VetSurg said:

---

I did not mean to imply any apostolic succession. I assume you got that from the "apostles doctrine" reference in Acts 2:42). John was the last living apostle.

Can you provide me a scripture(s) for infant baptism (especially in light of Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 8:36-36 that show belief/repentance as precursors to baptism)?

---

But how did the Church of Christ continue from 33AD and then "reform" with the Campbells? If that was the one church that was continuously present since Pentecost should not there be historical data linking the Campbells to a line of succession? And I have no problem with the doctrine or the establishing a church based on the Early Church. I just have trouble with the historical link. And fwiw, I am not a Catholic/Orthodox but raised Baptist and now consider myself a Christian.

And I really am just trying to learn more.

Why? There was a church (one) in the first century. (Acts 2:47, 5:11, 8:1,3, 11:22, 11:26, 12:1, 13:1, etc., etc.).

That church continued through the teachings of the apostles (epistles, oral teachings) as it does today. Everything we recognize as the New Testament was taught and recorded in the first century..

VetSurg said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

It can be scary to put our beliefs to hard scrutiny.

---

Not scared at all. I'll stand on the truth. Just incredibly frustrating.

I think Paul would have quoted Romans 10:2 and Gal. 4:16 relative to this board.

---

And this is the same thing I get from every CofC person I know. No explanation of the history and quoting Scriptures that has nothing to do with proving the historical connections.

I do not get it.

dermdoc said:

---

VetSurg said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

It can be scary to put our beliefs to hard scrutiny.

---

Not scared at all. I'll stand on the truth. Just incredibly frustrating.

I think Paul would have quoted Romans 10:2 and Gal. 4:16 relative to this board.

---

And this is the same thing I get from every CofC person I know. No explanation of the history and quoting Scriptures that has nothing to do with proving the historical connections.

I do not get it.

---

The problem is there are many other denominations that all claim to follow exactly what is in the Gospel and nothing more, just as the CoC does. Yet their interpretations of the same scriptures you claim to follow are different. What makes them objectively wrong, and you objectively right?

Campbell did not start the church of Christ. He recognized there had been a departure from it by denominations and desired to "re-form" that original church of the Lord.

Campbell was off on some things but his intentions were honorable.

I have never studied him or his teachings. I study the Bible only. I'm not interested in commentaries.

There was a church established on the day of Pentecost. I believe that church alone is the Lord's church. If a person teaches/believes/obeys the same things they did in the first century, they are a member of that church. If they believe/teach/obey something(s) different they are not a member of the "one body".

The Bible teaches we must have God's authority behind everything we do religiously (Col. 3:17). That authority comes from God's word (Bible) alone.

So, I just mentioned this on the baptism thread I made, but how does that make you feel about Polycarp who was baptized as an infant in 69AD?


I don't think anyone goes to the church they do because they like the brand name on the front door. (okay, maybe the RCC) but we go to those churches because we believe that the doctrine that they teach inside of those doors are the most accurate to Christ.

Likewise, if you traveled across the country to somewhere you had never been before, when you went looking for a church, I imagine you would start with the buildings that said Church of Christ on them, would you not? Not because you think the name is cool, but because you think they are the most accurate version of Christianity out there. I'm on the same page, I do the same thing, just with a different name on the sign.

VetSurg said:

---

Campbell did not start the church of Christ. He recognized there had been a departure from it by denominations and desired to "re-form" that original church of the Lord.

Campbell was off on some things but his intentions were honorable.

I have never studied him or his teachings. I study the Bible only. I'm not interested in commentaries.

There was a church established on the day of Pentecost. I believe that church alone is the Lord's church. If a person teaches/believes/obeys the same things they did in the first century, they are a member of that church. If they believe/teach/obey something(s) different they are not a member of the "one body".

The Bible teaches we must have God's authority behind everything we do religiously (Col. 3:17). That authority comes from God's word (Bible) alone.

