was untrue? :confused:

[Imaginosis]

What was their doctrinal issue with I Cor. 12? You sparked my curiosity...Did they say that this was untrue? :confused:No they didn't, but their actions and behavior don't match up to Cor. 12. This is actually very common with churches, be like us.

[Koey]

I was recently involved with a Christian Reconstruction church, and learned some good lessons. Although this church may have been doctrinally sound, I made two disturbing observations:

1) There was no love in the church.

2) There was a lack of discernment. They had all these scriptures memorized but lacked the wisdom to apply them. For example, rather than accept the truth that the body of Christ is diverse, many in the congregation wanted to homogenize the church, making people conform to their preferences, rather than God's. I'm a finger, you be a finger. I'm a nose, you be a nose.

You can have the right doctrine, but lack love and discernment.
It's like with everything, there's balance. I have been in churches with an emphasis on love and an aversion to sound doctrine. They were nice people, but allowed any wacko heresy to creep in unfiltered.

We need a touch of everything in my opinion.

[AJB4]

It's like with everything, there's balance. I have been in churches with an emphasis on love and an aversion to sound doctrine. They were nice people, but allowed any wacko heresy to creep in unfiltered.

We need a touch of everything in my opinion.
I've been going to the Church Of Christ my whole life, and I have similar issues. I'd never leave or anything, I like it there. The messages they teach about faith, love, and human character is all good, and there is love in the church, but my whole life I've been told that the Church Of Christ was the 'only right church', and I doubt that completely, because I believe God will judge us as individual's, rather than put each church into a different category and say 'you are the right/wrong church'. I don't like the Church's philosophy about that, but I'd still never leave because I am quite happy there in every other respect.

For example Martin Luther King Jr. He was a Baptist, and he was such an awesome man and obviously a true follower of God. I can't imagine him not being heaven-bound. You should not be kept from Heaven because of the certain church you go to. It's all about faith, love, and following God's will. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Koey]

Excellent!

[cremi]

I was recently involved with a Christian Reconstruction church, and learned some good lessons. Although this church may have been doctrinally sound, I made two disturbing observations:

1) There was no love in the church.

2) There was a lack of discernment. They had all these scriptures memorized but lacked the wisdom to apply them. For example, rather than accept the truth that the body of Christ is diverse, many in the congregation wanted to homogenize the church, making people conform to their preferences, rather than God's. I'm a finger, you be a finger. I'm a nose, you be a nose.

You can have the right doctrine, but lack love and discernment.I agree. I think this partly what sparked Paul to write the 1 Corinthians 13 chapter. Apparently, the same thing was going on in the Corinthian church, where doctrine/theology was being spewed forth, but no love.

There has to be balance. I too was in a church that preached 'love' and 'realtionships", but forgot about the bible part. That didn't work either.

Hopefully, if we get out theology straightened out, our love will be a by-product of having the truth living in us!

[Koey]

Yeah, I recently heard a woman preacher repeat the same old saw that many are preaching today, "Doctrine doesn't matter, only love does." Well, doctrine means teaching and that comment is also a doctrine. Granted, the most important doctrine is love, but I think that the reason some like to say that doctrine doesn't matter, while they teach their off-the-wall stuff, is because they really don't know their Bibles very well. So, when they get corrected on some heresy or wacky interpretation of Scripture, their only come-back is that doctrine doesn't matter. Sorry! Doctrine does matter, very much so. Paul told Timothy to teach sound doctrine, but if you can't, then you have to have the excuse that it doesn't matter.

[Huggz]

It appears that it's already been hit on quite a bit, but the issue of love was, in my opinion, 90% of the reason Paul wrote the letter he did to the Corinthian church. Picking apart the book, I a little bit of talk about sexual immorality, a man taking his father's wife, but the rest of the book just screams lack of love to me.

They lacked love in their spiritual gifts. They all wanted to have the same gift and be equally as "cool" but what they didn't realize was that everyone can't be the newest hair style, or nicest pair of shoes. Hair falls out, clothes rip, but love stands firm.

