beliefs of the church of christ

Dave,

In my younger days as was as hardline as just about any Church of Christ member, except for the ultra-conservative ones. So I know very well about the teaching of the Church of Christ. I was a Bible class teacher myself for about a decade in a Church of Christ.

 

Frank:

If you want to start a discussion on that, e-mail me. But be advised I don’t accept e-mail with attachments & that you may have to wait awhile, for its like another told me shortly after he retired. “If I knew life was going to be like this I’d never retired, for when I worked at least I got paid!!” (lol)

Meanwhile what I want from those of the CoC persuasion (i.e. you) is a scriptural answer to why you, those of the CoC persuasion, think the “new name” is “Christian.” Please keep the focus on “What saith the Lord” for the benefit of those that want to learn the truth, shall we?

All I or you can do is present the scriptures per God’s instructions (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15) & the rest is up to the Spirit of God (Jn 14:17). Amen?

This is your opportunity to make CoC doctrine known for the benefit of those who might never hear, so choose your words & scriptures wisely.

Cordially, Dave

 

Dave:

I have presented scripture that addresses your last post. I have no need to e-mail the same information as this forum makes it clear to all as to what the church believes.

In reference to the new name, the Bible teaches that the new name is Christian. The descriptive term Christian is the one and only term used in reference to those saved of Christ not previously mentioned in the text of the Bible. (ie. disciples, believers etc, are all previously used. Therefore, they are not new). The term is used three times in the new testament. ( I Pet. 4:16, Acts 26:28; 11:26).

Hephzibah is an old name taken from II Kings 21:1. It is used as a reference to the wife of Hezekiah. In hebrew, the word means delight in her.

In the new testament, The church or the saved are the delight of Christ. They are his bride.( Eph. 5:25-27, Revelation 21:2). The term Hephzibah, in context, is a prophetic description of the relationship of the church to Christ.( Acts 2).

The description given in the new testament for indviduals who comprise the bride or delight of Christ is Christian.

As for your contention for sabbath keeping, according to Col. 2:14 and Ephesians 2:15, Christians are not under the law of Moses. By the way, the old law includes, as per Nehemiah 9:13,14, commandments statutes,the holy sabbath, precepts, written by the hand of Moses.


Many words of truth are spoken by uninspired men. A cursory examination of the Bible teaches us this. Pilate, the Centurion, and the woman of Samaria all proclaimed Christ was the prophet, king of the Jews and the Son of God. These statements are true and recorded on the pages of inspiration. Yet, none of these men were inspired. The idea that requires an apostle specifically quote a passage to make it true is simply innaccurate.

Other prophetic utterances are not quoted word for word as found in the old testament. However, there is little doubt as to their veracity. Jesus refers to his emtombment after his crucifixion as being in the belly of the whale three days and three nights. ( Mat. 12:40). This is a reference to, but not an exact quote of an event during the time of Jonah, as he sought the repentance of Ninevah. In John 9:31 a blind man states, we know that God heareth not the prayers of sinners. This is absolutely true. However, it was not spoken by an apostle. Your argument requiring an apostle quote directly a scripture for it to be true is invalid.

Remember, John 8:32.

Frank

 

Frank: FOCUS!

The issue is The Christian name

Dave

 

Dave:
If that was rebuttal, it was a poor one. However, I expect such from those who reject truth.
Frank

 

Frank:

It was to allow you time to make much needed corrections. Apparently you're satisfied so:

In reference to the new name, the Bible teaches that the new name is Christian.

[No , the CoC teach such, not the Bible ! ]

The descriptive term Christian is the one and only term used in reference to those saved of Christ not previously mentioned in the text of the Bible. (ie. disciples, believers etc, are all previously used. Therefore, they are not new).

