One of my Elders and I are kindred spirits (tho he is a good 30 years my senior) and we often talk turkey about spiritual issues in the church. Here's a good subject he brought up this week to me:

Recently the Christian Standard reported that there is a move within the Restoration movement to drop the term "Restoration movement" and be called rather the "Stone/Campbell Movement." What are your thoughts on this?

My personal feeling is this is absolutely the wrong way to be going, for two reasons: One, because the very mention of the name "Campbell" in some Christian circles brings with it some very negative baggage (wtness my recent dismissal from that online newsletter simply because I dropped his name in an article I wrote) and, secondly, how is it any different to be called a "Stone/Campbell" Christian than to be called a "Lutheran" Christian or a "Calvinist" Christian? Are we not descending into the very denominationalism our movement was founded to eschew?

Your thoughts, gentlemen (and ladies)?

-- Anonymous, August 12, 2000

Answers

John...

Knowing some of the people behind that "push" I would suggest the motivation is our continuing desire to "Repent and Be Baptist!"

It is a know fact that some of the "biggies" in our brotherhood have been embarrassed by our stance (specifically and most especially on the topic of baptism).

The term "restoration movement" suggests that there is a standard and we believe that all of us should be attempting to restore that standard.

To rename the movement "The Campbell/Stone" movement would give the impression that we are just one of the many groups out there all pushing towards the same thing.

Gag!!!!

There have been a number of issues building over the last 10 years and I fear that the time is VERY NEAR for another split in our brotherhood similar to the Disciples split.

By the way.....who has the authority in the Christian Churches to demand that we "change" anything anyway??

That fact alone is cause for suspicion.

-- Anonymous, August 12, 2000

D. Lee....

I agree!! In fact, my daughter and son in law are now worshipping at a "non" instrumental church for the VERY reasons you mentioned.

It appears the Christian Churches in the area are more interested in who can have the biggest numbers and the location of the next "Promise Keeper's Rally."

Thanks for your faithfulness which is an encouragement.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Let's have a basic English lesson.....shall we???

First....what is the difference between the following.......

The Philosophy of Aristotle Aristotle's Philosopy Aristotilian Philosopy

Good answer!!!! The answer is zip, zilch, nada, nothing. They are three ways in the English language for saying he same thing.

Second, what is the difference in the following:

The Church of Christ Christ's Church Christian Church

Great answer!!! You did it it again. The answer is....zip, zilch, nada, nothing.

They all speak of the same thing.

The "ian" ending in English is the English way of showing possession.

So break it down......."Aristotilian Philosophy".....is...."the philosophy that belongs to Plato."

"Christian Church" is "the church that belongs to Christ."

In no sense can the term "Christian Church" be construed to mean a church that belongs to a Christian.....unless one of course butchers the English language.

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2000

I really wish this thing had an "edit" function.'

Anyway....I trust everyone saw I got my Plato's and Aristotles mixed up at one time in the last post.

It's 4:15 AM.

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2000

Duane....

English never was your best subject was it.

"Christian Church" purely linguistically speaking means....."the church that belongs to Christ."

Any other meanings.....are interpretive...not linguistic.

-- Anonymous, September 05, 2000

Duane...

To have the meaning that you said it "could" have....it would have to read......"the Christian's Church."

-- Anonymous, September 05, 2000

Duane.......

So what's your point??

Did you originally ask the question with the intent of proving that the name "Church of Christ" is not the "only" name a church can use??

I'll say it again.....there is no way that the name "Christian Church" can be construted to mean anything else but......"The Church That Belongs to Christ."

Now as per the correct name of church.....I kind of like just......CHURCH.

-- Anonymous, September 05, 2000

Lee....

People have a wrong perception of baptism...i.e., THEY THINK it can mean sprinkling. Should we therefore not use the term....."baptism" simply because people may have a wrong perception??

What about grace? People can have a wrong perception of that.

And the list could go on. Just because people have a wrong perception of something does not negate the rightness of its usage.

As per being more in line with the Restoration movement.....the term..."Church of Christ" was rather late to the Restoration Movement. The Campbell's opted for the name "Disciples"....and Stone opted for the name "Christian Church."

The name "Church of God" is used more often in Scripture than the one time useage of....."Church of Christ." That means nothing except to say that dogmatism on this issue is not wise. I think using any name that was used in Scripture for the assembly is perfectly acceptable.

-- Anonymous, September 05, 2000

Lee....

I BY NO MEANS was inferring that you were being dogmatic. I apologize if it came across that way.

That was a "general" statement for everyone involved.....including....myself.

-- Anonymous, September 07, 2000

Link.....

Why is it everything has to be a miracle or a gift to you??? It is extremely aggravating.

Hebrews says the "Word of God is LIVING, AND ACTIVE, AND SHARPER THAN ANY TWO EDGED SWORD.....IT PENETRATES EVEN TO THE DIVIDING OF SOUL AND SPIRIT, JOINTS AND MARROW; IT JUDGES THE THOUGHTS AND ATTITUDES OF THE HEART."

Where is there any mention of a miracle.....or a gift.....or anything other than the powerfulness of the written word of God???

I've had people say the same thing to me for years...."Preacher....did you write that sermon for me??"

It's the nature of the word of God Link....it does what God intended for it to do. There is no shred of a "gift" as you suggest.

The "miracle" involved in the Word was the inspiration of those who wrote it and the preservation and bringing together of those writings into one book (i.e., the canonization process).

-- Anonymous, September 08, 2000

"Faith comes by hearing...and hearing by the Word of Christ." (Romans 10:17)

-- Anonymous, September 08, 2000

John....

Those are promises to THE APOSTLES.

-- Anonymous, September 08, 2000

Context John, context.

-- Anonymous, September 09, 2000

John....

An axiomatic rule of hermeneutics.....WHO is Speaking??....and to WHOM are they speaking??

Elementary my dear Watson!!

-- Anonymous, September 10, 2000

John.....

When the Rich Young Ruler asked Jesus "What must I do to inherit eternal life?"......Jesus responded by saying....."Go and sell all you have and follow me!"

Does that apply to us?? If so....I presume you must be borrowing the computer you are using to post your responses?!?!?:)

-- Anonymous, September 12, 2000

Your avoidance of the question speaks volumes John.

Jesus also told the disciples in Matthew 10:8-11

"Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons.....do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper, for your money belts, or bag for your journey, or even two coats, or sandals, or a staff; for the worker is worthy of his support. And whatever city or village you enter, inquire who is worthy in it, and stay at his house until you leave that city."

Alright....according to "your" hermeneutic.....the next time I relocate in my ministry.....

1) I need to make sure I can raise the dead. 2) Any money I have in the bank I need to leave behind. 3) Take no more than one coat. 4) Gotta throw my extra pair of sandals away. (Actually, I don't wear sandals....because "real" men don't!:) 5) I gotta leave my walking stick. 6) I can't pack anything....because he said..."no bag." 7) Forget the parsonage in my new area.....I gotta stay in a church member's house until I relocate again.

There.....did I interpret that correctly John??

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2000

In fact John, there is no such hermeneutical rule that says...."The Bible interprets itself."

Otherwise....why the need for teachers?? Did not the Eunuch say to Phillip...."How can I (i.e., understand)unless someone teaches me?"

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2000

John.....

I just re-read your last post....and you're inconsistency is glaring.

Instead of just saying...."No....it all applies to us".....you pick and chose verses you want to make as applicable to us.

So, in other words, you proved my point.....there must be a distinction between what is applicable to us....and what isn't.

No where in Scripture is the general "believer" promised Holy Spirit illumination...(i.e., The Spirit will teach you...). That's Augustian/Calvinism......not Bible.

The question is not "Do we receive the Holy Spirit?" The question is...."The role of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the Apostles....as opposed to the role of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the believer."

I mean John,......you simply have to say..."It all applies" or it doesn't. And if it all applies......then you must answer the two passages I have read to you directed towards the "Rich Young Ruler"....and the 12 when they were sent out to preach.

Which is it??

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2000

John.....

Thanks for proving my point.

You DO make distinguisments....but I guess they only apply according to "John's Rules" of hermeneutical distinguishments."

In the passages I quoted you.....where does it "specifically" say....it was to the "Rich Young Ruler".....or where does it "specifically" say.....it was to the 12???

I have sitting on my desk 3 different books of hermeneutical principles. I've looked and looked.....and cannot find one place where it says "The Bible interprets itself."

So instead of throwing out esoteric references.....I want specifics. I'm calling your bluff.

