77,

I agree with your conclusion. Could you gave more and harder evidence to support your conclusion.

Orag,

It appears you misunderstand when I say that tradition is subordinate to the Bible. I do believe all traditions should be tested against the Bible. If they are found lacking, then that tradition should be removed. But to blindly toss all tradition would be foolish.

For instance, I disagree with marriage being a Christian sacrament. I see grace being given to man through baptism and the Lord's Supper. I do also look upon marriage in a very high manner and something that should be given a high place however. Marriage itself was instituted by God in the garden of Eden. B/c of this, I would see marriage as given to all people as a matter of common grace and not of special grace. It does show the covenental aspect between a man and a woman in the same manner as Christ and the church, but I would still make a distinction due to the relationship being given to all. Would God grant special grace to a couple who are not Christians who are however following the creation ordinance? I do not believe this would be so. Our Roman Catholic friends will see this differently. I have a fairly decent idea of where I think they will differ from the way I look upon this. There is room for disagreements in matters not pertaining to our eternal state. These disagreements should be debated to help the church and not to tear it down.

Another example could be padeobaptism. I hold to this doctrine. I do not hold to it for the same reasons as the Roman Catholic church. If I were to take the position that we do not see it in the Bible (like the doctrine of the trinity) therefore it is wrong, I would then be denying much of the OT. But under a covenental understanding of the Scriptures, I am aware that baptism is based on God's faithfulness and not ours, else we would need to be baptized by the minute and drown.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Riggs

Riggs,"I adhere to the teachings of the reformation inasmuch as the reformers of YOUR church and mine went back to the teachings in the Bible and away from some of the schismatic beliefs (like veneration of idols). Your church would not exist if the reformation had not occured."

Schismatic beliefs come from nearly 1,500 men's traditions in the Roman church, the upheaval of the reformation attacked these beliefs. Some of these traditions outside scripture you still hold necessary for the church to be proper.

We hold all traditions outside of Scripture are unnecessary and tend to create schismatic beliefs between believers. The Word is the unity giver. John 17

Not at home now, so can't write as much as would like, but want to comment here.

Riggs

I think your 2:14 post on the 19th was one of the most candid and truth seeking things I have seen. Wish I had more time to do it justice, but to hit a few points here:

quote:

---

I am much more disturbed by your position than that of the Roman Catholic church. In their position, the pope has the ability to speak ex cathedra in an infallible manner. Tradition is important and, IMHO, they elevate tradition at times to the level of Scripture. I do not think tradition should be given that much sway. I think the Scripture is the only thing that has the right to bind our conscience. Where the Bible is silent, the church has not the right to impose. However, tradition is and should be of great importance though subordinated to the Bible. If we do not look upon tradition with respect, we do, in effect imply that the Christians who came before us had nothing meaningful to say or that we could learn from. I do not know anyone who intentionally does this, but I do know several people who make this the effect.

---

That is well worded. I don't think tradition is given quite as much "sway" as many seem to think (see discussion below) but your point is taken. Some of the confusion is Tradition as the Apostolic Deposit and tradition as habits and accretions that have grown over time. A Catholic in the street no longer knows the difference but its not hard to pinpoint if one studies up on it. You just don't hear it laid out in laymen terms enough.

In that regard, your statement here is key:
I think the Scripture is the only thing that has the right to bind our conscience. Where the Bible is silent, the church has not the right to impose.

That may well be right, and a good guardrail. Its hard to avoid the impression that as the Orthodox attest also, that some things have been "over-legislated" or "over-defined". I think this part hold valid grounds for debate.

But we then can balance this with what you say here:
If we do not look upon tradition with respect, we do, in effect imply that the Christians who came before us had nothing meaningful to say or that we could learn from.

Precisely! And Christians NEARER in TIME, more familiar WITH THE BIBLE'S LANGUAGE, and what the meaning of various symbolisms and allegories were then. It is with that backdrop that one must look at this:

quote:

---

It took 1500 years for such serious problems to arise in the Roman church. We, the children of the reformers, have mucked it up in 3 centuries and are faced with much more dire problems. At every turn in "christian" stores we are faced with people commiting heresies that got those with similar beliefs thrown out of the church.

---

Bingo. When you study the ancient heresies, it is amazing how many have a modern counterpart. This is a direct consequence of the discarding of the collective church witness and deposit, which leads to "re-inventing the wheel" over and over again. This more than any other factor is why the actions since the Reformation must be viewed with extreme caution. The splintering is its own sign, and a very clear one.

On the other hand, its not one-sided. I agree with Physics's here:

quote:

---

BTW, I don't even give us credit for 1500 years; splitting from the East was probably the first major train wreck, and getting involved in massive financial projects was the second. Something is broken, that's for sure. I'm just doing what seems right and true in the meantime, and praying that we're moving in the right direction.

