Thank you brethren for teaching the truth, as always. Praying for all those listening who are not part of the Lords one church- that they may have their hearts softened to obey the truth before it is eternally too late. Mat 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Mat 7:14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
"Thank you brethren for teaching the truth," I watched a video of CoC leadership whereby they seemed to proudly suggest that their organization is exactly the same as is depicted in Acts 2:38 and it is the "new church" spoken of by Jesus Himself. There may be a problem with this line of thinking and reasoning if the Apostle Paul was the first member of the church and the gospel for church inclusion was different as well. The Apostle wrote in 1 Tim. 1:15-16: "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. [16] Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.” The gospel for entry into this church is Eph. 2:8-9; for by grace are you saved through faith; faith and nothing else. So getting back to Acts 2:38, the preacher was Peter, those who were saved were Jews, they were indeed saved in accordance with the Kingdom Gospel message and they were indeed added to the existing church known as the little flock, KoH. d. Allow me to make this interjection about (c). It is not believable by the CoC because it implies the following: i. Church (BoC) was not started on the day of Pentecost. ii. Paul was saved in the presence of Jesus, epiphaneia style. iii. Paul was not saved by water baptism. Podcaster, you have the option of disproving these statements, which you can't, or you can delete them which you will!! Either way, the truth of the Almighty God be true because you deleted what you could not prove, or because what scripture said was true, your religion said was a LIE!! Please know it is not too late for new entrance gate!!
All these comments about a restoration movement, I just have a question. If this were true about the Church of Christ, where is this documentation that supports the restoration? I have never seen it. All I see is the bible and what Christ teaches us.
Here is an excerpt. There is much more under the Campbell, Stone, Scott movement. It is very interesting!!! - Most people are aware of churches which contain the name “Church of Christ” and “Disciples of Christ,” but most people, including many in those churches, are not aware of the early history of these churches and their founders. This group of churches was, and to some extent still are, the central core of what is called the Restoration Movement. Their founders were Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone, and Walter Scott. The major development of this movement occurred between 1823 and the deaths of its founders (Barton Stone, 1844; Walter Scott, 1861; and Alexander Campbell, 1866). The Campbells, Stone, and Scott began their movements independently but had significant mergers in the early 1800s, and these unions were the foundation for the movement that continues to this day. Of course, most of grass roots members of this movement claim that their true roots go back to the original apostolic New Testament church. But even those who do acknowledge the role of their founders also claim that the “restoration” that ensued was a reestablishing of the New Testament church. The Restoration Movement churches claim that all denominational churches, then and now, have basically apostatized. In the Campbell’s eyes, the Reformation was a good start but stopped short. They agreed with the Reformation principle of Scripture alone rather than ecclesiastically imposed traditions. But they came to believe that the resulting denominations were guilty of the same errors. As we will see, however, it is the Stone-Campbell-Scott Movement that “stopped short” since their “gospel” bears much more resemblance to the Roman Catholic view than that of the Scriptures. One of the Campbell’s driving passions was to see the various denominations, which he referred to as sectarian, unified by the elimination of what he considered man-made creeds, and a return to the “Scripture alone.” He wrote in the Christian Baptist of 1826, “I have no idea of adding to the catalogue of new sects. I labor to see sectarianism abolished and all Christians of every name united upon the one foundation upon which the apostolic church was founded.”1This is indeed an admirable goal. Campbell frequently focused on Jesus’ mediatory prayer that His followers may be one, in unity, so that the world would believe that Jesus was sent (John 17:20-23). But in reality the Stone-Campbell-Scott Movement began more denominations based on the peculiar biblical interpretations of its founders.
Religion: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies and rules used to worship God or group of Gods. Denomination: a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition and identity. Christianity is a religion Churches of Christ are represented worldwide as one of the denominations to evolve out of the American Restoration movement.
Yeah, it’s the Catholic “universal” church founded by Christ disciples in the 1st century. Not the man-made American religion of the evangelicals 2000 years later.
Where there are two opposing teachings, either one is true and one is false, or both are false, because both cannot be true. 1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. If God established denominations at Pentecost, then he is divided against himself. Remember Christ said that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. We, as did those of the restoration, simply take the instructions and follow them, and in so doing, carry on the New Testament church.
Question: You state there is no Scriptural instruction for worshipping the Lord with instruments? What about the imperative call to worship in Psalm 150? The early church often sang the Psalms, so by the logic presented, then you can only sing Psalms and the spiritual songs in place during the New Testament church. Did the Apostles ever actually prohibit the use or is that just your interpretation since it is not directly permitted? Second question: Why do you broadcast church services in the Church of Christ? Is there direct instruction to use technology?