If the Bible "interprets" itself....why do we need to study as we are instructed to do?? Which, by the way, is another slam against Augustinian/Calvinistic illumination. Nowhere are we told/promised etc......to wait on the Spirit to teach us the meaning of a passage.

The Apostles were promised the illumination of the Holy Spirit because they had no written word and to them was given the responsibility of writing the sacred words of Scripture. Now that we have the sacred words of Scripture.....what purpose would Holy Spirit illumination serve?? To teach us what the He already taught us through the word?? How ridiculous and redundant.

And, if the Holy Spirit teaches me.....as the apostles were taught.....then anything I say.....cannot be wrong....because the Holy Spirit taught me. Remember, the Holy Spirit only teaches and guides in the truth. How absurd!!!

And.....if the Holy Spirit guides me and teaches me.....then my interpretations must of necessity be added to the Holy Writ and put in red letters.....because....."it came straight from God."

THAT....is the distinguishment John. Nowhere are we promised the baptism of the Holy Spirit in the way the Apostles were. We are promised the indwelling presence of the Spirit which according to Ephesians 1 is 1) a seal of our salvation; and 2) a "downpayment" on our future reward.

I guess that must be why you only feel your "hemenutical distinguishments" are valid since you feel you were led to them by the Holy Spirit.

John, this thread started out as as discussion of the "Stone/Campbell" movement. It is clear that your knowledge of the history of the movement is sorely lacking.

If you had any knowledge of it you would quickly realize that Calvinism and it's evil sister (i.e., Holy Spirit illumination)....was the main battleground of soteriology and the enemy to sound biblical scholarship that the Campbell's, et. al...felt the need to defeat....and they did.

Therefore, I refuse to give up ground.....already claimed.

-- Anonymous, September 17, 2000

Please John....explain to me how I did not answer your question from my last post.

I made it abundantly clear where the line is drawn......i.e, the promise of Holy Spirit illumination made only to the Apostles. I really am at a loss to make it any clearer.

Show me one time when Jesus "spoke to the crowds"....that He promised the same kind of thing.

I also challenge you...if you are going to claim to be a part of the Restoration movement that you more intensely study the history of the movement....and see if this is not "old ground" that we are covering.

-- Anonymous, September 17, 2000

I.e., John.....

When Jesus spoke to the crowds....He spoke of heaven....He spoke of prayer....He spoke of our assurance and peace that we have in Him.

BUT HE NEVER.....promised Holy Spirit illumination....as He did the twelve.

Again....maybe you will respect the teachings of Alexander Campbell better than mine....therefore I suggest you closely read such works as...."The Christian System."

Because.....like I said....this is redundant....old ground....for the Restoration Movement to even be discussing.

-- Anonymous, September 17, 2000

Brother John:

You have asked our opinion on the following:

Recently the Christian Standard reported that there is a move within the Restoration movement to drop the term "Restoration movement" and be called rather the "Stone/Campbell Movement." What are your thoughts on this?

Nothing could be a clearer signal that many among us have absolute no idea just what the restoration movement is all about than those who would prefer to call it the stone/Campbell movement! Such ignorance of the idea of restoring New Testament Christianity as God originally intended it to be is a major indication of the fact that sectarianism has long since raised its ugly head within our ranks again! Those seeking to begin thinking of themselves as Campbellites and Stonites or worse Stone/Campbellites have never spent very much time in the study of the precious word of God that tells us that the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch (Acts 11:26) and they were never called Baptist, Methodist, Catholics, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Lutherans, and they most certainly were never referred to by any other name than the name of Christ without receiving the condemnation of the Apostles for doing so (1Cor. 1:10-15)and to now denominate ourselves in some "historic" alegience to Barton w. Stone and A. Campbell would cause these men to roll over in thier graves if they knew it was happening. We are Christians only and our only alegience is to Christ our Lord and I stand amazed at those who are more dedicated to their "Stone/ Campbell heritage" than they are to that great spiritual inheritance of the precious truth of God and salvation in Christ handed down from Christ to the Holy SPirit to the Apostles and to us throught their inspired words! Let the Name of Campbell and Stone fade into oblivion before we allow Christ and the truth of God to be forsaken by becoming sectarian in the name of these men who abhored sectarinaism!

Those who would do this thing have never paid close attention to the following inspired words from God: And neither is there salvation in any other for there is none other name given under heaven whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12).

My suspicion is that they have for so long now yearned to join with the sectarians so that they can have congregations large enough to continue to financially provide them with professional jobs and keep them behind their liberal university walls and to do this they must first gradually wean the church of this notion of restoring simple New Testament Christianity and make us less sensitive to sectarianism until we can see no real difference or distinction between us and them and then it will be easier to join the mainline protestant denominations and they will then be scholars among a much larger group able to provide for their financial future and they will never have to go through the painful and financially unprofitable process of teaching the truth in a world that appears to be unwilling to hear it.

It is surely pure cowardice and complete lack of convictions and faith in the teaching of the scriptures that would cause anyone to contemplate dropping the idea of restoring New Testament Christianity as God originally intended it to be to become just another among the hundreds of self contradictory human sectarian denominations!. For abandoning the idea of such a restoration is equal to treason against Christ and the abandonment of truth.

Let me assure you that the Brotherhood Colleges, Universities, and papers should lose all of their power and support that they have received from any of us in the past if they do not rise up and resist stringently this absurd notion. No one in the Body of Christ should have any overall control over the entire body of Christ except our Lord Jesus Christ. So just who do these men think they are to meet in some conference somewhere and decide for all of the Christians in the Lord's Body that we are going to forsake the truth now and become sectarians. Well let it be known that they may decide anything that they wish but they will find that it has absolutely no effect upon us where I worship in Atlanta and in several congregations troughout the south that I know to be faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ and have refuse wan will continue to refuase all sectarian and denominational designations and will remain simple and faithful Christians only! I would be interested to know if the Christian Standard has seriously resisted this pathetic idea! Or is the Christian Standard and the colleges that have decided that they are the head of the church and will determine its course and turn it toward such sectarianism by controling the minds of our young and denying access to the pages of the Standard to write in opposition to this nonsense? I would like to know if they intend to allow those of us opposed to it access to their medium to wrestle against it.

I will also assure you that the Christians here in Atlanta and in Alabama will not abandon the restoration and we have spent too much time fighting against the false charge that we are Campbellites to suddenly stop being Christians only to become Stonite/Campbellites!

Brother Danny:

It may be that this is a clear signal that it is time to come out from among them and touch not the unclean thing that God may have a remnant left to hold forth the truth. The Church is not the support of any movement whether it is called a restoration movement or the Stone/Campbell movement. The Church is the pillar (or support) and ground of the truth (2 Timothy 3:15). Therefore let us determine to gird ourselves up for the battle and stay ready to be Christians only and to continue our efforts to restore New Testament Christianity as God intended in the New Testament for it to be and separate ourselves immediately from those who would lead us in another path. Do not let these evil men have your financial support and take your buildings and Universities and Colleges from you if you can stop them. If they have them already then you have waited too long to act and must act now to severe yourselves from deceivers whos God is their Belly, before you lose your children to them! As for me and my house we will remain faithful to the truth and the cause of Christ and the restoration of all that our Lord Jesus Christ intended for us to do and teach. We will be here working when the Stoneite/Campbellites have gone out from among you or have driven you out from among them. Let us join hands in this great cause to restore genuine Christianity to this world!

I believe that you are right in your predictions of a split coming and I can see it as somewhat of an outsider looking in through this forum. There is a wide difference between those committed to the teaching of the truth and those seeking any and every new and unscriptural thing. If you sat where I sit you would be shocked to see how far many among you have already moved away from the truth and the many ways in which they have been turned unto fables! I hope you understand that I am referring to the grand themes of the gospel of Christ upon which most of us agree in all that I have spoken above. Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

P. S.:

John:

I am extremely happy that we now have something to discuss that we both agree upon! Ha! Thanks for bring it up.

-- Anonymous, August 13, 2000

In I Corinthians, Paul dealt with the issue of divisions in the church. Some saying 'I am of Paul' I am of Apollos. I am of Cephas. And, I am of Christ.

Some have suggested that hte 'I am of Christ' group were a divsion, too. This could even be a divisive title if the person using it of themselves means "I am of Christ and you are not."

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2000

In I Corinthians, Paul dealt with the issue of divisions in the church. Some saying 'I am of Paul' I am of Apollos. I am of Cephas. And, I am of Christ.

Some have suggested that the 'I am of Christ' group were a divsion, too. This could even be a divisive title if the person using it of themselves means "I am of Christ and you are not."