---

So where did the first Church get its Bibles from? And again, not trying to be argumentative but there are a ton of historical writings on the Church Fathers who were taught by the Apostles. And almost all teaching had to be oral because there were no printing presses.

And I agree with you that what Campbell's purpose was which was to get back to what the original church believed. And as I said, I agree with a lot of your theology and especially salvific theology. I do not understand how you can say the early Church and it's practices were founded in the Bible as there were so few. And how if that is a historical fact that there had to be reliance on oral history and tradition.

And I also understand the rejection of what some consider superfluous non Biblical Catholic tradition. It is when CofC folks try to explain that they are a historical continuation from the church at Pentecost and I do not see the historical evidence for that.

Thanks for being here.

Everything that composes the New Testament Bible was preserved from the first century-teachings and writings (epistles). Nothing we (I?) recognize as the New Testament was written after about 95AD. It was preserved for us (by God) and for them.

We have unbelievable access to His word today which they probably did not, but God's promise to preserve His word was to all men and all generations.

VetSurg said:

---

Everything that composes the New Testament Bible was preserved from the first century-teachings and writings (epistles). Nothing we (I?) recognize as the New Testament was written after about 95AD. It was preserved for us (by God) and for them.

We have unbelievable access to His word today which they probably did not, but God's promise to preserve His word was to all men and all generations.

---

But history clearly shows there were few Bibles prior to the printing press. So how was Christianity passed on?

And one other thing I have wondered about and this goes for my own Baptist upbringing also. Surely we have to admit that the early church fathers were taught directly by the Apostles. Why has the Protestant church disregarded those direct witnesses to the Apostles? Do you think the Church fathers were separate from the Church of Christ? And why if they were actually taught first hand by the Apostles.

"Christianity" is passed on today and it rarely involves a Bible (sadly).

Oral truth can be taught. Clearly, there were people alive in the second century who had been taught by the apostles or Timothy (etc.)

It is my suspicion (though there is no way to know) that written teachings weren't as rare as we think. They had scribes who were trained to copy the law. Surely there were scribes who converted to Christianity.

Certainly, not many copies survived. But how many writings from the mid-centuries exist today, and that is half as long ago and the preservation/paper(papyrus)/ink was significantly better.

In Matt. 7:7 Jesus said, "...seek and ye shall find". That is a Devine promise. As such, those who desired to know God through His word would have had it made available to them in some (providential) way. Otherwise, God would be unjust (John 12:48).

VetSurg said:

---

"Christianity" is passed on today and it rarely involves a Bible (sadly).

Oral truth can be taught. Clearly, there were people alive in the second century who had been taught by the apostles or Timothy (etc.)

It is my suspicion (though there is no way to know) that written teachings weren't as rare as we think. They had scribes who were trained to copy the law. Surely there were scribes who converted to Christianity.

Certainly, not many copies survived. But how many writings from the mid-centuries exist today, and that is half as long ago and the preservation/paper(papyrus)/ink was significantly better.

In Matt. 7:7 Jesus said, "...seek and ye shall find". That is a Devine promise. As such, those who desired to know God through His word would have had it made available to them in some (providential) way. Otherwise, God would be unjust (John 12:48).

---

I agree with your last paragraph. I do not believe Bibles, manuscripts, etc. were available to the vast majority of Christians. I think oral traditions were widely used by the Church fathers who were taught by the Apostles. Therefore, God did provide a way for people to learn. I have never understood the problem with accepting that oral tradition had to be used and think it is based entirely on anti Catholic bias.

I agree if you are using "tradition" to mean "teaching" as in II Thess. 2:15. However, "tradition" is also used to mean a man-made invention and is rejected scripturally (Matt. 15:3, Mark 7:8,13, Col. 2:8, etc.).

VetSurg said:

---

KI agree if you are using "tradition" to mean "teaching" as in II Thess. 2:15. However, "tradition" is also used to mean a man-made invention and is rejected scripturally (Matt. 15:3, Mark 7:8,13, Col. 2:8, etc.).