Psalms was before Jesus' time and not yet under the new law. Does it say to use instruments in the New Testament? Why make worship a rock concert and take away from the worship to God when it is directed towards someone playing an instrument?
@@ConRob3-2692 First, we need to recognize that instruments are not part of the New Testament pattern. All we ever see in the New Testament is singing. In Ephesians 5:19 we are commanded to sing. In Colossians 3:16, we are commanded to sing. We see examples of singing (e.g. Acts 16:25). But we never once see examples of playing instruments to worship God or edify one another. Our worship is spiritual. Those who worship God are to worship Him in spirit and truth (John 4:24). Worshipping God and edifying one another is not to be about our flesh. It is not about making us feel good, arousing our passions, satisfying our flesh. It is about connecting our spirits to God. God doesn’t have to always spell out His reasons behind His pattern. but we can rest assured there are reasons. Why aren’t instruments part of the pattern? Because we worship in spirit, not in the flesh.
@davidbridges6450 So then, for you, the instrument is sin. That would also mean that even though we are to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, I sing Psalms 150. You do not. Let's just agree not to add to what the Lord has said, nor bind tradition.
Sir, you said send scriptures about instruments and I want to send a few showing they were used in praise to the Lord. This is not to usurp authority, just to expound on scriptures as done in Acts 18:26 Numbers 31:6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand. ( HOLY INSTRUMENTS and TRUMPETS, a musical instrument) 2 Samuel 6:5 And David and all the house of Israel played before the Lord on all manner of instruments made of fir wood, even on harps, and on psalteries, and on timbrels, and on cornets, and on cymbals. (Played BEFORE the Lord all manner of instruments and this is referencing musical instruments) 1 Chronicles 15:28-29 Thus all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of the Lord with shouting, and with sound of the cornet, and with trumpets, and with cymbals, making a noise with psalteries and harps. 29 And it came to pass, as the ark of the covenant of the Lord came to the city of David, that Michal, the daughter of Saul looking out at a window saw king David dancing and playing: and she despised him in her heart. ( Played musical instruments before the Ark of the Lord. Some people today still despise this kind of praise, but did the Lord despise it ,or a person?) 1 Chronicles 16:42 And with them Heman and Jeduthun with trumpets and cymbals for those that should make a sound, and with musical instruments of God. And the sons of Jeduthun were porters. (MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS OF GOD) 2 Chronicles 5:13 It came even to pass, as the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the Lord; and when they lifted up their voice with the trumpets and cymbals and instruments of musick, and praised the Lord, saying, For he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever: that then the house was filled with a cloud, even the house of the Lord; (MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS used in PRAISE and THANKSGIVING in the HOUSE OF THE LORD, when his glory came down vs 14.) ? Why would God come down and fill the his temple with his glory if what they were doing displeased him? The answer is because ... Psalms 22:3 But thou art holy, O thou that INHABITEST the PRAISES of Israel. ( By the which ,they were doing with instruments) Here is a new testament example: Luke 15 (emphasis) vs 25 21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. 22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: 23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: 24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. 25 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing. 26 And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant. 27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound. 28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him. 29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: 30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf. 31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. 32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found. ?'s Don't we use this as an example of people coming to Christ? Do people come to the house of God to receive Salvation? Where does it say we can't praise, give thanks, and sing using instruments? Yes it says sing... But what about these scriptures listed above and the fact that ... Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Malachi 3:6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. Thank you for your time. This is not for strife or contention, but I would like to see the scriptures saying we cannot, given the other scriptures say they did and that's what is WRITTEN Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. I really like your videos and believe the body should be one mind, one accord and believe what is written and rightfully divide the word according to scripture Corinthians 4:13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. IT IS WRITTEN praise with.... instruments including harp psaltery, cymbals, trumpets, trimble, & even dance Psalms 150 Praise ye the Lord. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power. 2 Praise him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness. 3 Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp. 4 Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs. 5 Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals. 6 Let every thing that hath breath praise the Lord. Praise ye the Lord. Another new testament example: Revelation 14:2-3 2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: 3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. (So instruments with song even in heaven? Doesn't this prove that our GOD doesn't change.?.)
@@bederyourself2642 How about this?? Very comparable to Roman Catholic in a number of beliefs. Most people are aware of churches which contain the name “Church of Christ” and “Disciples of Christ,” but most people, including many in those churches, are not aware of the early history of these churches and their founders. This group of churches was, and to some extent still are, the central core of what is called the Restoration Movement. Their founders were Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone, and Walter Scott. The major development of this movement occurred between 1823 and the deaths of its founders (Barton Stone, 1844; Walter Scott, 1861; and Alexander Campbell, 1866). The Campbells, Stone, and Scott began their movements independently but had significant mergers in the early 1800s, and these unions were the foundation for the movement that continues to this day. Of course, most of grass roots members of this movement claim that their true roots go back to the original apostolic New Testament church. But even those who do acknowledge the role of their founders also claim that the “restoration” that ensued was a reestablishing of the New Testament church. The Restoration Movement churches claim that all denominational churches, then and now, have basically apostatized. In the Campbell’s eyes, the Reformation was a good start but stopped short. They agreed with the Reformation principle of Scripture alone rather than ecclesiastically imposed traditions. But they came to believe that the resulting denominations were guilty of the same errors. As we will see, however, it is the Stone-Campbell-Scott Movement that “stopped short” since their “gospel” bears much more resemblance to the Roman Catholic view than that of the Scriptures.