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2000

John,

I agree we should not be called by any man's name! Yes, I do believe that we are descending into denominationalism. And it is a very fast track that some of us are on.

Danny,

I can see as a newcomer to the CC (not having heard of it until about 7/8 years ago) that a split in the brotherhood has ALREADY taken place. It may not be official, but all the same it is there for all to see if they would but look. Maybe the rift started small, but I know personally of many who do not teach that baptism is essential to our very salvation. Acceptance of any as Christian regardless of beliefs is becoming the norm not the exception.

By and large, we here are a military congregation with a turnover time of a few months to three years. In sending people on their way, we try to hook them up with a congregation near their new duty station. I would caution anyone who sends people out to really check out the doctrine of the congregation you may be sending people to. It is definitely not enough to see the words "Christian Church" on the sign, or to just send someone to an address in the Christian Church directory. Many of our brotherhood have gone down the faith only path. And why not...it is a much easier, broader path to take.

We have in several instances advised families that are leaving to look towards those congregations of our brothers who do not use instruments when they do not find the truth being preached in the CC. There are Church of Christ congregations that will fellowship with us as brothers and sisters even though we disagree on the issue of instruments, as Lee fellowships with us here. From what I have seen lately, the Church of Christ is way more firm on the Biblical stance of salvation than many of the Christian Churches.

Now...the problem we have...is to get people to wake up and see what is going on before more drift away.

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2000

Link,

You say that some have suggested the I am of Christ group is a division also. And of course you are correct when you suggest that it could even be divisive if the person using it of themselves means I am of Christ while excluding others.

I can say to you LinkthatI am of Christ. Why? Christ died for my sins offering me salvation and I have obeyed the gospel of Christ. If someone comes to me who has not followed the gospel of Christ, I can not say for the sake of unity that they are Christian. In this case, as you suggested aboveI would be divisiveand rightly so.

Many today claiming to be Christian see division as completely negative. This is why many denominations today are uniting with one another regardless of what they believe the Word teaches concerning their beliefs. This has gone to the point that people will unite even if one belief is in direct opposition to another.

Now, compromise is good if we are discussing an area of opinion, but we can not unite and compromise concerning Biblical absolutes. So, are we to compromise the truth for the sake of unity? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!

Not always is division or separation from others used in a totally negative sense Biblically speaking. In fact many times it is used in a positive sense.

1 Cor 11:18-19 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. NO DOUBT THERE HAVE TO BE DIFFERNECES AMONG YOU TO SHOW WHICH OF YOU HAVE GODS APPROVAL.

2 Cor 13:5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you-- unless, of course, you fail the test?

I Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us

Matt 13:49-51 This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. "HAVE YOU UNDERSTOOD ALL THESE THINGS?" JESUS ASKED. "Yes," they replied.

2 Cor 6:17 "Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you."

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

D. Lee:

I have not the time at this moment to tellyou haow I am touched by your post. I only want to make sure that I say to you that I love you in Christ for your manificent love of the truth which you have ever and always displayed in this forum. We can be of Christ without being sectarian in doing so! Those in Corinth that were claiming to be of Christ were right in doing so. But the fact that the other Brothern had so sectarianized the body of Christ in Corinth that the only solution available to those who did not want to be sactarian was to use the the very name of Christ in the same sectarian manner that others used the names of Paul is the reason Paul condemned them all. There is no need for a name to identify us when it is our faith and practice that is to identify us! But those who would devide the body have cause this problem. Those who said they were of Christ told the truth. They did belong to Christ. But those who had taken upon themselves the names of men and filled with pride concerning who baptized them and taught them the truth they fell away from the "unity of the spirit in the bond of peace". This sectarianism was so severe that it was necessary to be "identified" by being "denominated" rather than by faith in Christ and obedience to his word. Paul told how were are to be identified as Christians when he ask the rehtorical question "Was Paul crucified for you or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" THis is how we identify Christians today as well. Was Christ Crucified for you and were you baptized in the name of Christ?" If so you belong to Christ and you are therfore automatically a member of that precious body of Christ which is the church of Christ. We are told in Eph. 1:22,23 "And hath put all things under his feet and given him to be the head over all theings to the church, which is his body the fullness of him that filleth all in all." Eph. 1:22,23. We are then told in Eph. 4:4 "There is one body and one spirit even as we are called in one hope of our calling." Then in Col 1:18 we read "And he(Christ) is the head of the body, the Church." THe Church and the body are the same thing and there is only one body and therefore there is but one Church. then we read, "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind in the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for HIS BODY"S SAKE, which is the church. The body and the church are the same thing and the church is HIS(CHRIST'S) CHURCH. Jesus said, "upon my rock I will build MY CHURCH". (matt. 16;16). Not if the Church belongs to Christ as in the possesive sense then it is more than accurate to describe His body as the Church of Christ. For there is no difference between the terms; "His (Christ's) Body (which is the church), and "My (Christ's) Church" and the phrase church of Christ. for all three are found in the scripture and have the same meaning of describing the fact that there is a body individuals for who Christ died and who have been baptized in the name of Christ who are the saved (Acts 2:47) and who collectively and individually BELONG TO CHRIST. THerefore while it may be true that not every place where people have designated themselves as the "church of Christ" do we find that they are in fact a part of this group that Christ died for and who were baptized into his name, it is certainly true that the term church of Christ is an accurate and scriptural description of the body of those who in fact belong to Him! You cannot make this kind of argument for "baptist, methodist, Presbyterians and those who claimed to be of Paul, and Apollos, and Cephas, now can you?

I have not the time, Sister, to go into this subject in great detail. I must eat something and go to bed! Ha! But the body of Christ is without doubt the church of Christ. I have found that those who object severly to hearing the description "church of Christ" have not such objection or reaction to the phrase "the body of Christ" but the terms mean exactly the same thing. We are Christians only by which we mean that we belong only to Christ and not some party or sect. Many in the denominations have never obeyed the gospel (2 Thess. 1:9- 11; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Romans 6:3-5) and therefore are not in the body or church of Christ and are therefore not saved (Acts 2:38-47) and thus are nothing more than a sect among those who are outside of Christ giving lip service to the truth taugh by Christ and the apostles.

I love you for you faith in Christ and youo love and dedication to the truth. Let us work to restore Christianity as Christ intended it to be in harmony with the blessed "doctrine of Christ" (2 John 9-11) and receive not anyone who does not bring this doctrine into our house.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

It is a possible reading of the text to see the 'I am of Christ' group as being divisive also. Perhaps they should have said 'we are all of Christ.'

Notice that Paul addressed the letter to the church of God which was at Corinth. Notice that the 'I am of Paul' statement was being stated by some of the people identified as 'you' in the letter. This was being made by some in the church in Corinth. Though they wrongly identified themselves as being of Paul, they were still a part of hte church that needed to quit being divisive.

There are a number of denominational names. Some do name themselves after people- Lutheran, etc. I don't think this is a good thing. However, there are other groups that choos names like Church of God, or antoher way the phrase could be translated- Assemblies of God, or Church of Christ.

These titles can be used as denominational names. That does not mean that those who identify their assemblies with such names are really the one true church. The phrase 'Church of Christ' is used to refer to a particular type of church- not a denomination exactly since there is no central HQ, but a number of churches with the same beliefs. The congregations with this name on the sign of their building are not exclusively the true church of Christ in the literal sense of the word. (Many of the people in this forum go to buildings labeled 'Christian church.')

Is it any more wrong to put 'Lutheran church' on one's sign than it is to label a church building a 'church of Christ?' Isn't the latter bad as well, since it misleads people into thinking the church of Christ is a building? Early saints met in homes and didn't have signs with denominational names. Isn't putting a sign in front just a church tradition in the first place? I'm not saying a sign to tell others you are having a meeting is wrong, but I think people really get hung up on what signs are hung up. Labeling a building 'church of Christ' does not make assemblies without that label less 'church of Christ.'

I think some don't like the label 'Church of Christ' because when some use it, the implication is that if you don't go to an assembly that meets in a building which is labeled 'Church of Christ,' or you were not baptized in connection with such an assembly, that you don't belong to the church of Christ.

Just some things I'm thinking about.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

I now preach at an acapella church of Christ.

Lee's posts are taking on a new meaning for me. I am actually going back and reading some of the long ones. :P

If an "Orwellian" phrase signifies Orwell's ownership...

If a Martian describes someone belonging to Mars...

Could a church that belongs to Christ...be called Christian?

