Are you a member of the church of the New Testa...

Originally posted by Treytrumpet1
"Biblically sound" just means teaching that is in accordance with what the Bible teaches. Nothing from man mixed in; no creeds; no disciplines; just the Bible and the Bible alone. We must be "biblically sound" in order to go to heaven. That is, we must be obeying what God has set forth for us to do, and not to do as recorded in the Bible.

But as has been discussed many times here, there's no single perception of what the bible teaches. For all the absoluteness which theists seem to preach, their subjective, relative understanding of the bible cannot be ignored. People talk about Jesus this and Jesus that, but what you really understand about Jesus form the bible is very little. You're trawling through second, third hand versions, written years after Jesus' death, which have been translated (the problems of indeterminacy notwithstanding) more than once and are still open to reader interpretation. I have no idea what 'biblically sound' entails.

Originally posted by Treytrumpet1
Read above. The church of the New Testament is not a denomination at all. It is the church which belongs to Christ. Read above about the distinctive marks of the church.

You lack the ablity to write concisely and clearly, and you still have not answered the question ' Is there such a church ?' But forget it.

Are you therefore saying that if a denomination does not carry those 5 distinctive features, then they are not a church that belongs to Christ ?

Originally posted by Rajk999
You lack the ablity to write concisely and clearly, and you still have not answered the question ' Is there such a church ?' But forget it.

Are you therefore saying that if a denomination does not carry those 5 distinctive features, then they are not a church that belongs to Christ ?

Thanks for the personal attack on the writing; I try my best to get the point across with simple words. Indeed there is a church that is described in the pages of New Testament. That is the church which belongs to Christ. No modern denomination fits this criterion. However, there is group of people who practice New Testament religion today. They call themselves by a Scriptural name, not the only scriptural name, but indeed one that is based in the Bible (Romans 16:16). We have deemed it expedient to be called the church of Christ, since it is the church of Christ!

Originally posted by Treytrumpet1
Thanks for the personal attack on the writing; I try my best to get the point across with simple words. Indeed there is a church that is described in the pages of New Testament. That is the church which belongs to Christ. No modern denomination fits this criterion. However, there is group of people who practice New Testament religion today. They ca ...[text shortened]... We have deemed it expedient to be called the church of Christ, since it is the church of Christ!

I had a girlfriend once who was a member of a Church of Christ. I remember 2 things about it: 1- They had an enviable sound system--Bose 901's that really rocked! and 2- When the folks beside me threw their hands in the air and people started moving around in the aisles, it 'bout scared me half to death. A good Methodist boy was used to sitting quietly 'til the preacher stopped talking.

Originally posted by Starrman
But as has been discussed many times here, there's no single perception of what the bible teaches. For all the absoluteness which theists seem to preach, their subjective, relative understanding of the bible cannot be ignored. People talk about Jesus this and Jesus that, but what you really understand about Jesus form the bible is very little. You're tra ...[text shortened]... d are still open to reader interpretation. I have no idea what 'biblically sound' entails.

You need to go back and study more closely the evidence for the infallibility of the Scriptures. I am confident that we have the Bible, that which was inspired of God, word for word inspiration (Jer. 1:9; II Sam. 23:2).

You have to accept that there are absolutes in this world. Right now I can objectively say that I am sitting down. I am not standing. If someone were to come in the room where I were to say, "I am sitting," like critics of the Bible, they would say, "that's your interpretation." However, it is not only my mere interpretation but it is undeniable truth. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but through Me." Therefore the Bible definitively teaches that one must go through the Christ in order to get to the Father. however, some may say, "Well that is your interpretation." They can say that, but that is what the text means. What the text says it means!

The Bible claims that there is only one God-given interpretation also. "Knowing this first, that no prephecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were borne along by the Holy Spirit." That is to say that, the Bible has one God-given interpretation. It did not come to us by man's mind; it came to us from God's mind. The Bible is truly the words from God. Also, passages must be used in their context, and used correctly. Yea, even used in the way that God intended for them to be used: "So shall my word be tyhat goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it" (Isa. 55:11)! That means that God put a meaning into a passage and relayed that meaning to us through language. It is truly an abuse of God's word if a passage can mean two contradicting ideas, and both be called "truth".

I realize that you are a skeptic, and there are many external evidences that can prove the Bible to be truly given of Deity. What about the historical and geographic accuracy? What about fulfilled prophecy? What about the unity of the entire Bible? Can these things be accounted for in man's doing?

Originally posted by Treytrumpet1
Thanks for the personal attack on the writing; I try my best to get the point across with simple words. Indeed there is a church that is described in the pages of New Testament. That is the church which belongs to Christ. No modern denomination fits this criterion. However, there is group of people who practice New Testament religion today. They ca ...[text shortened]... We have deemed it expedient to be called the church of Christ, since it is the church of Christ!