They lacked love in their love feast. Rich people were hogging all the food before the poor people could arrive. The body of Christ was shamed and dragged through the mud. Whoever eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks condemnation on himself.

They lacked love in their worship. Everyone had something to say, and everyone was saying it regardless of what anyone else had to say.

Love is the most important thing, if there is no love, there is no Christ. Jesus did not preach doctrine, he preached love.

Love the Lord your God with all your heart mind soul and strength.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
Let him who is without sin cas the first stone.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for a friend. You are my friends if you do what I command.

And he did.

No Love = No Christ. No Grace. No Salvation. No Life.

[Koey]

Yeah, that's my take on Corinth too. However, in their case it wasn't sound doctrine, no love. In their case it was like so many Pentie churches I've seen, great interest in gifts of the spirit, little interest in fruit of the spirit, especially the first fruit, love.

Pentecostal churches are very much Corinthian in my experience: tongues and no love.

[AJB4]

I hope Rev King is there because I want to shake his hand.

I have met many many good people from all different denominations and faiths
Remember, God did not create religion: Man created religion. All religions were created by Man. I do not believe God will judge anyone based on what church they attended.

When i belonged to the COC they ahd in their congregation a guy who had been busted twice for trafficking pornography, a wife beater and a guy who was laughing at lunch about abortion clinic bombings. Of course, according to this group, these men were all going to heaven because they were members of the right church.....
Love was not an issue. It was not an issue becasue it did not exist there.

As for the doctrine/theology, I got really bored after a few weeks because every week the sermon and the message was basically a rehashing of the same thing over and over again.
It seemed as there was no variety in the topic of the week.
Maybe it was just becasue it was not challenging to me, but I felt that it was rather shallow to preach the same bacis sermon over and over again.

There were a lot of people who could quote scripture but lacked the wiosdom to apply them. they also had a bad habit of quoting them out of context, and I met not a single person there who knew where the Bible came from and how it was made. (I heard the "Well God wrote it" thing many times.)

But without Love, well, that was Jesus' greatest commandment.

Without Love we are nothing

A couple of weeks ago me and my Dad (also a CoC-goer) were having a heated discussion via MSN on this topic (the CoC) and he believes that it's the only church, and so do many other people in my church. They're all brainwashed so they don't have their own opinion and that kind of makes me sad. Just a few weeks ago (when I first started to doubt the 'one church' philosophy) this little boy who goes to my church was talking to the person driving the car about instrumental worship and he said "'they think they're going to heaven but they're not" because that's what he's been brainwashed to think, and I said to him: "You shouldn't say that." and I told him not to listen to other people, but form his own opinions.

After all, it's better to have faith in God rather than rely on the teachings of men, the good book says. That's what I want to stress to all of you who have been told your whole life that the CoC is the only church: The Church of Christ was started by men. Men taught that the CoC was the only church. It's not stated anywhere that the CoC is the only church (Church of Christ is simply a name, nothing more), and it is said more commonly that those who believe and have faith in God will be saved. That's the most important thing, not attending a certain church every sunday called the 'Church of Christ'!

[JDIBe]

:clap:

Keep this in Mind: Paul was only a Mna. he was Not God. Don;t go taking everything that someone who was basically mentally ill says as God's Word..it is NOT !
Paul words ARE NOT God's words, so remember that when you hear someone claiming that they are quoting God's Word when in fact they are reading one of Paul's writings.

Mentally ill? Ok I'll bite. Let's hear more about this one...


I also have net many inthe CoC who claim to be Biblically based Christians, but they deny and even on occasion refute the Old Testament as false.

The OT is not false. We are simply not under Jewish Law anymore. (In fact most of us never were.) I hate to tell you this but this belief applies to just about everyone in this forum, and the Baptist, Catholic, etc. ones as well. This is not a distinctive coC belief. If this is a criteria for a false church, I think this belief is further-reaching than you think.