---

I would set 800 AD as a very reliable marker of the beginning of derailment. Ironically, Christmas Day, the coronation of Charlemagne. This split both the philosophical political unity of the Christendom Empire (West/East)and in the same time frame the filoque and near disappearance of knowledge of Greek in the West lead to the Orthodox becoming less comprehensible.

As to what's broken, I think more than any other thing its needed to go back to collective decision of the whole church when setting binding dogmas. We have discussed this before.

Now at this time, I would like to say one thing in relation to orag80's points:

Orag, there is no question that practices, interpretations, definitions have accumulated over the centuries. However, I think the point that has to be asked is how much is this what happens when ethereal and spiritual ideas are put into practice or attempted to be witnessed to the illeterate or not textually versed? A question I would like you to ask is how many of the various `differences' of Catholic and the other Protestant churches your website condemnes make a REAL and dangerous difference to promoting the memory and message of Christ?? Of giving the gospel a continual yearly context. Think about it that way.

Icons especially, you need to understand (jkotinek can explain better) are pictorial ways of conveying the NT writings that were refined to a high art. They were very successful in helping barbarian and simpler groups understand the various scriptures.

I think one HUGE thing you have overlooked about your Restorationist movement: It unfairly judges the past because this is literally the first epoch where teaching by Scripture and full explanation with all being literate was even possible. Your website covers many things at the fingertip---this did not exist even when I was born, let alone in 1700's. Traditions, symbols, practices, these all give a tangible form to concepts. If in these days they seem to obscure or even mislead from the truth, its because a clearer and more powerful delivery medium is now available. Things are in transition. Show some patience.

Riggs, from your follow-up just briefly,

quote:

---

It appears you misunderstand when I say that tradition is subordinate to the Bible. I do believe all traditions should be tested against the Bible. If they are found lacking, then that tradition should be removed. But to blindly toss all tradition would be foolish.

---

That seems reasonable. What is intriguing is how many `traditions' DO have scriptural backing. You just no longer hear them justified, but if you go back, you see why it began.

Gotta sign off, excellent post.

Riggs,

Col 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

Also -- there is no mention of ORag's church/church of ORag in the word of God. There is only one church, and it's Christ's.

texags77@yahoo.com
Please feel free to respond by email.

Aggermany,

Which ones?

77,

I attempted to make this clear before. In society, when we asociate ourselves with a particular thing whether that be football team or church, we consider it to be ours. Obviously I do not own the Steelers, but I am from Pittsburgh and this is where my loyalty lies. I do not own the church I attend either, but I am associated with a particular church and it would simply be deceit to not recognize this fact.

I further continued to explain the difference between the visible and the invisible church. To this end, not everyone who is in the church that people see is truly part of Christ's church. Christ's church is invisible.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Riggs

Riggs,
holding one bishop over another
introduction of infant baptism
sprinkling in lieu of immersion
seperate priesthood and laity
introduction of musical instruments for worship
wearing names other than Christ's

What scriptural reference do you have for the description of the "invisible" church?

Titan,

I do sometimes mix official teaching with common practice. I realize this should not be done. This is where I was talking about the sway. But thanks for reminding me of that.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Riggs

quote:

---

holding one bishop over another
introduction of infant baptism
sprinkling in lieu of immersion
seperate priesthood and laity
introduction of musical instruments for worship
wearing names other than Christ's

---

I am protestant. I do not hold to any bishop. I think there is ample evidence by good and faithful inference to believe in infant baptism and afflusion instead of immersion. Only protestants in the past two centuries have tried to say there should not be a seperation between ministers and laity. Simple reason is, ministers can devote themselves full time to the study and preaching of the Word. I think you have to prove when musical instruments were banned from service before I can discuss when they were introduced into it.

Wearing a name other than Christ's? ... I wear Christ's name foremost. I allow myself to be called by others such as protestant b/c this is a way to give more information to someone as to where I stand in a short period of time. If I could dispense with it I would, But since it is obvious by the breadth of people claiming to be Christian that this monicker is not sufficient to describe me. For instance, they might think I believe what a mormon or eastern orthodox believe. It is not enough to say that these groups aren't Christian (though in one case this is clear) b/c they associate themselves with Christianity and therefore people will see them as Christian.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Riggs

There are times in the Bible when the entire church is being spoken to. There are times where the letter is written to a specific church like the church in Laodocia.

Where do the Scriptures explicitly teach the trinity?