@@bederyourself2642 do what the Bible says without outside doctrines and you will have the church in the Bible. also study with someone from the the Church of Christ to have questions answered. Never stop searching
@@bederyourself2642 it started in the 1800s as a branch off of Presbyterianism and is a collective body of believers. It has splintered into several different bodies of believers since. These are all charactersistics of a denomination.
@aadschram5877 - Jesus built His church on Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, and not on the fallible man Peter himself - The same Peter who was rebuked by the apostle Paul for practicing hypocrisy in regard to not eating with the gentile Christians when the Jewish Christians were present (Galatians 2:11-14). I’ve never seen how there was ever any confusion about Christ’s church being built upon the truth that He is the son of God. It seems so obvious to me.
Is there anything in the New Testament taught by the apostles, that we are not doing today? Is there anything we pass off as cultural yet it is based on divine reasons? For instance, women remaining silent, is based on creation order, a divine reason. I agree we must follow this because it’s grounded on a divine apostolic reason. What about head covering and divorce/remarriage? They both are grounded on the divine principle of creation order as well but yet we do not apply them as Jesus and Paul instructed. We passed them off as cultural. Notice how Alexander Campbell did not teach about head covering because there was nothing to restore there. It was already being practiced in all the churches per instruction. Notice his wife in several pictures is intentionally wearing a head cover. Why? Because it was a practice that no one questioned, and they followed it perfectly the scripture, therefore no one needed to restore it at the time. It is based on creation order just like 1 Timothy 2:11-14 and they knew this and practiced it. If we are not practicing how Paul instructed in both passages, then we are a denomination that has moved away from Paul’s teaching and interjected our own. It did not take the children of Israel, many generations to depart from the instruction to build booths as a remembrance. But they did step aside from this instruction, and when they found out, they had been neglectful of this instruction they wept and brought it back as they should have. I believe it’s time for a restoration movement regarding Paul’s instructions on the head cover and a re-examination of what Jesus was really taught regarding divorce and remarriage and it’s time to apply what Paul spoke to Christians in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11,39. I know we do not want to identify ourselves as a denomination, but if we are not practicing as Paul instructed and how Christ intended then yes sadly we are a denomination that has denominated from the one true church and pattern established for us, and based on divine reasons.
@@Phil-bm4xo Unlike the coC, the Church of the Bible observed Pentecost (Acts 2), laid on hands for the reception of the Holy Spirit (Acts 7), held church councils above the local churches (Acts 15), believed in a priestly ministry (Romans 15), gave Unction to the sick (James 4), and had bishops over and above local churches (Titus 1). I could go on and on.
@@Journey_of_Abundance the laying on of hands was for this age, the miraculous age. The “gift of the Holy Spirit” was miraculous. It was necessary then to confirm the word of God. It was the purpose and work of the spirit. We still have Bishops/elders today in the church.
@@Phil-bm4xo Nope. Everyone in the Church receives the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 makes this clear. Also, the prophecy cited at Pentecost was "My Spirit will be poured out on ALL flesh." Acts 7 gives context to Acts 2:38 by telling us that the gift of the Holy Spirit is given through the laying on of hands. The Church never stopped this practice.
The restorationalist "churches of Christ" are indeed just another protestant denomination. Just because they think they got the name right, it doesn't follow that this makes them the true Church. Especially when you consider that they started in the 1800s and have absolutely no continuity with the Church in the Bible. All of their polemics are against the Roman Catholic Church and other protestant denominations. None of their arguments work against the Orthodox Church, which is actually the true Church of Christ.
How would you support the authority of Orthodox tradition? How do we confirm today that those traditions are in line with the will of God? It is clear that God didn't support all Jewish rabbinical tradition even though the teaching lineage was historically continuous and linealogically pure. It is clear even at the time of the writing of the New Testament that "Christian" traditions were forming that were not divinely approved.