SO the Bible is not really clear on exactly WHAT one has to do, there seems to be some discrepancy.


So then, how do you know? Do you simply do what is best in your own eyes? I feel that by looking at the NT Scriptures AS A WHOLE a very clear picture emerges on what we have been told about salvation.


I have yet to find anywwhere that the Bible says or suggests that you have to belong to a congrgation that has a sign out front that says "Church of Christ" and teaches "We are the only true Christians"

Yep.



Interesting.
Yet this group makes claims I have heard, to be the "ONLY true Bibilically based religion around" Biblically based, I guess, in following only the parts they want to follow? or perhaps being able to quote parts of it and sound impressive, but lacking the wisdom or intellegence to be able to apply it?


Church of Christ people (as well as other Restoration Movement people) believe the Bible is inspired and holds to key to understanding God's will. I HOPE you hear them quote it. It is the basis for what we do and teach.


And as I have mentioned, there are some evil fruits at work in some of these congregations. That is enough right there to show who the real churches and the false churches are.


This statement doesn't necessarily apply to simply some churches of Christ. (I hope you didn't mean all...)

[- DRA -]

The CoC Seems to have also many Biblical claims as to how worship should be performed. While the commands are vauge, they seem to be as quoted from wirtings of Paul. Keep this in Mind: Paul was only a Mna. he was Not God. Don;t go taking everything that someone who was basically mentally ill says as God's Word..it is NOT !
Paul words ARE NOT God's words, so remember that when you hear someone claiming that they are quoting God's Word when in fact they are reading one of Paul's writings.

Paul was indeed a man. And, true, he was NOT God. And, you are not the first to suggest that Paul was mentally ill. Festus also made that accusation (Acts 26:24). Paul denied it (verse 25). Paul claimed that his teaching/writing came directly from the Lord (Galatians 1:11-12). Do you desire to challenge him as did Elymas in Acts 13?

All books of the Bible are written by men ... including the passages that discuss love. Therefore, how do you know which passages are really the thoughts of God, and not just the thoughts of men? Furthermore, what methodology do you use to distinguish between the thoughts/writings of men and the true word of God (assuming that there is some of God's word mixed in)? Please explain.

:scratch: :confused:

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Paul was indeed a man. And, true, he was NOT God. And, you are not the first to suggest that Paul was mentally ill. Festus also made that accusation (Acts 26:24). Paul denied it (verse 25). Paul claimed that his teaching/writing came directly from the Lord (Galatians 1:11-12). Do you desire to challenge him as did Elymas in Acts 13?

All books of the Bible are written by men ... including the passages that discuss love. Therefore, how do you know which passages are really the thoughts of God, and not just the thoughts of men? Furthermore, what methodology do you use to distinguish between the thoughts/writings of men and the true word of God (assuming that there is some of God's word mixed in)? Please explain.

DRA
Sorry it has taken me so long to get back with you. I always respect point s and opinions you make on CF and will do my best to give you a response.

No problem. My post was submitted last yesterday afternoon and you responded this morning. I consider that to be a fairly prompt response.

I have read many books, including some by Frederick Buechner who discuss the mental illness behind Paul. True he did write a very enlightened chapter in Corinthians 13 but he also spends more time boasting of himself, going from elation to depression and back again to indicate that there may be something mentally going on.
BUT such is the nature too often of religious fanatacism: one man's fanactic is another mans mental case.

Rather than "boasting" of himself, I find Paul "defending" his apostleship and ministry e.g. Galatians 1:1 - 2:2. Prior to becoming a Christian, Paul (then called Saul) had credentials that made him respected by many (Philippians 3:4-6). However, he willingly gave those things up for the blessings promised in Christ Jesus(verses 7-21). To me, that sounds like a spiritually-minded man very much in control of himself i.e. 1 Cor. 9:27.

Food for Thought:
Was Paul "mentally ill" when he wrote 1 Corinthians 15? Did he really see the Lord? Was his reasoning about Jesus' resurrection just the raving of a mad man?