---

Fair enough. Have to go to a Derm meeting. Have a great night, Happy Thanksgiving, and thank you for the discussion.

And I interpret hose verses as pertaining to Jewish tradition, not Christian tradition. Especially not oral teachings and traditions taught by the Church fathers. Those were the people Jesus was talking to.

VetSurg said:

---

I agree if you are using "tradition" to mean "teaching" as in II Thess. 2:15. However, "tradition" is also used to mean a man-made invention and is rejected scripturally (Matt. 15:3, Mark 7:8,13, Col. 2:8, etc.).

---

No need to draw a false equivalence between rejected teaching and accepted teaching. St Paul says that we are to hold fast to what was passed on to us whether by word or letter. Scripture, then, validated and witnesses to the authority of oral instruction.

Edit to say: the modern hang up on the written word would probably be somewhere between confusing and ridiculous to a first century Christian. The Torah was oral for approximately a millennia before being written down. This adherence to oral tradition manifests itself in the use of tones and chants to memorize scriptures and lasted for centuries into Christianity. See, for example, ancient canonical requirements that a bishop should have the entire psalter memorized.

The Torah was oral for a millennium? Says who? It was written by Moses who received it of God. Are you suggesting Moses lived 1000 years? Or that he received it from man? Deuteronomy 34:7

VetSurg said:

---

Why? There was a church (one) in the first century. (Acts 2:47, 5:11, 8:1,3, 11:22, 11:26, 12:1, 13:1, etc., etc.).

That church continued through the teachings of the apostles (epistles, oral teachings) as it does today. Everything we recognize as the New Testament was taught and recorded in the first century..

---

So the Early Church fathers who were taught directly by the Apostles are part of your church?

Just to clarify my earlier posts, I do not have any problems with the CoC posters here, but I do react strongly to implications that all other Christians outside of that particular institution are going to hell (as is implied in the transcript I linked).

When you've set the stakes that high then we really have to examine the following logic:

Quote:

---

How do we know the CoC is the original Church founded in Jerusalem in 33 AD?

---

Quote:

---

Because the CoC interprets the New Testament correctly and no one else does.

---

Quote:

---

How do we know the CoC interprets the New Testament correctly?

---

Quote:

---

Because the CoC is the original Church founded in Jerusalem in 33 AD.

---

I'm a member of the same church they were. What I call the church of Christ is that first century church that Peter, Paul, Timothy, Tabitha, Aquila and Priscilla were members of. It is not a denomination. It is the original church that Christ promised to build. It is the "one body" of Ephesians 4:4. It is the body of Christ (Col. 1:24). It is the bride of Christ (Rev. 21:2,9). I will readily admit there are some buildings that say "church of Christ" which are not that church because they believe and teach things contrary to the scriptures.

And whoever referred to St. Paul; I hope you understand that biblically, all Christians are saints (Acts 26:10, Romans 1:7, 12:13, 15:25-26, 16:2, I Cor. 1:2, 14:33, Eph 1:1, etc., etc.).

VetSurg said:

---

The Torah was oral for a millennium? Says who? It was written by Moses who received it of God. Are you suggesting Moses lived 1000 years? Or that he received it from man? Deuteronomy 34:7

---

No... Moses lived around 1500 BC. Most scholars place the final "fixing" of the Torah around 450 BC, give or take a few centuries on both dates. We don't really know. The scriptures don't necessarily tell us what Moses wrote, only that he did write. It is almost certain that some portion of the Torah, and certainly the rest of the OT were oral tradition before they were written / canonized.

Exo 34:27

II Kings 22:8-13-Hilkiah finds the "Book of the law" that their "fathers had not kept" indicating this book was in existence well prior to Josiah's reign.