I have been reading some of the tracts here at the location where my acapella brethren meet....(not the "church")

One of them makes a special point to mention that the church in the first century was called "church of Christ" as a group, but it was only INDIVIDUALS who were called "Christians"... as if to say that the word "Christian" is OK to use to refer to an individual member of the body, but not to the whole body itself....

But if the called out group is the "body" of Christ, is it not then a "Christian" body, with "Christian" being an adjective....?

Any thoughts?

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2000

Duane,

I agree with your reasoning. As a matter of fact, if Shelly (my wife, for those of you who don't know me personally) had refused to accept my name when we were married, it is doubtful we would have married at all. The rebellion against the name is just the tip of the iceburg of rebellion in other things. So, I agree with the reasoning.

HOWEVER, the Church was called many names in the NT:

Acts 20:28 "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

I Timothy 3:15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

I Corinthians 14:33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. (Would not this be the same as the Church of Christians?)

Hebrews 12:23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,

as well as

Romans 16:16 Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you.

As much as I agree with the reasoning it is not a Biblical stand.

HOWEVER, I would also point out that these are are names used to describe the One Church, the One Faith, the One Body of Christ - this in no way lends itself to sectarianism or denominationalism.

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2000

'Church of God' is also a Biblical name.

Is there any example in Scripture of a _local congregation- calling itself the 'Church of Christ.' (I'm not saying it is wrong to do so, but I think it is wrong to make it an acid test.) I see a local congregation being designated by whose house they meet in (Romans 16) or by the city they meet in.

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2000

Brother Link:

You have said:

Is there any example in Scripture of a _local congregation- calling itself the 'Church of Christ.' (I'm not saying it is wrong to do so, but I think it is wrong to make it an acid test.) I see a local congregation being designated by whose house they meet in (Romans 16) or by the city they meet in.

This prompts me to ask a question. Is there an example in scripture of any local congregation calling ITSELF anything?

In Romans 16:16 Paul said, salute one another with a Holy Kiss the churches of Christ salute you. This is not Paul calling any local congregation the church of Christ. It is an example of him calling several congregations churches of Christ. But you are not likely to find an example in the New Testament where any congregation called itself anything. In fact, I do not believe you will find any place in the New Testament where signs were painted and put up to designate what kind of church they were as if there was anything other than the church of God in existence.

But we do have the example of Paul referring to several churches as the churches of Christ. It is likely that he was speaking of the churches where he had been working but would the other congregations be of a different type so that they also could not be referred to as the churches of Christ.

When we learn that the terms used in the scriptures describing the church were never intended to denominate it so as to pander to our sectarian spirit we will have a better understanding of this subject.

But if we must put up signs and distinguish ourselves by what we claim rather than how we live and the doctrine of Christ that we teach it is at least better to have a description that is found in the scriptures than one that is not.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 04, 2000

My point in asking if any individual church were called a 'Church of Christ' in scripture was that using a label like 'Church of Christ' on one's church building should not be seen as an acid test of Chrsitianity.

If someone puts a sign up that says 'The Meeting Place' or 'Bible chapel' isn't that better in a way than putting up a sign that says 'Church of Christ.'

After all, when many people see the sign 'Church of Christ,' especially unbelievers' they think that the building the sign is in front of is a Church of Christ. So the sign promotes the idea that he building is the church. The Biblical (or at least KJV) word 'church' does not refer to the building but to the body of believers. Calling a building a 'chapel' is not against anything in scripture. But calling a building a 'church' reinforces confused theology about the church, doesn't it?

What does it profit to put a Biblical name on your church building's sign, when people think that name refers to the building rather than the people who meet there?

As for local names of churches, Paul wrote of the church of God which is at Corinth to designate that church. He often called individual churches by the city they met in. He also wrote of the church in the house of Aquilla and Priscilla.

-- Anonymous, September 04, 2000

Lee,

Just a quick note, more later:

I think we agree on the definitions of "Christian" and "Church".

The rub is in the perception of the phrase "Christian Church" when those two words are put together.

"The Saffoldian method of writing" for example, could be interpreted as either "Lee Saffold's method"--the "method of Saffold", signifying his ownership; or "Saffoldian's method"--The method of Saffoldians, belonging to "followers of Saffold", those who wish to be "Saffold- like".

So "Christian Church" can either mean a church of Christ or it can mean a church of Christians.

Well, the congregation where I worship considers itself both: a group of individual christians AND a group which belongs to Christ.

As an individual, I am a Christian, and I am also a member of a Christian group, which is called the church.

And since, as you so correctly put it, we have no historical evidence that any of the first century assemblies of Christ (another Scriptural name, by principle if not precedent) used any particular name for their congregation, than liberty ought to be the guiding principal...



-- Anonymous, September 04, 2000

Eu contraire, kemosabe.

English was and is my favorite subject.

You wrote:

Any other meanings.....are interpretive...not linguistic.

Exactimundo, Potsie! That's what I said, remember?

"The rub is in the perception of the phrase "Christian Church" when those two words are put together."

The Serbian government is the government of the Serbians.

A Haitian uprising is a mob of Haitians, not a mob belonging to Haitia.

I would venture to guess that when you refer to a "Christian" Student Organization, you mean primarily "an organization of Christian Students" rather than "an organization of Christ" Again, then: Liberty is enjoined. My walk in Christ is displayed in the use of Christian wisdom in this matter. The people who need the gospel message are living in the here and now, using language as it is understood now, not as it was understood by the first century mind. It is obviously imperative that we understand the Scriptures as they were revealed in their historical context, but in speculative matters where their is no Divine direct decree, it is not necessary to be an expert in koine greek idioms and linguistics to communicate God's truth.

-- Anonymous, September 05, 2000

Duane: I think that I can fully agree with you concerning your concept of the Christian Church as being those who are "Christ-like" and that it can be perceived, as you have so ably described, as having the same meaning as "church of Christ" and as such I would have no issue at all with the term. However, there are four reasons that I believe it is, at least, better, if we are going to bother with calling the church anything, that we use terminology found in the scriptures. 1. The term, "Christian Church" is not found in the scriptures when the church is described to us unless of course the term "church of Christ" means exactly the same thing as "christian Church" and cannot be perceived in any other way. I do believe that it can be perceived as meaning the church of Christians rather than the Church of Christ. A Christian is trying to be Christ-like but none of them individually or as a group are the Christ. That they are a body of "Christ -like" people goes without saying and that they are following the Christ is undeniable but they do not in the least belong to themselves. TO this I am certian that you would agree. 2. The term "churches of Christ" is a term used by the inspired apostle Paul when refering to the church (Romans 16:16) and thus has, without question, the approval of the Holy Spirit who inspired him to use it. Therefore one can easily show that he is using "scriptural" terms when he speaks of the "church of Christ" and is calling "bible things by bible names" which is in line with a very well regarded and excellent Christian and "restoration" principle. We must keep in mind that it is our purpose to restore New Testament Christianity in our day and we cannot do it by using language that is foriegn to the scriptures wherein we find such christianity. 3. The term "christian Church" can be perceived, and is perceived by many, as meaning the church that belongs to Christians rather than the church that belong's to Christ. As you have said: "So "Christian Church" can either mean a church of Christ or it can mean a church of Christians." While none would doubt that the term "Church of Christ" can ONLY mean the church that belongs to Christ and does not even remotely involve the possibility of the erroneous conclusion that the church belongs instead to the Christians. This perception that the term "christian Church" means the the "church of Christians" may very well be incorrect but it is there and the impression is made until it is corrected. While the term Church of Christ is not suseptible to any such "misconception". With all of the many things that we must explain to the confused world of our sectarian friends why would we add to the confusion when we have a scriptural term that avoids the confusion altogether? When you say: "Well, the congregation where I worship considers itself both: a group of individual christians AND a group which belongs to Christ." I do not doubt for one moment that such is without question the absolute truth. And since it is true why not use the scriptural term "Christian" ( Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16) when speaking of individual christians as was done in the New Testament and the term "church or body of Christ" (Romans 16:16;Col. 1:18,24; Eph. 4:4) when speaking of their relationship to Christ as a group that "belongs" to Him? Now, we are working to use scriptural names for a reason. Our sectarian friends are members of "bodies" that do not "belong to Christ" but they consider themselves Christians even though they have never heard or if they have heard they have never "name the name" of Christ in obedience to the gospel. The closer we can get to expressing the idea that the same thing that makes them a Christian automatically and by the same process makes them members of the "ecclesia" or the "assembly" or "called out" of Christ the sooner they will comprehend that we are not just another denomination that has selected what we think is a superior "denominational" name for "our" church. We are working hard to show them that we do not have a "church" of our own but that we belong to the body or Church that belongs to Christ. If we can succeed at this they will easily understand that we are not simply claiming that "our" church is right and all others are wrong. For they can understand that Christ is right and all men are wrong when they differ with Him. It is enough for us to belong to the Church that Christ built (Matt. 16:16-18) and it is an affront to our Lord to think that any church built by any man upon the doctrines and commandments of men is equal to the church built by Christ the Lord. Now, I know that you understand these things and that no one ever intended with the use of the term "christian Church" to imply that the church belongs to Christians instead of Christ. But I do believe that they have unintentionally violated a vital principle of speaking of scriptural things in scriptural terms. For we do not find the term "christian church" used anywhere in the New Testament and it therefore does not have the certain approval of the Holy Spirit, now does it? 4. The use of the term "church of Christ" is without question a "scriptural" phrase used to describe the body of Christians as a group and their relationship as the "property" of Christ. And because of this it is a phrase that we can all agree upon and thus it is conducive to the good purpose of promoting unity among us. I hope that you can understand what I have said and the love with which I have said it. I love my brethren in the Christian Church an know for certian in my heart that their intentions in the use of this term are good ones and I do not hold the view that they are "going to hell" for using it! I do however believe that they have violated their own commitment to call "Bible things by Bible names" when they use this terminology. I present these "thoughts" to you in response to your question asked of me with the deepest feeling of brotherly love for you and all of the "FAITHFUL" brethren in the "Christian Church". Now, I do see Brother Danny's point about the term "Christian Church" meaning the same as the "Church of Christ" though I must say that such is not the general "perception" of those who are not members of the "christian Church". But I would not fight much over this except that it is my judgement that we could be united and agree if we used a term that we all could accept without quibbling about it.