There have been many besides Paul who claim that their teachings come diectly from God. I would write a list, I think some which prove, by their fruits, that they DID certainly come from God were St Francis of Assis, Mother Theresa and St Thomas Aquinas to name a few. Many have claimed whom I doubt: David Koresh, Jim Roberts, Jerry Falwell, Jim Jones...these are, by their fruits, certainly NOT men of God. Like Paul, they claim that their teachings come from God. The fruits they teach , though, were/are evil.

True, there have been a lot of claims ... some in the distant past and some in the not-so-distant past. What separates Paul from the ones you mention (and the others)? I believe it is the matter that he brings to light in 1 Cor. 4:18-20. It's really a simple matter of "power." He had the "power" of God (Hebrews 2:3b-4) -- and those who opposed and undermined his teaching and apostleship didn't. Consider Acts 13. Paul had power. Elymas did not. The evidence was pretty clear to the proconsul. He believed in the Lord. The "power" confirmed both the messenger and the message as coming from God i.e. John 3:2.

As for Paul, I am not convinced he is so great as everyone makes him to be. I don;t place my faith in a book; and I don;t encourage anyone else to either, and don't place your beliefs on what someone says, especially if you cannot get to that person to verify your doubts.

Do you have the same doubts about other men/women of God that the Bible portrays as being faithful, or is Paul the only one? For instance, was Jonah just a typical fisherman with a story about the big one that got away? Did Moses make the story up about the creation? The parting of the Red Sea? What about Matthew's, Mark's, Luke's, and John's writings concerning Jesus' life. Were they also mentally unstable?

You say you don't put your faith in a book. May I be so bold as to ask what your faith is based upon, if not in the Bible? Is it possible that your faith is based on numerous books (e.g. those written by Frederick Buechner), instead of "the Book?" It is apparent from your past posts that you don't seem to have any problems with your faith where select passages are concerned. Frankly, I'm still wondering about your method of discerning which passages we should take to heart and which ones we should dismiss as the ravings of the mentally challenged. To me, it appears to be the pick and choose method that I am becoming more and more familiar with.

I am not sure that Paul was an "enlightened" thinker, in fact I doubt seriously that he was.

So, Paul wasn't quite up to your level, huh? Why not enlighten us some words of wisdom from a true thinker?

And my point is I personally do not take something as true just because it is in the Bible.

Once again, does that apply to all parts of the Bible, or just select parts? I suspect the real problem is really with just parts of it.

So are their loving and caring humans who do God's owrk in this day and age?
Oh yes.Absolutely.

So, how do you make this determination? From the Bible? Or, other books? Or, is this just your own personal opinion?

Are their false teachers? Certainly

Once again, how do you know this? I know what the Bible says about false teachers, but I also know that you don't have faith in what that book says. Therefore, what is the basis for saying there are false teachers?

Do you have to subscribe to everything Paul ever said to be a good teacher? Absolutely not.

Which parts are optional?

Again my only point is don't take something as the literal truth just because it is in the Bible. Take it as true because your experiences, your thinking, your close examination of it and of your life quest SHOW it to be true.

Okay, I follow you. Let me share with you another perspective of man's sense of direction: "I know, O LORD, that a man's way is not in himself, Nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps" (Jeremiah 10:23 - NASV). You know, either ole Jeremiah was right, and you are wrong -- or you are right and Jeremiah was wrong.

If it removes you from your God-quest or takes you off a path to enlightenment and Unity with The Spirit then it probably is not true.

What is a person's "God-quest?" Where would I find this? Is it one of those "better felt than told" things? How would I know if I got off the "path to elightenment?" Is it possible to be deceived and think that I am on the path and really am not i.e. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12, Matthew 7:21-23?

And if you walk into a congregation, regardless of what the sign in the front says, and you find people filled with hatred, animosity, judgementalness. If they claim to be "The only true follwers around" or they claim that they alone own heaven, then Don't walk away ... RUN away!