VetSurg said:

---

I'm a member of the same church they were. What I call the church of Christ is that first century church that Peter, Paul, Timothy, Tabitha, Aquila and Priscilla were members of. It is not a denomination. It is the original church that Christ promised to build. It is the "one body" of Ephesians 4:4. It is the body of Christ (Col. 1:24). It is the bride of Christ (Rev. 21:2,9). I will readily admit there are some buildings that say "church of Christ" which are not that church because they believe and teach things contrary to the scriptures.

---

This is a useless claim in and of itself. Every church that I know claims this.

Quote:

---

And whoever referred to St. Paul; I hope you understand that biblically, all Christians are saints (Acts 26:10, Romans 1:7, 12:13, 15:25-26, 16:2, I Cor. 1:2, 14:33, Eph 1:1, etc., etc.).

---

Sigh. This is as tiresome as your petty, childish invective like "worshiping Mary". For the record, no Roman Catholic or Orthodox person worships Mary.

The word "saint" and the word "holy" are one and the same in Greek - hagios. Holy comes from old English / Germanic, and "saint" comes from Latin. The honorific of "saint" or "hagios" given to champions of the Church is not a theological confession that they are somehow special or super-holy in a way that no other Christians are. Nor is the list of saints, or holy ones, or blessed ones (all same thing) in any way exhaustive or exclusive.

The saints, the holy ones, are friends of Christ Jesus as witnessed by their words and actions in this life. Do you object that the Apostle Paul was (is) not holy? Or do you object that I don't call you holy? What's the problem, here, exactly?

Just as Christ is The Christ and we are called to be christs (little christs, as Christian signifies), only Jesus is the Holy One, only God is Holy. Yet by union with Him we, too, become holy ones - we "might possess for [our] own the splendor of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Thess 2:13-14). The Orthodox Church has never had any formal process for who we recognize as a "saint". We simply recognize those who have been witnesses - martyr, in the literal sense - and demonstrated through their lives that they shine with the reflected light of God. For the record, that definitely includes the Apostles and Martyrs. St Paul is both.

VetSurg said:

---

Exo 34:27

II Kings 22:8-13-Hilkiah finds the "Book of the law" that their "fathers had not kept" indicating this book was in existence well prior to Josiah's reign.

---

Ok, what was the book? Was it the commandments? Leviticus? The entirety of Genesis? All of the Torah?

II Kings was obviously not in it, so I imagine you'll believe me that those books, at least, came later.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

"The Church of Christ is not a denomination" has got to be one of my all-time favorites for lack of self-awareness. CoC believes they are the most correct and everyone else is either less correct or outright wrong. They have specific worship practices like lack of instruments. They have beliefs they all share but are different from other flavors of Christianity.

Merriam-Webster definition of a denomination: a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices

Sounds like that definition fits CoC as much as it fits anyone else. I've attended and been a member of a non-denominational church. We had Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, and Pentecostals together under one roof. Things work that way in small towns. We followed the lead of our pastor, but we all had opinions.

The key to uniting the church is not to be as doctrinally pure as possible. The key to uniting the church is for leadership to accept sincere and well-intentioned dissent and for the body to obey sincere and well-intentioned leadership. Insistence on doctrinal purity just turns each reasonable difference of opinion into yet another schism

---

What you describe is not non-denominational, it's omni-denominational, the exact opposite of unity. It is acceptance of disunity and contrary to scripture.

k2aggie07 said:

---

VetSurg said:

---

Exo 34:27

II Kings 22:8-13-Hilkiah finds the "Book of the law" that their "fathers had not kept" indicating this book was in existence well prior to Josiah's reign.

---

Ok, what was the book? Was it the commandments? Leviticus? The entirety of Genesis? All of the Torah?

II Kings was obviously not in it, so I imagine you'll believe me that those books, at least, came later.

---

You referred to the Torah, the first 5 books. That's what I answered.

I am holy (I Peter 1:15-16).