Brother Link:

I want to say that I agree that the church can be and is referred to in the scriptures as the church of God and have never had any objection to the the use of such a designation. It is also called the "church of the firstborn" (Heb. 12:22). It is called the "heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God (Heb. 12:22). This term, church of teh firstborn, is without doubt a synonym for "church of Christ" and has the unquestioned approval of the Holy Spirit. I alos want to point out that no one, least of all me, in this forum has implied even remotely that the "church" is the building behind the sign. I do not see any scriptural reason that we should have such signs which has the tendency to leave the false perception that we are just as "denominational" and sectarian as our friends who put names up in front to show "who they are" so to speak. I cannot even image such a thing being necessary in the first century and do not see that it is essential today. What is essential is that we realize that we, as a group are the "body of Christ" (Col. 1:18, 24; Eph. 1;21,21; Eph. 4:4) and that all Christians are members of that one amd same "body or church" of Christ. Since the church is the body of Christ. I have not now nor have I ever objected to any "scriptural" descriptive term for the body of Christ. It is also called the "kingdom of God". We must know that as a body wwe belong to Christ our Lord. I could care less if we even had a sign in front of our buildings. In fact, it seems to me that the practice has often left us in the precarious position of using the term "church of Christ" in as much a "denominational" sense as our sectarian friends have used their unscriptural names. But I warn that such could happen with any other scriptural term used or abused by some in this way.

To all of my Brethren:

Let us speak of the church as those who were inspired by the Holy Spirit spoke of her. For in doing so we will be using language that has the clear "approval" of the Holy Spirit. In most things there is a way that is right and cannot be wrong and there is a way that is right by could be wrong and there is a way that is wrong and cannot be right.

It is right and cannot be wrong to use any description of the body of Christ that we find men who are inspired by the Holy Spirit using in the New Testament.

It could be right but may be wrong to use terms that may have the same meaning but are perceived as not having the same meaning as those found in the scriptures in referring to the body.

It is wrong and cannot be right to use denominational and sectarian names designed to seperate people who believe in Christ into warring parties who are followers of the doctrines and commandments of men. In fact, this practice has only one saving grace. THe fact that most of those who are members of such sectarian bodies have never heard and obeyed the gospel of Christ and are therefore not members of his "body the church" and thus do not belong to him at all. Thus their names often describe the leader or the doctrine to who or which they belong. Their leader's are men and there doctrines are the commandments of men and they therefore have never submitted to Christ as their Lord for they have either been deceived into not obeying Christ or they have deliberately rejected the way of the Lord but in either case they are without hope unless they obey the gospel of Christ and become genuine Christians and are thereby automatically and by the same process of the new birth are born into the one family of God or as the church is also called "the house of God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15). Even the artificial use of a scriptural "name" would not make them Christians but only further serve to deceive them into beliveing that they are Christians when they are not because they have never obeyed the gospel. (2 Thess. 1:9- 11).

Let us all seek to be christians only and accept the only divinely given name by which the mouth of the Lord has called us. That name is the name "Christian". (Isa. 62:1,2; Acts 9:15; Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16). Let us gloryfy God in that "worthy name by which we are called". (James 2:7). TO this we all can agree. I know of no one that objects to being called Christians nor do I know of anyone that objects to any of the scriptural descriptions of the body of Christ in the New Testament. Let us use them all and none to the exclusion of others. But let us not use these terms for any who have never "named the name of Christ" in humble obedience to the gospel.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 05, 2000

Lee,

If there were no signs in front of buildings where saints met, wouldn't that do away with the issue of having to decide on _one_ name? Why have one name for all gatehrings, unless the purpose is to produce something akin to a denomination or a fellowship of churches?

I'm not saying signs are evil. I just don't think it is necessary for believers to pick a name for their gathering, or all use the same exact name for their gathering. There are a number of scriptural terms available.

Lee,

trick question: Where does it say in the Bible to use Bible names for Bible things?

-- Anonymous, September 06, 2000

Brother Link:

You have said:

Lee, If there were no signs in front of buildings where saints met, wouldn't that do away with the issue of having to decide on _one_ name? Why have one name for all gatehrings, unless the purpose is to produce something akin to a denomination or a fellowship of churches?

I never said anything to indicate that we must have any name for our gatherings at all. In fact I have even said that I believe that this practice of having signs out front of our buildings could be a problem if it leaves the impression that we are sectarian and if it makes us appear denominational. If you will read I said plainly:

I know of no one that objects to being called Christians nor do I know of anyone that objects to any of the scriptural descriptions of the body of Christ in the New Testament. Let us use them all and none to the exclusion of others.

Now how did you gather from those words that I suggested or even recommended one name for all gatherings and I most certainly could not have had any intent that we should produce anything akin to denominations? I said clearly that we should use ALL of the scriptural descriptions of the body of Christ. I even gave some of them in my last post. You act as if you think that I am arguing for the exclusive use of the term church of Christ. When it is clear to anyone that can read that I am instead arguing for the use of scriptural terminology when referring to these things that were delivered to us by the Holy Spirit through his word.

Then you say:

I'm not saying signs are evil.

Neither am I. Nor have I said or even remotely suggested that you were saying, signs are evil.

Then you say:

I just don't think it is necessary for believers to pick a name for their gathering, or all use the same exact name for their gathering. There are a number of scriptural terms available.

To this I agree and if you read my words you could have gathered that I agree with this. There is no scriptural requirement to name the church or to name the places where we gather. I only said that if we think that we must do these things that we should only use scriptural terms. And you have said that there are many of them available. Then why not use them if we are compelled for some reason to bother with signs in front of our buildings?

Then for some unknown reason you feel the need to ask me what you consider to be a trick question as follows:

Lee, trick question: Where does it say in the Bible to use Bible names for Bible things

Now I do not know why you are trying to leave the impression that you intend by asking this question to trick me in some way. I suppose that this is the way you Pentecostal folks deal with each other so that you can have some means of exercising your false gift of discernment. Nor do I know if you are asking for the exact words,  Use Bible names for Bible things. One word you will not find in the Bible is the word Bible. It is however referred to by other terms such as the word of God or the Oracles of God. I believe that all would agree that the Bible could be called the oracles of God. Thus we find that the inspired apostle Peter told us, If any man speak let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: That God, IN ALL THINGS, might be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen (1 Peter 4:11). If the Bible is the oracles of God and we are to speak as the oracles of God then it follows that we would call things scriptural things by scriptural names.

Then Paul by inspiration said, Which things also we speak, not in words that mans wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words. (1 Cor. 2:13). The Bible contains spiritual things and when we speak of those things we should combine them with the spiritual words which the spirit revealed for us to use when speaking of them.