@@bryannorris8049 We can validate the authority of Orthodox tradition by what the Church continued to believe after the time of the apostles. This is the same Church that received Pentecost in the book of Acts. We can trust that the Lord continued to guide and preserve His Church and that it did not just disappear until Stone and Campbell revived it 1800 years later. We can also support it by asking where the valid ministers are per the scriptures. The only provision for ordination of ministers in the New Testament is what we would call apostolic succession. If the Bible is true, then this is where the true preservation of the faith lies. We can see this being exemplified by Paul in 2 Timothy 2:2. If you do not possess apostolic succession, then you have no way to be in accordance with this prescription. I would argue that the rabbinical jews hold absolutely no continuity with the old testament Jews, and that the Church is the actual continuity with old testament Israel. I would turn this question back on you and ask how do you support the authority of the "church of Christ's" interpretation of scripture?
@@bryannorris8049 We can support the authority of Orthodox tradition by showing that 1. validating what the successors to the apostles believed, and 2. demonstrating that the Orthodox Church present day are the true successors of the apostles via apostolic succession. Now I would turn this question back on you and ask how would you support the authority of the interpretations of scripture of the "church of Christ"?
@@Journey_of_Abundance Many in the church of Christ would argue that the church didn't disappear for 1800 years, but was likely alive in places throughout history that we have no historical record of. This may seem odd, but I understand that some missionaries have found groups of people following worship, lifestyle, and organization the same as would be typical of a church of Christ without ever having been contacted by a member of the church of Christ and only had a copy of the Bible to understand how to be Christians. To not be too long winded, 2 Ti 3:16-17 claims that the purpose of scripture is to produce a complete Christian, and scripture is sufficient to do so. This is in line with how the Israelites were supposed to consider the words of prophets(1 Kn 13) and how Christians are supposed to judge the truthfulness of the words of apostles and ministers (Acts 17:11), or even something appearing as a divine messenger (Gal 1:8-9). In the end, I'm going to be judged by the words of Christ(Jn 12:48) not anyone else's so I better know them and be able to understand them personally even if I've never been in contact with any particular tradition.
@@bryannorris8049 I am familiar with these arguments about purported "churches of Christ" throughout history (I used to be in the church of Christ, after all). You yourself stated the problem with this however, which is that there is no historical record of this and this is an argument presented without evidence. By contrast, we can show a succession of present day bishops and continuity of the Orthodox Church, both in ecclesiology, belief and practice, all the way back to the apostles I agree that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says that scripture is able to make us complete, but nowhere does it say scripture alone makes us complete nor does it say that scripture is sufficient in and of itself. This also has to be reconciled with several places where the apostles teach us that the oral traditions are to be obeyed and passed on. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Timothy 2:2 are examples of this. And we know this to be the case because the men who led the Church after the apostles believed they inherited tradition from the apostles along with the written traditions aka the new testament.
Basically every defense I hear from CoC members about being the one true church that Christ established are the same and no different here. “Just look at our church sign! It literally says Church of Christ! Therefore we must be!” Most really are sincere, but unfortunately so deceived.
@Stew12345 - What you wrote is not a “defense” given in this video, and it’s not one I have ever heard any member of the church make. In fact, I constantly hear members of the Lord’s church teach that you cannot determine a faithful church by the sign in front of the building, but only by their adherence to the teaching of Christ (2 John, 9). I believe you are bearing false witness against us. It appears that you did not watch the video or listen to what they said, and that’s unfortunate.
@@brettcarter6189 - Hey there, the deeper point I was trying to make is that the arguments I hear given for CoC being the “Lord’s church and no one else” tend to be very shallow in nature. This is from personal experience but here’s an example of what I’m talking about from the video. Mike, in trying to refute the claims of the CoC starting out of the Campbell restoration movement, brings up Romans 16:16. (35:56) And basically says “Actually, you can find us right here in the Bible. The Churches of Christ salute you”. (Paraphrased obviously but watch for yourself). Please feel free to let me know if you think I’m misunderstanding his words here and I assure you I’ll listen to your reasoning. I don’t aim to be prideful. I understand you have an interpretation of the Bible that you believe is correct. So does every denomination. However, I would refute the whole “We are the Lord’s church and no one else” argument by saying that salvation is a matter of the heart (Romans 10:9-10). I’m sure there are true believers that attend a CoC that trust fully in Jesus’ work on the cross and not in their own works. Likewise, there are many in my own circles (Reformed Baptist) who have not trusted in Jesus and have not been regenerated. Unfortunately, CoC doctrine teaches you to trust in your own works. However.. while it’s extremely important to attend a church that is biblical and accurately follows scripture alone, the church that you attend does not play a part in your salvation. You can be saved outside of the modern day “Church of Christ” but you can’t be saved outside of the church mentioned in the Bible. The church in the Bible isn’t referring to your denomination, it’s referring to the body of Christ, those who have placed their faith in Christ for salvation. Praying for you and looking forward to your response!