I suspect that some of those perceived as being full of "hatred," "animosity," and "judgementalness" are those who hear things such as we are hearing and are not willing to approve, consent, or fellowship those with this mindset.

Frankly, if I looked at the Bible the way you do, I wouldn't give the sign in front of the church building a second thought. I would also be alarmed if I heard someone talk about the unity of the Spirit and the characteristics described in Ephesians 4:3-6. And, if I mistakenly heard someone say they owned heaven, I would be running right beside you. However, once I stopped and caught my breath, I would probably begin asking myself how in the world people could actually believe those things written in the Bible -- and ignore all the ideas that I have about how things should be. Then, I would be faced with a choice. I could undermine, belittle, and insult the thinking ability of those who don't think like I do, or I could start being honest with myself and realizing that my judgments and opinions are nothing more than these very things -- my own judgments and opinions. Believe it or not, years ago I faced this very situation. I chose to surrender my will to His. I believe it is a better option than kicking against the goads (Acts 9:5 - NKJV).

[- DRA -]

DRA
ON a side note, this thread was started about sound doctrine, no love. I agreed with the initial posts because I have encountered that. Not only in the coc mught U add, but in other RM and fundamentalist movements. Not just in those either, I have seen it at work in New Age movemnet groups, and in liberal/moderate groups too. I am thinking it is not a congregational problem but a HUMAN Problem

There are too may unloving groups. What would Jesus think of that ?

I agree that there are a multitude of "HUMAN Problems" out there. Determining what is "sound doctrine" has to be a biggie. I am sure there are also many out there with "no love." Bottom line. Read Matthew 23. Note who is speaking. Feel the love. Jesus offered ... as a hen spreads her wings to protect her chicks ... but the Jews wanted nothing to do with Him. Note the flattering words the Lord used to impress these Jews. However, later He gave them opportunity to repent e.g. Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19.

Frankly, after reading your last post, I wouldn't worry too much about Jesus' thoughts about some of the unloving groups you've encountered in the past. I suggest contemplating what the Lord said about wanting to help others when there's a bigger need for self-improvement i.e. Matthew 7:1-5.

[AJB4]

It is true that there isn't a lot of love in some churches, but whenever that's said, it's always a generalisation. Sometimes it's as though the Church of Christ thinks they're better than everyone else, like only they have the keys into heaven (again, a generalisation). Sometimes it's like they're so busy trying to tell other people who are doing just fine with the Lord, but don't happen to go to the Church of Christ, that they're lost, and need to come to the Church of Christ to be saved, when really, they should just get on with their own Christianity. I guess you could say that I'm quite a liberal Church of Christ-goer. I don't believe that it's the one true church. I just believe that you don't have to go to the Church of Christ to be saved. Simple enough. If I was excommunicated from the Church of Christ (I don't want to be, but if I was...) then I'd become a non-denomiational.

[JDIBe]

As for the Bible, This can be a touchy subject. And one that people do not understand when I speak of it. It is true, I don;t believe the Bible to be all true, but when I say that, I mean I don't mean it to be literlaly true. I would tell you that scientifically for example, there was no great flood and no ark of animals.
These are fables and myths.
There was no swallowing of a man by a fish, but he was swallowed by his selfishness.....and it took three days of hard thinking and praying for him to overcome this.
There was no "garden of eden" there was no Tower of Babel, the walls of Jericho fell over many years......not from a thunderous trumpet. Like I said thereses are myths. Apollo does not drive a golden chariot across the sky, Persius did not behead the medusa ....These are myths. The REALITY I will not argue; the statement or moral which they brought to the culture that created them is what is most important.

My point is, the Bible is simply a book. It may have beeni nspired by God, but so was the Koran, the Tipitaka and, one of my favorites, Man's eternal Quest. There are too many other inspired writings to mention here.