We know that the language found in the scriptures does have the approval of the Holy Spirit and therefore we cannot go wrong in using it. I do not have much time at the moment so these two verses will suffice to show that the idea of calling Bible things by Bible names is a phrase that means to speak as the oracles of God and to combine spiritual things with spiritual words. But technically when we say that we should call Bible things by Bible names we appear to be violating the very principle that we are advocating because the actual word Bible is not found in the Bible. And I would admit that this phrase could be reworded to say Call spiritual things by spiritual words or call scriptural things by scriptural words if we are going to quibble about words. But the principle expressed by those terms are taught in the scriptures and those who are faithful to Christ will adhere to it and others, who are not faithful to Christ, will accept the wisdom of men over the word of God. I pray that we will not be so foolish as to ever think that the wisdom of man is as good as the word of God.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 06, 2000

Lee,

Sorry if my words came offas accusing you of believing something you didn't. that was not my intention.

There is a bit of a leap from Paul's comments about spiritual words in I Corinthians 2, and 'Bible names for Bible things.' Paul didn't say here that spiritual words were all in the scriptres per se.

I find using Bible names for Bible things (like 'miracles') for example can make discussion a lot easier. However, since only using Bible names for Bible things' isn't a doctrine of scripture, we should be careful not to be dogmatic about it.

-- Anonymous, September 06, 2000

Brother Link:

There is no problem with your mistakenly leaving the impression that I believed things that I do not believe. It is a mistake that can be made when we communicate in this medium. And I appreciate your saying that you did not intend to do such a thing. Which I am convinced is the truth.

You have said:

There is a bit of a leap from Paul's comments about spiritual words in I Corinthians 2, and 'Bible names for Bible things.'

The only leap that I see here is your leap away from what Paul plainly said. Paul said, Which things also we speak, not in words that mans wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words. (1 Cor. 2:13). He, Paul, makes it abundantly clear that he spoke not in words which mans wisdom teacheth. Which is the thing we are talking about here. Will we call spiritual things by terms devised by the wisdom of man and his teaching or will we, like Paul, use the words which the Spirit teacheth? It is clear from Pauls word as well as his example that we should chose the words, which the spirit teacheth. Those words are found in the scriptures.

Then you state:

Paul didn't say here that spiritual words were all in the scriptures per se.

Now that is ridiculous. The spiritual words during the lifetime of the apostles were in the apostles who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. They were guided into ALLTHE TRUTH. (John 16:13; 14:23). But today we shall not find a spiritual word from the Holy Spirit unless we find it in the word of God. For we do not have inspired men today but we do have the inspired word of God was given by the Holy Spirit through the apostles and inspired writers of the New Testament. They spoke of spiritual things with spiritual words that they had received from the Holy Spirit and they delivered those words to us. And we are to continue steadfastly in the apostle teaching (Acts 2:42). If we do this we also will speak of spiritual things in spiritual words that was approved by the Holy Spirit and given to us who we guided by Him. Therefore it is taught here that there are spiritual words that are designed to be used when speaking of spiritual things and he clearly contrast those words with the words which mans wisdom teacheth. So I do not agree with you that spiritual words are not all in the scriptures. You will not find any that come from the Holy Spirit anywhere but in the word of God.

You neglected to discuss the words of Peter who directly told us, If any man speak let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: That God, IN ALL THINGS, might be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen (1 Peter 4:11). If the Bible is the oracles of God (and it most certainly is) and we are to speak as the oracles of God then it follows that we would call scriptural things by scriptural names.

SO I just cannot see any leap here except your leap away from the plain teaching of the scripture. As I stated, we may need to revise the saying call Bible things by Bible names to something like, calling scriptural things by scriptural names or calling spiritual things by spiritual words. But the principle and effect is the same as calling the things spoken of in the Bible, which was inspired by the Holy Spirit, by the names that are approved by the Holy Spirit and are thus found in the pages of the word of God which is the Bible.

I can, however agree with you in your words: I find using Bible names for Bible things (like 'miracles') for example can make discussion a lot easier.

I agree that using calling Bible things by Bible names can make discussion a lot easier. I also agree that the Bible uses the term miracle as an example. It also uses the terms sign and wonders. We should use all of those terms and none to the exclusion of the others.

I not only agree that it can make discussion easier. But I also have shown that doing such a thing is taught by the scripture and it is therefore Gods will that we talk of His commandments and directions in His words and not in the words which mans wisdom teacheth. We are told to speak as the oracles of God not to speak in our own words and ways about these things. It is not in man that walketh to direct his own steps. (Jeremiah 10:23). If we follow the word of God and use language known to have the approval of the Holy Spirit and came from Him we cannot stray from the path of righteousness. By following our own way and using language that we think is clearer than that given to us by the Holy Spirit we would never have found the way of righteousness and if we had found it we would have soon stray form it.

You seem however to be concerned that we be careful as follows:

However, since only using Bible names for Bible things' isn't a doctrine of scripture, we should be careful not to be dogmatic about it.

Now, I have shown that calling Bible things by Bible names states a principle that is, in fact, a doctrine of scripture and thus see no need whatsoever to be careful about stating and teaching such. And you have not shown otherwise.

Now I am not sure just why you think that we should be careful not to be dogmatic about something that we believe to be true. It is about time, in fact it is past time, that we should learn to have convictions about that which is true and to stand firmly for it. If it is true, and I believe that I have shown that it is. That we should speak as the oracles of God and that we should combine spiritual things with spiritual words that were given to us by the Holy Spirit. Then what could possibly be wrong with being dogmatic or determined to do it.

It is your choice whether you will speak as the oracles of God or choose your own words instead. It is your choice whether you will speak of spiritual things with spiritual words that are given and approved by the Holy Spirit for that purpose. I have chosen to speak as the oracles of God. If you wish to dogmatically insist upon speaking your own words about spiritual things in your own way for you own purpose the Lord will judge you. For he said, He that rejecteth me and receiveth not MY WORDS hath one that judgeth him. The word that I have spoken shall judge him in the last day. (John 12:48).

As for me and my house we will speak as the oracles of God and we will speak Not in words that mans wisdom teacheth but which the Spirit teacheth combining spiritual things with spiritual words. This has often been expressed in the restoration movement as calling Bible things by Bible names. The scriptures only makes Christians only but the scriptures combined with and corrupted by the creeds and dogmas of men produces everything but a Christian. It is my determination to be a Christian only following the word of God without deviating to the left or the right and walk down the straight and narrow path which only few will find. I see nothing wrong with being insistent about such matters.

The truth is that you use this term dogmatic as if it can only apply to those who refuse to give in to your point of view. But it applies also to those, like yourself, that are so dogmatic that we should surrender these things that are clearly taught in the scriptures just because you cannot see that they are taught there.

Now, if you do not agree with the argument that is fine. If you just do not see the point that is also acceptable. But if you think we are being dogmatic simply because were do not see your non scriptural point then you are being about as dogmatic as we are about following the clear teaching of the word of God. Would you even attempt to tell us that the scriptures teach contrary to the idea of calling scriptural things by scriptural names? If not then why do you think one is being unjustly dogmatic to teach that we should do such a thing?

I am committed to doing just those very things and I recommend it to my Brethren for it is surely a scriptural thing to do. (Heb. 4:11; 2 Cor. 2:13). These two passages do teach it and you have not shown otherwise.

But I guess that we just must tremble in our boots for you have accused us of that dreaded thing called dogmatism! Ha! It would be interesting to see you prove from the scriptures that there is anything sinful or wrong about being dogmatic about such things as that which is taught in the scriptures. Dogmatism simply means Positiveness when stating matters of opinion, especially when unwarranted or arrogant. Now what I have stated here is not a matter of opinion for it is taught in the scriptures that I have quoted but even if it were merely my opinion the fact that I have so positively stated it is not sinful or wrong. And I do not believe that this view is the in the least unwarranted nor do I see just where I have been arrogant in stating it. So, this fear of being dogmatic has nothing to do with this subject matter at all. It is merely thrown in to cause others to shy away from the view that you dislike simply because you have used a word which you have learned frightens most people and will cause them to run before they look at the facts and reality. Well, it does not frighten me to positively state what I am convinced that the word of God teaches to be the truth and doing so is not wrong in any way. And, if those who are frightened by this word would study it they would find that there is nothing to fear about it.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 06, 2000

Brother Danny:

You have said:

Lee.... People have a wrong perception of baptism...i.e., THEY THINK it can mean sprinkling. Should we therefore not use the term....."baptism" simply because people may have a wrong perception?? What about grace? People can have a wrong perception of that. And the list could go on. Just because people have a wrong perception of something does not negate the rightness of its usage.

I agree with you only partially here. People do have the wrong impression of the terms baptism, grace and the list could go on of SCRIPTURAL terms that they do not correctly perceive. And since these terms are inspired words given to us by the Holy Spirit we have no option but to teach these people the correct meaning of these terms.