I have 2 questions for you. Lets see how best you can answer these with simple words:

1. Do you think that Christ will condemn those denominations which do not follow the 5 criteria laid out by you?

2. Do you see any wrongdoing on your part in condemning demoniations that Christ will accept ? For eg ... you clearly think less of churches that use musical instruments and wont have anything to do with them. Do you believe Christ will think like you and condemn these people for using pianos and violins and guitars etc ?

Originally posted by Rajk999
I have 2 questions for you. Lets see how best you can answer these with simple words:

1. Do you think that Christ will condemn those denominations which do not follow the 5 criteria laid out by you?

2. Do you see any wrongdoing on your part in condemning demoniations that Christ will accept ? For eg ... you clearly think less of churches that use music ...[text shortened]... rist will think like you and condemn these people for using pianos and violins and guitars etc ?

1. I know that Christ will condemn those denominations which do not follow the criterion set forth in the Bible concerning those 5 things that I mentioned. However, by no means are those 5 criterion an exhaustive list of the things we must follow that are in the Bible. Those were just some examples of how to identify the church that belongs to Christ. Here are two passages that come to mind:

"He that rejecteth me and recieveth not my words hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day" (John 12:48).

"But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up" (Matt. 15:13). (Jesus said that in the context of vain worship - v. 9), like those who "worship" in unauthorized ways, eg. with mechanical instruments of music.

2. Christ will accept no denomination (Matt. 15:13). He will only accept the church which He built and died for (Eph. 5:23; 4:4: 1:22-23). I don't think less of the people who do that, I just think less of their actions. I love all people; I just hate sin.

Originally posted by Treytrumpet1
You need to go back and study more closely the evidence for the infallibility of the Scriptures. I am confident that we have the Bible, that which was inspired of God, word for word inspiration (Jer. 1:9; II Sam. 23:2).

I see not one bit of evidence to suggest it is anything other than a work of man.

You have to accept that there are absolutes in this world. Right now I can objectively say that I am sitting down. I am not standing. If someone were to come in the room where I were to say, "I am sitting," like critics of the Bible, they would say, "that's your interpretation." However, it is not only my mere interpretation but it is undeniable truth. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but through Me." Therefore the Bible definitively teaches that one must go through the Christ in order to get to the Father. however, some may say, "Well that is your interpretation." They can say that, but that is what the text means. What the text says it means!

I have to do no such thing. Despite the fact that your analogy is rather simplistic, there is the possibility that you are mistaken, hallucinating, dreaming etc. You cannot provide such a thing as an absolute proof of your sitting status, all you can do is continually strive to eradicate possible proofs against it. You, me, everyone, we're all stuck in the subjectivity of reality and whilst the evidence to support your sitting is pretty convincing, there is no absolute, definitive proof of it.

The Bible claims that there is only one God-given interpretation also. "Knowing this first, that no prephecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were borne along by the Holy Spirit." That is to say that, the Bible has one God-given interpretation. It did not come to us by man's mind; it came to us from God's mind. The Bible is truly the words from God. Also, passages must be used in their context, and used correctly. Yea, even used in the way that God intended for them to be used: "So shall my word be tyhat goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it" (Isa. 55:11)! That means that God put a meaning into a passage and relayed that meaning to us through language. It is truly an abuse of God's word if a passage can mean two contradicting ideas, and both be called "truth".

You're making the mistake of assuming that because the bible claims it was written by god and god is inerrant, that the bible is inerrant.

I realize that you are a skeptic, and there are many external evidences that can prove the Bible to be truly given of Deity.

Actually I'm not, but we'll ignore that for the moment. What are these many external evidences?

What about the historical and geographic accuracy? What about it? How hard is it to record history?

What about fulfilled prophecy? Such as?

What about the unity of the entire Bible? Unity? Hmm, let's see. OT = vengeful, murderous, amoral, inconsistent god. NT = All loving, peace and forgiveness god. Where are your absolutes?

Can these things be accounted for in man's doing?

Yes, how are you so sure they are not?

That sure is a host of questions to answer and I don't mind answering them. However, I just want to know where you stand: Is it your opinion that there exist no absolutes?

Originally posted by Treytrumpet1
1. I know that Christ will condemn those denominations which do not follow the criterion set forth in the Bible concerning those 5 things that I mentioned. However, by no means are those 5 criterion an exhaustive list of the things we must follow that are in the Bible. Those were just some examples of how to identify the church that belongs to Christ. ple who do that, I just think less of their actions. I love all people; I just hate sin.

I would be interested in seeing a more exhaustive list of what you and the Church of Christ think at the things we must follow. Is there a website I can look at ?

How about selling all your worldly possessions and goods and distributing the proceeds to your fellow-believers .. do youall do that as well ?