Again as I said, I look at basic good and evil fruits. That has a lot to do with the interpretation and use of the text too.
The most "God Like" fellowship I ever met was not even within the definition of "Christian" It was a group in California who readily incorporated anything good and useful they could get their hands on to draw closer to God. It worked. Strong spiritual people, not so much "religious" but very spiritual.

The worse I ever saw? I won't name the name but it was a coc congregation in central Texas. God was not at work there, regardless of what they claim. And the evil fruits showed it.

As mentioned by you, these opinions and judgements are my own. I am only a man. I am not God. Nor to make any claims to be.

I understand and recognize your right to interpret the Bible as you see it, but a friendly word of caution...

Be careful when you start throwing out pieces of the Bible simply because they have a supernatural or miraculous bend to them.

You may find yourself concluding someday that there is no God, either.

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: InDeoHonorium2

As for the Bible, This can be a touchy subject. And one that people do not understand when I speak of it. It is true, I don;t believe the Bible to be all true, but when I say that, I mean I don't mean it to be literlaly true. I would tell you that scientifically for example, there was no great flood and no ark of animals.
These are fables and myths.
There was no swallowing of a man by a fish, but he was swallowed by his selfishness.....and it took three days of hard thinking and praying for him to overcome this.
There was no "garden of eden" there was no Tower of Babel, the walls of Jericho fell over many years......not from a thunderous trumpet. Like I said thereses are myths. Apollo does not drive a golden chariot across the sky, Persius did not behead the medusa ....These are myths. The REALITY I will not argue; the statement or moral which they brought to the culture that created them is what is most important.

My point is, the Bible is simply a book. It may have beeni nspired by God, but so was the Koran, the Tipitaka and, one of my favorites, Man's eternal Quest. There are too many other inspired writings to mention here.

Again as I said, I look at basic good and evil fruits. That has a lot to do with the interpretation and use of the text too.
The most "God Like" fellowship I ever met was not even within the definition of "Christian" It was a group in California who readily incorporated anything good and useful they could get their hands on to draw closer to God. It worked. Strong spiritual people, not so much "religious" but very spiritual.

The worse I ever saw? I won't name the name but it was a coc congregation in central Texas. God was not at work there, regardless of what they claim. And the evil fruits showed it.

As mentioned by you, these opinions and judgements are my own. I am only a man. I am not God. Nor to make any claims to be.

I understand and recognize your right to interpret the Bible as you see it, but a friendly word of caution...

Be careful when you start throwing out pieces of the Bible simply because they have a supernatural or miraculous bend to them.

You may find yourself concluding someday that there is no God, either.

In the same way, Jesus walking on water, calming the storm, feeding thousands with a few fishes and loaves, being resurrected from the dead, being seated at God's right hand, and offering an eternal inheritance to all of mankind, could just as easily be dismissed as fables and tales.

I still suspect the mindset we are facing is not so much one that struggles to "interpret" the Scriptures, but one that selectively "picks and chooses" the parts that suit them. Obviously, that "all Scripture" part of 2 Tim. 3:16a didn't make the acceptable list.

:sigh:

[InDeoHonorium2]

Originally Posted by: InDeoHonorium2



I still suspect the mindset we are facing is not so much one that struggles to "interpret" the Scriptures, but one that selectively "picks and chooses" the parts that suit them. Obviously, that "all Scripture" part of 2 Tim. 3:16a didn't make the acceptable list.

:sigh:

Um NO it did not. Because one I don't subscribe to Sola Scriptura and two, the Bible was not the reference there -- In fact the Bible did not even exist yet when that was written.

So no it does NOT make the acceptable list. Sorry.

That is a short list anyway, and an overrated list too. Better trust what your own eyessee and your own ears hear and the Power of the Holy Spirit to discern.


I appreacite what you wrote about where you are religiously DRA. I think the big difference is that you are inside of a group, a congregation, a way of thinking looking out; I see the whole picture, but from the outside looking in. I would be just as comefortable on Monday Night at the Bhuddist meditation (as long as it is not during football season) as I would be at the Drumming Circle on the beachon Friday night as I would Saturday night at the Mass as I would Sunday AM at some protestant church somewhere.....