But this is far different from using words that are not scriptural terms and have been given to us by the wisdom of men. These words we are at liberty to drop if they have a tendency to confuse others concerning the nature of scriptural teaching. This is especially true if we have a term, given to us by the Holy Spirit, that is far better and more clear. Why would anyone prefer an unscriptural term to express a spiritual concept when an abundance of scriptural words given by the Holy Spirit for that very purpose are readily available? The term Christian Church did come from Brother Stone who was a good and devout and faithful Christian man if ever one lived on this earth. But it did not come from the Holy Spirit and is therefore not a scriptural term. If that term has a tendency to confuse others and there is a scriptural term that would remove such confusion then why not drop the words of mans wisdom in favor of the more clear word of God. The church was described in the scriptures by many phrases designed to explain the various relationships that we have with God and to train our concepts in the right perception of our standing before God. We should use all of those terms without the exclusion of any of them. But the only name that we have given from God is a name that we are to wear individually. We are Christians. We can according to scripture be viewed as saints and children of God etc but God has given us the name Christian. But he has not described the church as a whole as the Christian Church.

But it seems overall that you and I agree if I read correctly your last sentence, which is as follows:

The name "Church of God" is used more often in Scripture than the one time useage of....."Church of Christ." That means nothing except to say that dogmatism on this issue is not wise. I think using any name that was used in Scripture for the assembly is perfectly acceptable.

I do not know that it matters which terms were used the more often in the scriptures but I agree that we should freely speak of the body of Christ or the Kingdom of God as the Church of God. We should also speak of this body as the house of God which is the church of the living God, the Pillar and Ground of the truth. I like that phrase, the Pillar and ground of the truth. Now that says something about the body of Christ that none of the other terms tell us. It is called the city of God, the New Jerusalem, Zion and the mountain of the Lords house. It is called the church and I agree with you that it is also one of my favorites! Ha! I do not understand just how it seems that I am being dogmatic about this matter if I have said twice now that I believe that we should accept and use all of these scriptural terms and exclude none of them. It may be that because of my insistence upon scriptural terminology that it seems I am being dogmatic. But yet you agree with me when you say, I think using any name that was used in the scriptures for the assembly is perfectly acceptable. To which I wholeheartedly agree and the name Christian Church is not one of those scriptural names. In truth, the church does not have a name in the scriptures. It is described in many different ways and phrases designed to explain the nature of the kingdom of God but it is not named. But Gods people have been given a new name which the mouth of Jehovah did name (Isa. 62:1,2; Acts 9:15; Acts 11:26; Acts 15: 15- 17; Acts 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16; James 2:7).

But, I must admit that Brother Scott came closer to actually proving your that the term Christian Church is scriptural when he said:

I Corinthians 14:33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. (Would not this be the same as the Church of Christians?).

Though I am not sure that when Paul referred to the churches of the saints that he meant to so denominate them. I do not think that Paul intended to imply that the church belonged in any way to the saints, which would prove your point that one could refer to the church as the Christian church without necessarily implying that the Church belonged to the Christians instead of Christ. I think that Scott has made an excellent point just there, dont you?

As always, Brother Danny, I love you in Christ for you faithfulness to Him and will always pray that you will continue to walk in the truth. May our Lord abundantly bless you and Jenny and your entire family.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 06, 2000

Lee the Bible doesn't say all spiritual language is contained in the scriptures. Also notice the context deals with speaking wisdom among them that are perfect. Names on church signs (not something necessary we both agree) are not read only by the 'perfect' or mature. Not all of Paul's words are recorded in scripture, though we get a really _big_ chunk of his terminology since he wrote so much. Other NT authors use a little different terminology. Luke's language is different from Paul's.

I Corinthians 2 here speaks of Paul using spiritual words here, but what about them that are not perfect.

I Corinthians chapter 2 also talks about God having revealed what he has prepared to us by His Spirit. Understanding from the scripture is a key element.

Peter said if any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God. If we look at the Old Testament, we can see that there were, at certain stages, Levites who were to teach the law, and there were also prophets. The true prophets spoke as the oracles of God. False prohpets spoke as oracles of false gods or spoke falsely in the name of the Lord. There were a lot of them. How do you get that when Peter says to speak as the oracles of God, he means to just use scriptural terms? The Devil eve quoted scripture to Jesus. Did that make His temptation to Jesus an oracle from God? If someone quotes scripture, using scriptural content in a sermon and says 'Now Judas went and hanged himself' 'and go thou and do likewise' does that make his message an oracle of God? These are quotes from scripture (taken out of context, but in Bible language.) If we compare Peter's statement to Paul's in I Corinthians 14, we see that in meetings Paul said 'for ye may all prophesy one by one.'

It is not enough that we use scriptural terminology. The Bible can even be misused. We must speak as the oracles of god. The Spirit must be at work in our speaking. We need to follow Paul's example of speaking with the power of the Spirit.

The fact that Paul spoke with spiritual words is not the same as the principle of using Bible names for Bible things. Besides, we don't speak Greek, and the Bible gets retranslated with different terminology every so often. Yet we are to still speak as the oracles of God. This is a matter of speaking according to the gifts given unto us, as good stewards of the manifold grace ofgod, and not only a matter of using Biblical terminology or even quoting scripture in church.

Paul did use spiritual words. He preached by the power of the Spirit.

-- Anonymous, September 06, 2000

Lee the Bible doesn't say all spiritual language is contained in the scriptures. Also notice the context deals with speaking wisdom among them that are perfect. Names on church signs (not something necessary we both agree) are not read only by the 'perfect' or mature. Not all of Paul's words are recorded in scripture, though we get a really _big_ chunk of his terminology since he wrote so much. Other NT authors use a little different terminology. Luke's language is different from Paul's.

I Corinthians 2 here speaks of Paul using spiritual words here, but what about them that are not perfect.

I Corinthians chapter 2 also talks about God having revealed what he has prepared to us by His Spirit. Understanding from the scripture is a key element.

Peter said if any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God. If we look at the Old Testament, we can see that there were, at certain stages, Levites who were to teach the law, and there were also prophets. The true prophets spoke as the oracles of God. False prohpets spoke as oracles of false gods or spoke falsely in the name of the Lord. There were a lot of them. How do you get that when Peter says to speak as the oracles of God, he means to just use scriptural terms? The Devil eve quoted scripture to Jesus. Did that make His temptation to Jesus an oracle from God? If someone quotes scripture, using scriptural content in a sermon and says 'Now Judas went and hanged himself' 'and go thou and do likewise' does that make his message an oracle of God? These are quotes from scripture (taken out of context, but in Bible language.) If we compare Peter's statement to Paul's in I Corinthians 14, we see that in meetings Paul said 'for ye may all prophesy one by one.'

It is not enough that we use scriptural terminology. The Bible can even be misused. We must speak as the oracles of god. The Spirit must be at work in our speaking. We need to follow Paul's example of speaking with the power of the Spirit.

The fact that Paul spoke with spiritual words is not the same as the principle of using Bible names for Bible things. Besides, we don't speak Greek, and the Bible gets retranslated with different terminology every so often. Yet we are to still speak as the oracles of God. This is a matter of speaking according to the gifts given unto us, as good stewards of the manifold grace ofgod, and not only a matter of using Biblical terminology or even quoting scripture in church.

Paul did use spiritual words. He preached by the power of the Spirit.

-- Anonymous, September 07, 2000

Brother Danny:

You have said:

"Lee.... I BY NO MEANS was inferring that you were being dogmatic. I apologize if it came across that way.

That was a "general" statement for everyone involved.....including....myself."

I appreciate what you have said and I can see that I have misunderstood your "general" statement as applying to me specifically. Maybe it should have been applied specifically to me or I would not have taken it that way! Ha! I apologize for the misunderstanding and will try to be more perceptive in the future.

Your brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 07, 2000

How often does it happen, that the Spirit will lead someone (such as a pastor preparing a sermon) to say something to a general audience, and then someone else hearing it will swear it was directed specifically to them, as the Spirit convicts their heart?

-- Anonymous, September 07, 2000

John,

Good point. How can someone who believes in the cessation of prophecy explain this, especially when the words of the speaker are specific, and are not things that apply to everyone?

I've had this experience not only while listening to sermons, but also while having conversations with other Christians. Sometimes peole prophecy when they are just talking to you.