To be holy is to be sanctified (same Greek word) or set apart. Christians are called to be sanctified/holy (Acts 20:32, I Cor. 1:2, 6:11, Heb. 10:10,14, Jude 1).

Book of the law doesn't mean the entirety of the Torah as we know it. Again, modern scholarship puts it around 450 BC.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Book of the law doesn't mean the entirety of the Torah as we know it. Again, modern scholarship puts it around 450 BC.

---

Torah
/tr,tr,tr/
[url=https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en-us&q=how+to+pronounce+Torah&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRozi3w8sc9YSm9SWtOXmPU4OINKMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLkYglJLcoV4pRi52INyS9KzLBiUWJKzeNZxCqWkV-uUJKvUADUkA_UkaoAlgcAgXZwrVUAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=us&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwik1JibqublAhUHKK0KHcwDBwoQ3eEDMAB6BAgBEAg][/url]
noun
[ol]

(in Judaism) the law of God as revealed to Moses and recorded in the first five books of the Hebrew scriptures (the Pentateuch).

• a scroll containing the Torah.

[/ol]

VetSurg said:

---

I am holy (I Peter 1:15-16).

---

Wow. What's it like?

Quote:

---

To be holy is to be sanctified (same Greek word) or set apart. Christians are called to be sanctified/holy (Acts 20:32, I Cor. 1:2, 6:11, Heb. 10:10,14, Jude 1).

---

Yes, I am aware, on all counts. But the holiness of Christians is one of participation, grace. Only God is holy by nature. But, when we recognize the saints we are recognizing those who have become united by grace to the divine nature - they have become like God, little Christs, as we are all called to be. But we usually keep this until they've run the race, though obviously in your case we have the rare exception.

There is a pretty good debate about what the book of the law means. For example, many think it may have been the book of Deuteronomy. You can read about it here.

https://bible.org/article/book-josiahs-reform

k2aggie07 said:

---

VetSurg said:

---

I am holy (I Peter 1:15-16).

---

Wow. What's it like?

Quote:

---

To be holy is to be sanctified (same Greek word) or set apart. Christians are called to be sanctified/holy (Acts 20:32, I Cor. 1:2, 6:11, Heb. 10:10,14, Jude 1).

---

Yes, I am aware, on all counts. But the holiness of Christians is one of participation, grace. Only God is holy by nature. But, when we recognize the saints we are recognizing those who have become united by grace to the divine nature - they have become like God, little Christs, as we are all called to be. But we usually keep this until they've run the race, though obviously in your case we have the rare exception.

---

Can you provide scriptural support for this "sainthood"? Can you give an approved scriptural example of elevation (unification to divine nature)? God is no respecter of persons (Rom. 2:11, Eph. 6:9, Col. 3:25, James 2:1-9, I Peter 1:17).

Can you clarify the intent of your question? Are you asking to understand the scriptural basis if theosis? Or if the practice of recognizing martyrs and the like as holy ones?

I think it's the latter. So, the honorific of saint, or blessed, is not some kind of theological distinction. A saint is not a super-duper Christian any more than an Apostle is. It's a title, and it is more or less a consensus confession that this person is worthy of emulation because of the witness of their life in Christ. As St. Paul says multiple times, imitate me. The people we recognize with the honorific of "saints" are worthy of imitation, because they imitate Christ. In the theological or categorical sense, all of those in Christ are saints, as you said.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

What you describe is not non-denominational, it's omni-denominational, the exact opposite of unity. It is acceptance of disunity and contrary to scripture.

---

And yet that earliest Christian church you claim to continue contained both circumcising Jews and non-circumcising Gentiles worshipping together. Seems like a bigger gap there than the gaps between modern Christians

---

Holding to circumcision as a religious requirement of the Old Law was continually rejected (Rom. 2:28-29, I Cor. 7:19, Phil. 3:3, Col. 3:11) but as a cultural custom it wasn't (because Gal. 5:6, 6:15).