Giess What? God is there at all of those places. With all of those people with all of those gatherings, God is.

God is just as much alive and at work in the other places I go as he is in your congregation. God does not exist within a specific congregation or group, nor show love only to one sect, cult, or movement. God is alive and real and in my life just as much probably as in yours.
and THAT is the Gospel. :amen:

[AJB4]

Um NO it did not. Because one I don't subscribe to Sola Scriptura and two, the Bible was not the reference there -- In fact the Bible did not even exist yet when that was written.

So no it does NOT make the acceptable list. Sorry.

That is a short list anyway, and an overrated list too. Better trust what your own eyessee and your own ears hear and the Power of the Holy Spirit to discern.


I appreacite what you wrote about where you are religiously DRA. I think the big difference is that you are inside of a group, a congregation, a way of thinking looking out; I see the whole picture, but from the outside looking in. I would be just as comefortable on Monday Night at the Bhuddist meditation (as long as it is not during football season) as I would be at the Drumming Circle on the beachon Friday night as I would Saturday night at the Mass as I would Sunday AM at some protestant church somewhere.....

Giess What? God is there at all of those places. With all of those people with all of those gatherings, God is.

God is just as much alive and at work in the other places I go as he is in your congregation. God does not exist within a specific congregation or group, nor show love only to one sect, cult, or movement. God is alive and real and in my life just as much probably as in yours.
and THAT is the Gospel.

InDeoHonorium2, you ROCK!! LOL sorry but you are typing exactly what I'm thinking. I don't think I'd be as flexible as you when it comes to going to different churches, but I know exactly what you're saying. God is in the hearts of all his believers.

[- DRA -]

and THAT is the Gospel. :amen:

More correctly, that is the gospel according to InDeoHonorium2.

Like it or not, it's still the "pick and choose" way of thinking. You've picked out some things the Scriptures say about the gospel and are willing to accept them, but other things have been rejected and replaced.

As stated before, given your attitude towards toward the Bible, I understand how you can do the things you do and presume that God will be pleased. Jesus said there will be "many" with this mindset -- they think they know God and serve Him, but do not (Matthew 7:21-23).

[WesWoodell]

I think the big difference is that you are inside of a group, a congregation, a way of thinking looking out; I see the whole picture, but from the outside looking in. I would be just as comefortable on Monday Night at the Bhuddist meditation (as long as it is not during football season) as I would be at the Drumming Circle on the beachon Friday night as I would Saturday night at the Mass as I would Sunday AM at some protestant church somewhere.....

Giess What? God is there at all of those places. With all of those people with all of those gatherings, God is.

Jesus is the only way, bro. Not buddha, the sun, or the sky - Jesus.

John 14:6
6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Was God with the Baal worshippers in the Old Testament? What about those who served Molech? What about the pagans in Corinth and Rome? Did their worship to their "gods" please Jehovah? Why was idol worship made out to be such a big deal in the OT if God is ok with it?

[AJB4]

As stated before, given your attitude towards toward the Bible, I understand how you can do the things you do and presume that God will be pleased. Jesus said there will be "many" with this mindset -- they think they know God and serve Him, but do not (Matthew 7:21-23).

It's good to think this because it's true, but I don't for a second think that the Church of Christ (or any church for that matter) is the only group of people that does serve Jesus.

[Gargantuas]

Two things.

1. First of all "judge not lest ye be judged" applies both ways. In my experiences, I have often heard more condemnation from people with "liberal" philosophies against those with "conservative" philosophies. I do not like labels per because they really do not mean much from one day to the next, but I used this in this circumstance to make a point.

2. Too often man puts his big "but" in the Bible. It is not a competition between faith and works. There is no Wild, Wild West duel between love and obedience. There is no balance scales between mercy and judgment. Why? Because those are all the same thing. Jesus said, If you love me, you will obey what I command - John 14:15. AND He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me. in John 14:24.