[How is CoC opinion “sound doctrine”? Where did an Apostle, God's mouth for New Testament doctrine, declare that the word “Christian” was a fulfillment of Isa 62:2 ? Read Acts 11:26, @ 40 AD, & think about why believers were first called such in Gentile territory, & not initially, 29 AD - 40 AD called such in and @ Jerusalem, which was Hebrew territory. Next read 1 Pet 1:1, written @ 64 AD, & note the locations of the dispersed Hebrews (1 Pet 2:12) who were, apparently, recently called such.]

In the new testament, The church or the saved are the delight of Christ. They are his bride.( Eph. 5:25-27, Revelation 21:2). The term Hephzibah, in context, is a prophetic description

[If there were nothing else, & there certainly is, the fact that Manasseh’s mother is named Hephzibah (2 Ki 21:1) proves Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled as God promised (Isa 62:4) ! ]

As for your contention for sabbath keeping, according to Col. 2:14 and Ephesians 2:15, Christians are not under the law of Moses.

[ Thanks for making my point ! Only those under the law of Moses were told by God , thru Isaiah, His mouth back then, that He would call them by a new name, which He did (Isa 62:2-4)!/B] ]


By the way, the old law includes, as per Nehemiah 9:13,14, commandments statutes,the holy sabbath, precepts, written by the hand of Moses.

[What part of Eph 2:12, written @ 63 AD, don‘t you understand ? Were your CoC opinion correct, & its not as has been & is now shown, Paul said Gentiles had nothing until then . That alone destroys your CoC doctrine about the “new name” being prophetic. You cannot scripturally have it both ways! Were CoC dogma correct, which its not, why didn’t Paul tell the Ephesians their “new name“ (Acts 20:20) ?/B] Was Paul not the mouth of God (1 Cor 14:37; Acts 22:14)? Could any Apostle have said; the name “Christian” was the fulfillment of the “new name“ promised by God in Isa 62:2 ?

For you to presume that; because the verses in which “Christian” appear refers to believers; the “new name” is “Christian,” due to the CoC gross violation of Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15, in that Isa 62:2 is a “prophetic pronunciation“ (sic), violates the creed of the Restoration potentates , " we speak where the Bible speaks, " which is sound if God’s instructions are followed (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15), & thus presumptuous (Ps 19:13). ]

Many words of truth are spoken by uninspired men. A cursory examination of the Bible teaches us this. Pilate, the Centurion, and the woman of Samaria all proclaimed Christ was the prophet, king of the Jews and the Son of God. These statements are true and recorded on the pages of inspiration. Yet, none of these men were inspired. The idea that requires an apostle specifically quote a passage to make it true is simply innaccurate.

[What part of “… the mouth of the Lord shall name.“ don’t you understand ? Were the OT prophets the mouth of the Lord ? ]

Other prophetic utterances are not quoted word for word as found in the old testament. However, there is little doubt as to their veracity. Jesus refers to his emtombment after his crucifixion as being in the belly of the whale three days and three nights. ( Mat. 12:40). This is a reference to, but not an exact quote of an event during the time of Jonah, as he sought the repentance of Ninevah. In John 9:31 a blind man states, we know that God heareth not the prayers of sinners. This is absolutely true. However, it was not spoken by an apostle. Your argument requiring an apostle quote directly a scripture for it to be true is invalid.

[If memory serves me right, the author of a book is free to quote their work. Is God not free to do likewise ? If so, what’s your point ? If not, you don't have a point ! My point is; the Apostles, to whom the CoC appeal for their church dogma, never cited Isa 62:2 as being fulfilled because God pre-empted them @ 750 years earlier (Isa 62:1-4) ! The fact that no NT prophet or Apostle takes your, CoC, position is apparent & therefore destroys your conclusion that:

“Your argument requiring an apostle quote directly a scripture for it to be true is invalid.”

whether you admit it or not.]

[ As for potentate, restoration etc, which do not pertain to “new name” being “Christian,” such will be dealt with in due time, The Lord willing. ]

Thank you for taking the time to present the CoC opinion on the “new name.“ I will soon post my original post & include this rebuttal, on the CoC board, so that readers can quickly see my position. I ask that you then post your rebuttal so that readers quickly see the differences without having to gather the salient points from fractured posts.