I've seen this sort of thing a lot in prayer. I used to go to churches and homegroups where, after the meeting, believers who needed prayer would stand around, and believers who wanted to pray would go pray for them. Often, those praying would pray about things they could no know naturally. I was trying to sell long distance, wanting to have my own business, trying to start something up, but nothing was happening. One man, the preacher that night visiting from Atlanta actually, prayed for me, and started praying about me trying somethign that wasn't working, like chasing after the wind, and prayed the Lord would put me where He wanted me. It really fit. That was one of many such experiences. Sometimes a small group would pray for something, and they'd all pray more and more deeply intothe problem. After a while, I found myself praying the same way.

All this was really encouraging- getting prayed for by other members of the body. Many people think a church meeting si just about hearing a sermon. But the Bible talks about use exhorting one another, and ministering our gifts one to another.

-- Anonymous, September 08, 2000

Danny,

Of course there are gifts involved. I'd encourage you to do a word study of the Greek word of spiritual 'gift' and compare it to the word for 'grace.' Some translate 'charisma' as 'gracelet.' Study what the word means, and then search out the occurances of the word in the NT, and the occurances of the word 'grace.' Teaching is a 'gift.' Showing mercy is a 'gift.' Paul uses the term a lot, and it is an important aspect of his teaching.

What we are talking about here is something more than just the written words in the Bible. A preacher standing up in front of a group of people, or a brother taking turns speaking in a fellowship, who shares a message that deals directly with someone else's problem isn't just reading the Bible. He may be commenting on the Bible, and stringing together either scriptures or comments on the scriptures. Sometimes someone who gives a message like this that has an impact actually felt directed to share onthat passage, or even received specific words to say from the Spirit. I prayed some prayers over people that related to things I could not naturally know because I felt led to pray those particular words.

If a preacher is directed by the Spirit to a certain passage of scripture before preaching, that is more than just the written word at work. There is the element of the man knowing- apart from the instructions of the Bible- which passage to share on. Some people even sense and internal call to preach. God communicates to them aside from just intellectual comprehension of scripture passages.

-- Anonymous, September 08, 2000

Link;

I too believe that more than just the Word of God is involved; however, I believe it is simply the Spirit's functioning according to John 14:26 and 16:8-9,13.

-- Anonymous, September 08, 2000

The verses refered to in chapter 16 refer to the Spirit's work in the world.

Acts mentions that the Holy Ghost is given to them who are obedient, so the promise of the Spirit was not for the apostles only.

-- Anonymous, September 09, 2000

Danny:

You are in error. First, I see no indication whatsoever in any place in this passage where it says that any of Jesus' speech is meant solely for the apostles and the apostles alone. If it were meant solely for the apostles, then we would also have no hope of heaven because that is a promise made here also. We could not be "in Christ", that was only for the apostles. The Holy Spirit would have absolutely nothing to do with us (and I CANNOT believe that the only time that God the Holy Spirit functioned, in all of history, was in the first century of the church age!). And we could not even pray, for prayer in Jesus' name is promised here, and only here, to the apostles. If these chapters were only meant for the apostles, what a sad, sad state we would be in!

Second, as Link pointed out, the very verses themselves show that this was not intended for the apostles only; that the Holy Spirit would work in this manner on the world at large, on all men. The very context of the entire passage belies the fact that this was spoken to the apostles, but recorded and meant for all believers who were to come afterward.

-- Anonymous, September 09, 2000

Exactly, Danny, exactly.

Where in the context do you get that this passage is meant only for the disciples ears?

-- Anonymous, September 09, 2000

Throughout most of the Gospels, Jesus speaks to his apostles. So are we to assume that most of the Gospels were meant only for the apostles, and not for us? Why did the Gospel writers then even bother to write them down?

The church was built on the foundation of the apostles. Shouldn't then anything that was communicated to them be foundational teaching for us as well?

I still fail to see, hermeneutics notwithstanding, where anything at all indicates that we are to disregard chapters 14-16 because they were meant only for the apostles.

-- Anonymous, September 11, 2000

So .... let me get this straight ...

• In John 14:1 Jesus says to trust in Him as they did the Father. That was meant only for the disciples? We are not to trust in Christ?

• In John 14:2 Jesus said that in His Father's house was many rooms, and He went to prepare a place. So we do not have any hope in heaven, only the disciples?

• In John 14:3 Jesus tells them he will come again and take them to be with him. Since this is spoken to the disciples ... we have no hope in a resurrection?

• In John 14:16 He promises that he will send them the Holy Spirit. Since he only is speaking to the disciples ... we do not have the Holy Spirit? We are to receive absolutely not comfort, teaching, guidance or direction from Him; only the Twelve had a relationship with Him?

• In John 15, Jesus commands the disciples to abide in him and in only by doing so will they bear fruit. And in bearing fruit will they be shown to be His disciples. This is meant only for the Twelve, and not for us? We are not to (or cannot) abide in Christ?

• In John 15:12, Jesus commands his disciples to love each other. This command was only for the disciples?

• In John 16:23, Jesus tells his followers to ask for whatever they will of the Father in Jesus' name. Since this was addressed only to the twelve ... we are not to pray in Jesus name? The only other model of prayer we have is in the Sermon on the Mount ... but we can't use that one either; it was addressed to the Jews, not to us ...

Thats just touching on a few of the many teachings in this passage. I fail to see in the passage where it says "This was meant for the Twelve" and "This is meant for all believer." Either you accept all of it as pertaining to all Christians, or none of it does, and if none of it does, woe unto us!

Another principle of good hermeneutics, as I understand it, is that the Bible interprets itself. It was written for the common man, and for the most part should be easy enough for the common man to understand. And when the layman reads this, they see Jesus talking, through the disciples, to themselves. The only way I can see that you can read that such-and-such a passage was meant for me, and such-and- such a passage was meant for them, is if you bring those preconceived biases with you and read them into the text.

-- Anonymous, September 13, 2000

Danny;

Funny, I read an article on hermeneutics a while back and the author said, quote: "The Bible interprets the Bible." I have seen this and similar statements time and time again. I've seen it printed in the Christian Standard. Seems that others besides myself have heard this hermeneutical rule; I'm surprised you haven't.

Danny, you are just being silly in this argument. I am not picking and choosing anything; you are. You are picking which verses in John 14-16 apply to us and which ones don't. You are instead proving my point.

Now that passage spoken to the Rich Ruler was obviously meant solely for him, and Jesus uses his encounter with him as a unique example. The passage where he sends out the Twelve was obviously meant specifically for them, for that specific instance, and Jesus himself makes it clear in that very passage. Any layman reading it can see that.

But you have yet to show me where to draw the lines in John 14-16 on where Jesus was making an application that only applied to the Twelve, and where it was an application that applies to us as well. I say you cannot. The fact being, no such lines exist. It either all applies to us, or none of it. And I am far more comforted believing all of it does, because if none of it does, we are all without hope.

Your said that no one could understand the Bible unless someone taught them, as in the case of the Ethiopian eunuch. Again, you are drawing far too much from one encounter. You are prooftexting. If no one can understand unless a teacher teaches them, then what you have is a system of clerics who understand the deep things of God and laymen who cannot unless they are taught those hidden, incomprehensible truths. What you end up having is Gnosticism, not Christianity.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2000

I wonder if the Holy Spirit knows that Danny wants His job.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2000

My apologies to Danny for the following:

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ROTFLOL!!!

Thanks, Connie ... I needed a good laugh today. ;)

[We now return you to our regularly scheduled discussion thread, in progress.]

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2000

Good, John.

I like to provide comic relief.

-- Anonymous, September 15, 2000

Danny,

When Peter made the famous promise about the Spirit found in Acts 2:38, he had just quoted verses about the Spirit being poured out, people prophesying, etc, and he was talking to a crowd of people amazed to see the apostles speaking in tongues.

Paul used 'received' the Holy Ghost to refer to what happened to the Samaritans when the apostles came. Gentiles like Cornelius were filled with the Spirit. Paul instructs believers to be filled with the Spirit. Do you have any scripture to indicate that the Spirit cannot come on people today as He did repeatedly in the book of Acts?

About Holy Ghost enlightenment. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, hath set me free from the law of sin and death, Paul wrote. How can a man understand the scriptures properly without the Holy Spirit?

To be fleshly minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

The Holy Spirit and the word of God do not work separately.

-- Anonymous, September 17, 2000

I'm still calling your bluff, and you still refuse to respond. Tell me how we can tell in Jesus' discourse in John 14-16 which sections are meant for us, and which sections are meant only for the Twelve? I await your esteemed illumination, since I can apparently expect none from the God the Holy Spirit.

-- Anonymous, September 17, 2000