Obedience is not a matter of style, tradition or comfort level rather it is an issue of love. If you love God you obey God. If you want to know God you read his holy word. If you want to be close to him you activate the prompts of love you have every day by your actions. This love produces perfect harmony and unity with those who practice the same love. There is no need for reconcillation, meetings, conventions, discussion groups, it is simply a state of that perfect harmony which exists in a reality we have a hard time seeing and holding at times but that is no less real.

As Paul so eloquently stated in Athens.

'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."


God's love is the very fabric of all that is, was or might be.

With his right index finger he touches the electron and sets its course to orbit his left hand where he holds the proton and the neutron. He releases it like a sparrow unfolding her wings across the garden. He collects your sins at baptism and hurls them into the sea. He walks down the aisle, stands beside the hospital bed and lifts the weak to stand again. He prompts apologies and cards of remembrance and warm meals for the hungry.

He is our unity. If there be any seperation it is not from us and God but from God and us because only we can tell him to go away by our disobedience. He has set forth a perfect law of liberty that anyone with the simplest of educations can readily understand. The only barriers that are placed come from man's ego when we exchange His holiness for our loathsome pretences when we say arrogantly say, "I don't want to do this or that."

With God there is peace; with man there is pieces.

And that's all there is to say about that. -Jason Goldtrap

[AJB4]

Two things.

1. First of all "judge not lest ye be judged" applies both ways. In my experiences, I have often heard more condemnation from people with "liberal" philosophies against those with "conservative" philosophies. I do not like labels per because they really do not mean much from one day to the next, but I used this in this circumstance to make a point.

2. Too often man puts his big "but" in the Bible. It is not a competition between faith and works. There is no Wild, Wild West duel between love and obedience. There is no balance scales between mercy and judgment. Why? Because those are all the same thing. Jesus said, If you love me, you will obey what I command - John 14:15. AND He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me. in John 14:24.

Obedience is not a matter of style, tradition or comfort level rather it is an issue of love. If you love God you obey God. If you want to know God you read his holy word. If you want to be close to him you activate the prompts of love you have every day by your actions. This love produces perfect harmony and unity with those who practice the same love. There is no need for reconcillation, meetings, conventions, discussion groups, it is simply a state of that perfect harmony which exists in a reality we have a hard time seeing and holding at times but that is no less real.

As Paul so eloquently stated in Athens.

'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."


God's love is the very fabric of all that is, was or might be.

With his right index finger he touches the electron and sets its course to orbit his left hand where he holds the proton and the neutron. He releases it like a sparrow unfolding her wings across the garden. He collects your sins at baptism and hurls them into the sea. He walks down the aisle, stands beside the hospital bed and lifts the weak to stand again. He prompts apologies and cards of remembrance and warm meals for the hungry.

He is our unity. If there be any seperation it is not from us and God but from God and us because only we can tell him to go away by our disobedience. He has set forth a perfect law of liberty that anyone with the simplest of educations can readily understand. The only barriers that are placed come from man's ego when we exchange His holiness for our loathsome pretences when we say arrogantly say, "I don't want to do this or that."

With God there is peace; with man there is pieces.

And that's all there is to say about that. -Jason Goldtrap

Nicely put.

[Koey]

...The Coc Claims to be Biblically based, silent where the Bible is silent and speaking from the Bible...
I certainly agree that the CoC does not follow that ideal perfectly, after all they teach a few things not commanded in the Bible like weekly communion, grape juice substituted for wine, and the non-instrumental folk make a rule about instruments that neither Jesus nor that Apostles made (an argument from silence), etc.

On the other hand, to my knowledge all churches contradict themselves to some extent or other. For instance, all Protestants adhere to the ideal sola scriptura and then go ahead and continue to follow and teach things that are outside of the Bible alone. Catholics and Orthodox also have numerous contradictions. No church is perfect. As long as the essentials for salvation are there, the rest is probably non-essential, and sometimes even total rubbish.

[Sephania]

Closed for Staff review