DHK , if Frank agrees, we will need your help.

Remember, John 8:32.

[Which The Lord has thru His word, rightly divided. Thanks for the reminder. ]

Frank, your next task, should you accept, is to explain why God slayed Ananias & Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). Your explanation will again prove, to the un biased, that the CoC is NOT the “church“ of Acts chapter two.

Thanks in advance, Dave.

 

See God’s instructions for correctly handling His word (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15), before thoughtfully reading Eph 2:11-12; Isa 56:2-8; 62:1-4; Gen 17:9-14 because:

1) God officially gave the Gentiles up, when He called out Abram (Gen 12; Rom 1; Eph 2:12), so its obvious they had nothing to look forward to. Since God made a promise in Isa 56:2-8 then later (Isa 62:2-4) identifies the name, isn’t it presumptuous (Ps 19:13) to claim that “Christian” was a name from God reserved for New Testament believers? And since part of the creed of the Restoration movement, from a Disciple of Christ potentate , is that: “we speak where the Bible speaks”, is the present CoC misuse of the word “Christian” not a violation of that noble creed?

2) Nowhere in the New Testament is: “the mouth of the Lord shall name” (Isa 62:2) quoted as being fulfilled by an Apostle, who were God‘s mouth regarding the doctrine for the Church after the Lord ascended (Jn 12:49; Mt 28:19-20; Acts 20:16-20; 22:14-15; 1 Cor 14:37 etc), like the prophets & Levites were in the Old Testament (Ex 4:10-15; Jer 1:6-9 etc). Thhe obvious reason the Apostles never quote “Christian” as the “new name” was that God pre-emptied them, @ 750 years earlier (Isa 62:2-4). The fact that Israel knew about the fulfillment (2 Ki 21:1) of “the new name” is obvious, “Hephzibah” is clearly not a common Hebrew name.

3) When Peter (1 Pet 4:16) mentions “Christian” note he does not cite Isa 62:2 as a fulfillment of the “new name.”

4) That Luke (Acts 11:26) mentions believers were called such without identifying the source proves the name “Christian” was not from God!

5) So an appeal to Acts 26:28 being “prophetic pronouncement“, a lost king God’s mouth in saying “Christian,” is blasphemous!

6) Scripture, correctly applied (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15), proves the “everlasting name” was a promise made only to Hebrews & proselytes keeping God’s Sabbaths (Isa 2-8), who had faithfully taken hold of God’s covenant (Gen 17:9-14) &, according to God , the “everlasting name” is “Hephzibah” (Isa 62:4).

(DHK , would you please reserve for Frank the immediate preceding space (for his post) in order that readers can quickly grasp point & counter-point of this discussion. Thanks for your help!

 

Dave:
Ananias and Sapphira lied. ( acts 5:3).

 

Amen. Surely no one who has read the New Testament can question this clear teaching of the Bible.

 

Dave:

In Acts 11:26, the phrase " were called" is from the greek chrematisai and has the force of a divine command. ( Mat.2:12,22: Luke 2:26: Acts 10:22).

The phrase denotes two things. One, the disciples called themselves Christians. Two, others also referred to them as such. Since God inspired the word usage it is hardly an opinion as to the name, unless of course it is God's divine opinion.

Luke was an inspired man. He wrote the book of Acts. Peter, who was an apostle, by inspiration declares," if any man suffer as a Christian let him not be ashamed but let him glorify God in his name". I believe that God spake through both men. Obviously, you reject Peter and Luke as mouth pieces for the Lord. Perhaps, you should read I Pet. 4:11.

[ January 10, 2005, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: Frank ]

 

Dave:
The old law was not to be everlasting. ( Hebrews 8:6-12). The tennants of the old covenant have vanished. ( Hebrews 8:13).