Almost all denominations formed the same way CoC did. They read their bibles and saw something wrong with the religious structure they were apart of. Lutherans saw things practiced by the Catholic Church were unbiblical and traditional which led to the affirmation of sola scriptura. Baptists saw that infant baptism was unbiblical, also holding to sola scriptura. CoC is no different… they just chose the best name.
@@Journey_of_Abundance agreed.. there are also many other descriptions of the church. I say CoC chose the best name because it makes it very clear that the focus is on Christ. But God isn’t coming back looking for members a physical church with a specific name, he is coming back looking for the believers who have believed the gospel, have been sealed with the Holy Spirit, and have kept in step with the Spirit.
@@Seekingchristdaily Its not that there needs to be an official name, but I only see one unified Church in the Bible. Surely God will judge those outside of that Church based on their hearts and what they know and did not know. That doesn't take away from the fact that Christ gave us one Church as the ark of salvation, and there can only be one true Church. Obviously I don't believe that the restorationist "church of Christ" is that Church
The Church of Christ that came out of the restoration movement in the 1800s chose a name just like all the other denominations did. They chose a good name, but their doctrine is in error.
@@3Rhc__6 I think this is always a semantics issue. I don't know anyone that thinks faith is just a mental ascent - a person who claims to follow Christ but seemingly has made no changes whatsoever after confession. If you fall in that camp, it does mean the works save you, but I think it is biblical that a saving faith will show itself in at least some works. What do you think?
@swilliams7850 Trusting in the blood of Jesus to wash away all of our sins is what saves us. It's instant. No thing done by us physically saves us, including water baptism.
@GBNTV Here is my rebuke... With all due respect, you teach error much of the time. Your church (the Church of Christ - the one from the restoration movement in the 19th century right here in the US) does not rightly divide the word of truth. If you were to be asked where you divide the word of truth, you don't have an answer. It is because you don't divide the word of truth at all. You know that you don't. As a result, you teach confusion and a false gospel. You don't even recognize the dispensation of the gospel of the grace of God that Christ revealed to Paul for us because you think that that gospel (the one revealed only to Paul) was already known in the gospels and in Acts 2. You think that Peter already knew that gospel and preached it in Acts 2, but according to Paul, that gospel was a mystery kept secret in God since the beginning of the world until it was revealed to him. That also means that you think the body of Christ started in Act 2, but that was another mystery given to Paul. Not only does the bible tell us specifically that Paul and Peter had different gospels committed unto them, it is also easily seen by simply reading their respective writings (for anyone looking). The lack of dividing the word of truth results in confusion and false doctrine on just about every subject; baptism, justification, end times, kingdom, body of Christ, future Israel, new covenant, rapture, judgments, resurrections, faith/works, and the list goes on and on. It is the sole reason why most of Revelation must be allegorised or explained away, rather than just reading it and letting it mean what it says. The most dangerous result, though, is teaching that a person actually has to do an act in the flesh to be saved, instead of teaching that Jesus did all the work for our salvation on the cross. I understand that for the Church of Christ to learn to rightly divide, it would destroy much of their currently held beliefs. Unfortunately, it is my experience that they are not really interested. Especially since they think they are the only body of Christ on the planet. Some say this is what makes them a denomination. Is anyone at @GBNTV interested in learning to rightly divide the word of truth instead of treating the new testament like a buffet? 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine
Bob, you doing a most excellent job!!! This reply is not for the average reader, but for one with a good bit of knowledge in the Word of God. The Great Commission required the kingdom gospel to be preached and those baptized to receive the Holy Spirit and signs. The formula originating from Acts 2:38 determined one to be saved by hearing the gospel, repenting, and being baptized for the remission of sins. The death, burial, and resurrection was added later, but is not an issue with the context of Acts 2:38. Peter called for his audience to be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ. Was this command given as such, for the official administration of a baptism ceremony, or is there something else we need to understand?? In order to understand the importance of being baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” we must first understand what is meant by the phrase “in the name of. “Name” is sometimes used as a figure of speech Metonymy of Adjunct, which is defined in the Companion Bible as, “When something pertaining to the subject is put for the subject itself”. In this verse the word “name” is used as that which pertains to Jesus Christ, Who is the Subject. It is used as a figure of speech for Who He is. In other words, by being baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” one is declaring belief in Who Christ is, i.e. the Son of God. In fact, I would argue the aforementioned to be true and further add: saved by God the Father, through the death, burial, resurrection of His Beloved Son, and sealed to the day of redemption by the Holy Spirit!! What an awesome God that gave us His grace!!!! So, let's look at this formula: Hearing! Like hearing and reading Eph. 1:13-14 "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest (guarantee) of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory." So that covers hearing. "Repent": Is repent an element of the Mystery gospel?? It is not. Why?? It is actually part of the mystery. "Baptized for the remission of sins" are sins washed away by being baptized?? So if you baptized today, and ALL yo sins gone, "WASHED AWAY" what are you going to do tomorrow when yo new sins are piled so high they obstruct yo vision?!?!!? So are sins forgiven by repentance, or baptism??? OH!!!! AND, is salvation by faith?!?!!? Bet we can find twenty, thirty verses!!! Sorry this was so long!!!