Soli Deo Gloria,
Riggs

I'm not entirely sure they believe in the Trinity. Check these out:
http://beavertonchurchofchrist.net/What_The_Holy_Spirit_Does_1.htm
http://beavertonchurchofchrist.net/What_The_Holy_Spirit_Does_2.htm

The website authors have treated every description of the action of the Spirit as a metaphor for the action of Scripture. I'm not sure that they believe in the Third Person of the Trinity.

quote:

---

Many passages make it clear that the Holy Spirit indwells the Christian (Romans 8:9,11; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20). Other passages make it just as clear that the tool in which the Spirit uses to abide, influence, lead and direct believers, is the Word of God (Ephesians 5:18-19 "be filled with the Spirit"; Colossians 3:16 "Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly" ).
...
This indwelling isn’t a personal or direct indwelling, that is, the Holy Spirit (God) isn’t actually and personally living in our bodies, for Jesus said that God not only dwells in the believer, but the believer dwells in God (John 15:5), and yet no one argues that we personally dwell in God’s person. The Bible also says that the "truth" dwells in the Christian (2 John 2). Not that a copy of the Scriptures is literally inside us, but that if we are listening to the truth, then the truth is influencing our lives.

---

In fact, they appear to literally believe that any human being may be saved fully by his own natural powers simply by reading a copy of Scripture. It's not sola Scriptura, or even solo Scripture. This seems to make the Word of God into God.


[This message has been edited by Physics96 (edited 11/21/2003 10:26p).]

Physics,

When you say they say what you mean. That website believes it?

I sure don't. No man can earn his salvation.

The Holy Spirit is a being just like God and Jesus. It's not some "ghost" like the KJV says. Of all the good that version has they did a dis-service to translate it as ghost.

texags77@yahoo.com
Please feel free to respond by email.

Nobody in particular, just people who might be in the discussion. I hadn't realized that restricting the Holy Spirit's role entirely to Scripture was a belief that anyone held.

Note -- Edited the above post to make it clear that it was the website that I was talking about.

[This message has been edited by Physics96 (edited 11/21/2003 10:27p).]

Been away a while because I absolutely do not have time to continue in this discussion. I truly hope to have that time some day, and hope that the seeds planted will find fertile ground in the meantime, where maybe someone else can add a little water. I will make this one correction before signing off...

This quote: "In fact, they appear to literally believe that any human being may be saved fully by his own natural powers simply by reading a copy of Scripture. It's not sola Scriptura, or even solo Scripture. This seems to make the Word of God into God."

Is an incorrect conclusion, and is not at all what we are trying to say. The fact is that any human can pick up a New Testament, read it, and know what they must do to be saved (know how to become a Christian). As an aside, you can't pick it up, read it, and become a Catholic, Mormon, or anything else...that takes something OUTSIDE of the Bible to make you what you are.

We are saved when we believe that Jesus is the Son of God, repent of our past sins, confess our belief that Jesus is the son of God, and are baptized for the remission of sins. That final step of baptism (immersion in water) is when and where the blood of Christ benefits us. We could not be saved without Him, and what He did for us, and His Word that contains all things that pertain to life and Godliness. The Bible is the Word of God. No other doctrines, traditions, creeds, revelations, etc. are needed.

Later (much).

ttt

Orag80 -Was I correct in assuming that you are a Campbellite? For your information, Christ's Church was built upon the foundation of a Apostles and Prophets with Christ being the chief cornestone. Revelation was the rock that Christ declared that He would build his Church upon, for he pointed out to Peter that was how Peter knew who He was. If you are a Campbellite, then I know that will be hard for to accept, since your church believes in no revelation.

quote:

---

Orag80 -Was I correct in assuming that you are a Campbellite? For your information, Christ's
Church was built upon the foundation of a Apostles and Prophets with Christ being the chief cornestone. Revelation was the rock that Christ declared that He would build his Church upon, for he pointed out to Peter that was how Peter knew who He was. If you are a Campbellite, then I know that will be hard for to accept, since your church believes in no revelation.

---

You mean NEW Revelation, like the golden plates and all that.

Peter was certainly infallible when he officially defined morals and dogma in his two epistles, because he was inspired by the holy spirit. For the hundredth time, papal infallibility doesn't mean that the pope is right every time he opens his mouth. It only applies to officially pronounced dogma and doctrine for flock.

Notafraid - for them I mean nada, none, nothing. "Where the bible speaks, we speak; where the bible is silent, we are silent" is their motto. They were so timid that they did not even have enough faith that God could answer their inquiries about musical instruments in the church. I understand that now some are allowing them but it has not been a church wide announcement of policy.

[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 4/30/2006 3:10p).]

In the search for truth, I would definitely recommend http://www.fisheaters.com/