The new name could not be Hephizibah. This name was of human origin, and one that was under the old covenant. The name Christian is of divine origin and is divinely designated under the new covenant of Christ.

In Isaiah 62:2 the word phrase "shalt be called" is from the hebrew Qara. This word means to have or declare sovereignty over a thing which is named. Verse two is written is the future tense. This means the divine designation had not yet taken place.


Furthermore, the new name was one that designated authority over it's subjects. Christ has the authority over his people. ( Mat. 28:18-20,I Pet. 2:9).

 

If I were to satrt a new church - may God remove my name from the book of life! - I would have called it "God's Poor Sinners' Verein'.

 

Dave:
Ananias and Sapphira lied. ( acts 5:3).

Frank: Please , focus.

Since Ananias never said a word to Peter, & there is no record of his orally lying, how did he lie to God? Should you scripturally (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15) answer that question, with “chapter & verse” in context , you will totally destroy the CoC claim that it is: “the church you can read about in the Bible.”

Why? Because such doctrine (Acts 2:42) is not enforce today, for were it the “Restorationists“, “fathers“, “founders“, “pioneers” would never been called such since they would have met Ananias fate.

Those of the CoC denomination literally & repeatedly holler that; “you make the verses say what you want them to say“, when in fact such are quoted & or read verbatim in context, as this board has & will be shown. Doesn’t such a response prove not the persons “faith“ is not in The Lord Jesus Christ but in the erroneous dogma they believe?

Friend, until then, may God open your eyes.

Dave

 

Frank
In Acts 11:26, the phrase " were called" is from the greek chrematisai and has the force of a divine command.
[
[ “divine command”?? Sir, what Bible are you using? Were that true, how is it that the translators of the AV, RV, ASV, NASV, NKJ, & the Douay-Rheims Version over-looked it? Where is Luke’s emphasis to that effect, for its apparent all the above translators missed this since: “… the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” clearly negates any
“force of a divine command”, does it not? ] ( Mat.2:12,22: Luke 2:26: Acts 10:22).

The phrase denotes two things. One, the disciples called themselves Christians.

[ Please , “chapter & verse” that it was initially “the disciples {who} called themselves Christians“ ]

[ Two, others also referred to them as such.

[Please explain what is meant by “others” ]

Since God inspired the word usage it is hardly an opinion

[ Frank, yours is, as you are clearly proving. ]

to the name, unless of course it is God's divine opinion.


[ God’s “divine opinion” is clearly stated in Isa 62:2-4, please, read it & believe it (Num 23:19). ]

Luke was an inspired man. He wrote the book of Acts

[ Read my former posts on Acts 11:26. Luke does NOT cite “Christian” because God is on record having given {past tense, Frank} that name (Isa 62:2-4). Since Luke, as well as the Apostles, believed God, rather than CoC dogma, that is WHY you cannot & have not, according to God’s instructions (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15), given me “chapter & verse”, in context, on this matter. ]

Peter, who was an apostle, by inspiration declares," if any man suffer as a Christian let him not be ashamed but let him glorify God in his name". I believe that God spake through both men. Obviously, you reject Peter and Luke as mouth pieces for the Lord. Perhaps, you should read I Pet. 4:11.

[ Precisely what you are not doing! God meant what He said (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15) & you’d do well to start believing. Your CoC opinion clearly violates God’s instructions for correctly handling His word. Thus it would behoove you to read 2 Pet 15-16 & take to heart an Apostle’s warning. ]

But thanks for proving the CoC opinion , that the “everlasting name”, the “new name” being “Christian” is incorrect. Looking for your resply as to the scriptural, “chapter & verse”, reason why God slew Ananias.

Until then, Hebrews 4:12-13

Dave

 

Frank:

“The old law was not to be everlasting ( Hebrews 8:6-12). The tennants of the old covenant have vanished. ( Hebrews 8:13).”