@colewalker130 And it's a great verse for the kingdom dispensation. We live in the dispensation of the grace of God, which started with Paul. The gospel of the kingdom is not the same as the gospel of grace. It's all there in scripture rightly divided.
@bobconolty2692 - what a long reply! I see my brothers touched a nerve with you and riled you up. That’s okay. My great grandparents were VERY riled up when they first learned the truth, but they kept studying their bibles and realized that they had both been taught unbiblical doctrines. One of them had been a Baptist and the other a Methodist. They argued constantly about religion throughout their married life…until they both learned to accept the Bible alone. They became Christians and did away with their divisive denominational doctrines and manuals, and lived in peace and harmony together for the rest of their lives, working together in service to the Lord. They taught their children the Bible and remained faithful to God until they died. My family and I are Christians today by following their example of making the Bible their only guide in faith and in practice. It’s so simple and authentic. John 8:32, John 17:17
@brettcarter6189 Not exactly. I am just trying to practice 2 Timothy 4:2 whenever i see false doctrine. What exactly in my previous comment do you think is unscriptural? Also, I'm already saved. Praise God for that. Lastly, i completely agree with you regarding using the bible only. I just think we should rightly divide it so as not to be ashamed.
Thank you brethren for teaching the truth, as always. Praying for all those listening who are not part of the Lords one church- that they may have their hearts softened to obey the truth before it is eternally too late.
Mat 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
Mat 7:14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
"Thank you brethren for teaching the truth," I watched a video of CoC leadership whereby they seemed to proudly suggest that their organization is exactly the same as is depicted in Acts 2:38 and it is the "new church" spoken of by Jesus Himself. There may be a problem with this line of thinking and reasoning if the Apostle Paul was the first member of the church and the gospel for church inclusion was different as well. The Apostle wrote in 1 Tim. 1:15-16: "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. [16] Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.” The gospel for entry into this church is Eph. 2:8-9; for by grace are you saved through faith; faith and nothing else. So getting back to Acts 2:38, the preacher was Peter, those who were saved were Jews, they were indeed saved in accordance with the Kingdom Gospel message and they were indeed added to the existing church known as the little flock, KoH.
d. Allow me to make this interjection about (c). It is not believable by the CoC because it implies the following:
i. Church (BoC) was not started on the day of Pentecost.
ii. Paul was saved in the presence of Jesus, epiphaneia style.
iii. Paul was not saved by water baptism.
Podcaster, you have the option of disproving these statements, which you can't, or you can delete them which you will!! Either way, the truth of the Almighty God be true because you deleted what you could not prove, or because what scripture said was true, your religion said was a LIE!! Please know it is not too late for new entrance gate!!
@@TheBoldChristian Where was the "church of Christ" from the time of the last apostle's death until Stone and Campbell restored it?
Yes you are..!!!!
No they are not.
excellent teaching, thank you
Well done, brothers! You were very thorough and straight- forward…and most importantly, biblical.
All these comments about a restoration movement, I just have a question. If this were true about the Church of Christ, where is this documentation that supports the restoration? I have never seen it. All I see is the bible and what Christ teaches us.
@Darren4032 Just google "restoration movement"
and of course the catholic church throughout history.
Here is an excerpt. There is much more under the Campbell, Stone, Scott movement. It is very interesting!!! - Most people are aware of churches which contain the name “Church of Christ” and “Disciples of Christ,” but most people, including many in those churches, are not aware of the early history of these churches and their founders. This group of churches was, and to some extent still are, the central core of what is called the Restoration Movement. Their founders were Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone, and Walter Scott. The major development of this movement occurred between 1823 and the deaths of its founders (Barton Stone, 1844; Walter Scott, 1861; and Alexander Campbell, 1866). The Campbells, Stone, and Scott began their movements independently but had significant mergers in the early 1800s, and these unions were the foundation for the movement that continues to this day.
Of course, most of grass roots members of this movement claim that their true roots go back to the original apostolic New Testament church. But even those who do acknowledge the role of their founders also claim that the “restoration” that ensued was a reestablishing of the New Testament church. The Restoration Movement churches claim that all denominational churches, then and now, have basically apostatized. In the Campbell’s eyes, the Reformation was a good start but stopped short. They agreed with the Reformation principle of Scripture alone rather than ecclesiastically imposed traditions. But they came to believe that the resulting denominations were guilty of the same errors. As we will see, however, it is the Stone-Campbell-Scott Movement that “stopped short” since their “gospel” bears much more resemblance to the Roman Catholic view than that of the Scriptures.