Originally posted by Treytrumpet1
That's the problem. How can two differing denominations both be "Biblically sound"? For instance, if the Bible teaches that we should worship on the first day of the week, and one denomination worships on Sunday, and one worships on Saturday. Then they are not both "Biblically sound."

Furthermore, the Bible calls us to come out of denominationalis ...[text shortened]... there is one body. And we know that the one body is the church (Eph. 1:22-23).

For instance, if the Bible teaches that we should worship on the first day of the week, and one denomination worships on Sunday, and one worships on Saturday. Then they are not both "Biblically sound."
---trumpet-----

I don't think the days of the week are a big issue . If a church worships on a saturday but gets all the fundamentals right (ie salvation by grace etc etc) then I don't think God gets all twitchy about days of the week. The whole point of it is to have one day off to devote to God. The spirit of the thing is the most important thing.

Originally posted by Treytrumpet1
(Jesus said that in the context of vain worship - v. 9), like those who "worship" in unauthorized ways, eg. with mechanical instruments of music..

So exactly where did anyone say in the Bible that you should not worship with mechanical instruments? King David was sadly mistaken then ?

PS 33:2 Praise the LORD with HARP: sing unto him with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings.

PS 71:22 I will also praise thee with the psaltery, even thy truth, O my God: unto thee will I sing with the HARP, O thou Holy One of Israel.

PS 98:5 Sing unto the LORD with the HARP; with the HARP, and the voice of a psalm.

PS 147:7 Sing unto the LORD with thanksgiving; sing praise upon the HARP unto our God:

PS 149:3 Let them praise his name in the dance: let them sing praises unto him with the timbrel and HARP.

PS 150:3 Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and HARP.

Originally posted by knightmeister
For instance, if the Bible teaches that we should worship on the first day of the week, and one denomination worships on Sunday, and one worships on Saturday. Then they are not both "Biblically sound."
---trumpet-----

I don't think the days of the week are a big issue . If a church worships on a saturday but gets all the fundamentals right (ie sal ...[text shortened]... s to have one day off to devote to God. The spirit of the thing is the most important thing.

"You don't think" doesn't matter! What matters is what the Bible says. In the Old Testament the day for worship was the Sabbath (Saturday). The Old Testament was done away, and thus the New Testament was brought in (Heb. 10; Gal. 3:24-27; Rom. 7:1-7; et. al.). The fact of the matter is, the New Testament says that we must worship upon the first day of the week. The church was established upon the first day of the week (Acts 2). Paul waited 7 days, so he could partake the Lord's Supper (worship) upon the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). The early Christians, and apostolic example and direct commands show us that it is necessary for New Testament Christians to worship on Sunday.

Originally posted by Treytrumpet1
Thanks for the personal attack on the writing; I try my best to get the point across with simple words. Indeed there is a church that is described in the pages of New Testament. That is the church which belongs to Christ. No modern denomination fits this criterion. However, there is group of people who practice New Testament religion today. They ca ...[text shortened]... We have deemed it expedient to be called the church of Christ, since it is the church of Christ!

I've got news for you trumpet .I think you have got yourself involved in a cult /sect of the church. I have had involvement with the Church Of Christ and know something of what they are about. (I am a Christian by the way) The thinking style is similar to Jehovah's Witnesses. All cults proclaim exclusivity based on dubious grounds and they also appeal to nostalgia with claims of "returning " to the "true" church etc etc. All this is backed up with active services , psychological ploys , the herd mentality and encouraging a 'them and us' approach.

I say this not to have a go at you but to hopefully put a seed of doubt in your mind about this "church" . Remember , the Bible points out that the enemy can be and Angel of Light and a wolf in sheep's clothing. Be careful my friend , keep your eyes open and ask a few questions here and there. Just be a bit shrewd and don't believe everything they tell you , think for yourself.

Originally posted by Rajk999
I would be interested in seeing a more exhaustive list of what you and the Church of Christ think at the things we must follow. Is there a website I can look at ?

How about selling all your worldly possessions and goods and distributing the proceeds to your fellow-believers .. do youall do that as well ?

If you want an unabridged list of what things we must and must not do, then read the New Testament. As for the selling of all possessions and distributing them, where in the Bible is there a command for Christians to do that today? The people who were baptized on the Day of Pentecost after Christ's resurrection, were added to the church (Acts 2:38-47), and did sell their possessions and gave to "every man that had need." However, this is not referred to as a thing that is required of us today. This was just recording what was done then in order to help those particular brethren. Many of those who became Christians that day, became such at the risk of losing their homes and other possessions because of great persecution. The Judaic system was being ushered out and Christianity was being brought in. It was a period of hardship for the early Christians, and this would have helped them along in their new journey as children of God.

Why would that be a prerequisite for salvation? Is that what you are asking?