{What has this to do with the CoC’s opinion that the “new name” is “Christian”? By my reference to Eph 2:12 it proves the Gentiles had nothing, Frank! What part of nothing do you not understand?}


“The new name could not be Hephizibah. This name was of human origin …,”

{Frank, not in my Bible, its from God. Again, what Bible are you using?}

“and one that was under the old covenant. The name Christian is of divine origin and is divinely designated under the new covenant of Christ.”

{Chapter & verse, Frank! PLEASE , give me chapter & verse or be man enough to admit your CoC opinion is just that! An opinion that helped fracture the denomination of the Disciples of Christ in 1906.}


“In Isaiah 62:2 the word phrase "shalt be called" is from the hebrew Qara. This word means to have or declare sovereignty over a thing which is named. Verse two is written is the future tense. This means the divine designation had not yet taken place.”

{Look at my last post regarding your plea to “divine command” before you go any further.}

“Furthermore, the new name was one that designated authority over it's subjects. Christ has the authority over his people. ( Mat. 28:18-20,I Pet. 2:9).”

{You need help friend, you definitely need help!}

Dave

 

Just curious, ICU2YB, is there a personal reason for your jihad against the Church of Christ?

 

KenH;

Please, explain your reason(s) as to why you think such is “jihad" on the CoC.

Thanks

Dave

 

Dave:

I used the original language to make my post The new testament was written in Greek. The old was written in hebrew. Therefore, if one wants to be accurate in any interpretation, he must consider the language God used. Unfortunately, you prefer not to consider the original inspired language. Again, I expected you would do this.





Moreover, the text of Isaiah 62 is written in future perfect tense. Therefore, it cannot refer to the King's wife as the new name. I could use your reasoning to argue that the new name would be no more desolate. However, if I did, I would be making the same mistake as you on insisting a fulfillment based on the old and curent names previously used as found in the text. However, then it would not be future.

The context of this prophesy is about becomng a new creature in Chirst. ( II Cor. 5:17). It looks to the future of both Gentiles and Jews as one family on earth.( Gal. 3:26-29). The new creature glorifies Christ in his name which is Christian, according to Peter.

As for II Tim. 2:15 and Is. 28:10, I kindly suggest you follow your own advice.

 

Frank:
"
“I used the original language to make my post The new testament was written in Greek. The old was written in hebrew. Therefore, if one wants to be accurate in any interpretation, he must consider the language God used. Unfortunately, you prefer not to consider the original inspired language ."

[ Please see my last post regarding all those translation committees who, according to your unidentified Greek scholar(s), failed miserably in their attempt to correctly translate Acts 11:26, to make " the divine command " known, so that English people, for whom those Bibles were intended, could correctly understand what the CoC teach is the correct interpretation.

Sir, if this issue were reversed & I tried telling you such, wouldn’t you accuse me of failing to make my point & demand “chapter & verse”?

That noble motto, along with God’s instructions for correctly handling His word (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15), has helped me understand. My respect for the CoC motto is, initially , commended by those of your group when we “study the Bible“, that is until they realize, to their obvious shock, like you are learning now, that in obeying God’s instructions that method destroys CoC doctrine. ]

Etc, etc.

“As for II Tim. 2:15 and Is. 28:10, I kindly suggest you follow your own advice.”

[ Rest assured I shall, as you will quickly realize when you answer my question about the death of Ananias. One thing is for sure, you will either bless God for crossing our paths or wish to God you had dropped your religion & heeded what you are now being taught.


Cordially, Dave ]

 

Dave:

The Bible says in Acts 5:1  ¶But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2  And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
3  But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4  Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

Again, they LIED. vs.3,4. I would infer that the cause of their deceit was coveteousness or greed. However, That is simply my judgment.

The language used in my previous post is from James Strong, and Arndt and Gingrich,and Thayer. These men are well respected for their scholarship in language.

Dave, who is to say your committee was correct? Who would that person be YOU? Your reasoning on this is biased.

I bless God everyday. Hopefully, you will learn the the truth as you continue to study.

[ January 17, 2005, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: Frank ]