One of the Campbell’s driving passions was to see the various denominations, which he referred to as sectarian, unified by the elimination of what he considered man-made creeds, and a return to the “Scripture alone.” He wrote in the Christian Baptist of 1826, “I have no idea of adding to the catalogue of new sects. I labor to see sectarianism abolished and all Christians of every name united upon the one foundation upon which the apostolic church was founded.”1This is indeed an admirable goal. Campbell frequently focused on Jesus’ mediatory prayer that His followers may be one, in unity, so that the world would believe that Jesus was sent (John 17:20-23). But in reality the Stone-Campbell-Scott Movement began more denominations based on the peculiar biblical interpretations of its founders.
Religion: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies and rules used to worship God or group of Gods. Denomination: a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition and identity.
Christianity is a religion
Churches of Christ are represented worldwide as one of the denominations to evolve out of the American Restoration movement.
Some denominations will baptize, but that makes you a member of that particular church and not all the churches of that denomination.
Yeah, it’s the Catholic “universal” church founded by Christ disciples in the 1st century. Not the man-made American religion of the evangelicals 2000 years later.
Where there are two opposing teachings, either one is true and one is false, or both are false, because both cannot be true.
1 Corinthians 1:10
Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.
If God established denominations at Pentecost, then he is divided against himself. Remember Christ said that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. We, as did those of the restoration, simply take the instructions and follow them, and in so doing, carry on the New Testament church.
Question: You state there is no Scriptural instruction for worshipping the Lord with instruments? What about the imperative call to worship in Psalm 150? The early church often sang the Psalms, so by the logic presented, then you can only sing Psalms and the spiritual songs in place during the New Testament church. Did the Apostles ever actually prohibit the use or is that just your interpretation since it is not directly permitted?
Second question: Why do you broadcast church services in the Church of Christ? Is there direct instruction to use technology?
Psalms was before Jesus' time and not yet under the new law. Does it say to use instruments in the New Testament? Why make worship a rock concert and take away from the worship to God when it is directed towards someone playing an instrument?
@Darren4032 I worship with instruments, and it's not a rock concert at all as you like to call it. We sing to the Lord from our hearts.
@@ConRob3-2692
First, we need to recognize that instruments are not part of the New Testament pattern. All we ever see in the New Testament is singing. In Ephesians 5:19 we are commanded to sing. In Colossians 3:16, we are commanded to sing. We see examples of singing (e.g. Acts 16:25). But we never once see examples of playing instruments to worship God or edify one another.
Our worship is spiritual. Those who worship God are to worship Him in spirit and truth (John 4:24). Worshipping God and edifying one another is not to be about our flesh. It is not about making us feel good, arousing our passions, satisfying our flesh. It is about connecting our spirits to God.
God doesn’t have to always spell out His reasons behind His pattern. but we can rest assured there are reasons. Why aren’t instruments part of the pattern? Because we worship in spirit, not in the flesh.
@davidbridges6450 So then, for you, the instrument is sin. That would also mean that even though we are to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, I sing Psalms 150. You do not.
Let's just agree not to add to what the Lord has said, nor bind tradition.
@bobconolty2692 how are you singing from your hearts if your playing an instrument? Just a question, not sarcasm.
Sir, you said send scriptures about instruments and I want to send a few showing they were used in praise to the Lord. This is not to usurp authority, just to expound on scriptures as done in Acts 18:26
Numbers 31:6
And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.
( HOLY INSTRUMENTS and TRUMPETS, a musical instrument)
2 Samuel 6:5
And David and all the house of Israel played before the Lord on all manner of instruments made of fir wood, even on harps, and on psalteries, and on timbrels, and on cornets, and on cymbals.
(Played BEFORE the Lord all manner of instruments and this is referencing musical instruments)
1 Chronicles 15:28-29
Thus all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of the Lord with shouting, and with sound of the cornet, and with trumpets, and with cymbals, making a noise with psalteries and harps.
29 And it came to pass, as the ark of the covenant of the Lord came to the city of David, that Michal, the daughter of Saul looking out at a window saw king David dancing and playing: and she despised him in her heart.
( Played musical instruments before the Ark of the Lord. Some people today still despise this kind of praise, but did the Lord despise it ,or a person?)
1 Chronicles 16:42
And with them Heman and Jeduthun with trumpets and cymbals for those that should make a sound, and with musical instruments of God. And the sons of Jeduthun were porters.
(MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS OF GOD)
2 Chronicles 5:13
It came even to pass, as the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the Lord; and when they lifted up their voice with the trumpets and cymbals and instruments of musick, and praised the Lord, saying, For he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever: that then the house was filled with a cloud, even the house of the Lord;
(MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS used in PRAISE and THANKSGIVING in the HOUSE OF THE LORD, when his glory came down vs 14.)
?
Why would God come down and fill the his temple with his glory if what they were doing displeased him?
The answer is because ...
Psalms 22:3
But thou art holy, O thou that INHABITEST the PRAISES of Israel.
( By the which ,they were doing with instruments)
Here is a new testament example:
Luke 15 (emphasis) vs 25
21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.
22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:
23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:
24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
25 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing.
26 And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.
27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.
28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.
29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
?'s
Don't we use this as an example of people coming to Christ?
Do people come to the house of God to receive Salvation?
Where does it say we can't praise, give thanks, and sing using instruments?
Yes it says sing...
But what about these scriptures listed above and the fact that ...
Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Thank you for your time. This is not for strife or contention, but I would like to see the scriptures saying we cannot, given the other scriptures say they did and that's what is WRITTEN
Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
I really like your videos and believe the body should be one mind, one accord and believe what is written and rightfully divide the word according to scripture
Corinthians 4:13
We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;
Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
IT IS WRITTEN praise with.... instruments including harp psaltery, cymbals, trumpets, trimble, & even dance
Psalms 150
Praise ye the Lord. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.
2 Praise him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness.
3 Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp.
4 Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.
5 Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.
6 Let every thing that hath breath praise the Lord. Praise ye the Lord.
Another new testament example:
Revelation 14:2-3
2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:
3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
(So instruments with song even in heaven? Doesn't this prove that our GOD doesn't change.?.)
The Church of Christ that has its roots in the Restoration Movement is most definitely a denomination.
I’ve heard this a lot saying it is a denomination. What do you say to support this claim?
@@bederyourself2642 How about this?? Very comparable to Roman Catholic in a number of beliefs. Most people are aware of churches which contain the name “Church of Christ” and “Disciples of Christ,” but most people, including many in those churches, are not aware of the early history of these churches and their founders. This group of churches was, and to some extent still are, the central core of what is called the Restoration Movement. Their founders were Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone, and Walter Scott. The major development of this movement occurred between 1823 and the deaths of its founders (Barton Stone, 1844; Walter Scott, 1861; and Alexander Campbell, 1866). The Campbells, Stone, and Scott began their movements independently but had significant mergers in the early 1800s, and these unions were the foundation for the movement that continues to this day.
Of course, most of grass roots members of this movement claim that their true roots go back to the original apostolic New Testament church. But even those who do acknowledge the role of their founders also claim that the “restoration” that ensued was a reestablishing of the New Testament church. The Restoration Movement churches claim that all denominational churches, then and now, have basically apostatized. In the Campbell’s eyes, the Reformation was a good start but stopped short. They agreed with the Reformation principle of Scripture alone rather than ecclesiastically imposed traditions. But they came to believe that the resulting denominations were guilty of the same errors. As we will see, however, it is the Stone-Campbell-Scott Movement that “stopped short” since their “gospel” bears much more resemblance to the Roman Catholic view than that of the Scriptures.
@@bederyourself2642 do what the Bible says without outside doctrines and you will have the church in the Bible. also study with someone from the the Church of Christ to have questions answered. Never stop searching
Christ didn’t establish a denomination, He established HIS Church…. The Church of Christ
@@bederyourself2642 it started in the 1800s as a branch off of Presbyterianism and is a collective body of believers. It has splintered into several different bodies of believers since. These are all charactersistics of a denomination.
Jesus did not build his church on Alexander but on Peter (Mat 16: 17-19).
@aadschram5877 - Jesus built His church on Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, and not on the fallible man Peter himself - The same Peter who was rebuked by the apostle Paul for practicing hypocrisy in regard to not eating with the gentile Christians when the Jewish Christians were present (Galatians 2:11-14). I’ve never seen how there was ever any confusion about Christ’s church being built upon the truth that He is the son of God. It seems so obvious to me.
@@brettcarter6189 to you? How do you know?
Is there anything in the New Testament taught by the apostles, that we are not doing today? Is there anything we pass off as cultural yet it is based on divine reasons?
For instance, women remaining silent, is based on creation order, a divine reason. I agree we must follow this because it’s grounded on a divine apostolic reason. What about head covering and divorce/remarriage? They both are grounded on the divine principle of creation order as well but yet we do not apply them as Jesus and Paul instructed. We passed them off as cultural.
Notice how Alexander Campbell did not teach about head covering because there was nothing to restore there. It was already being practiced in all the churches per instruction. Notice his wife in several pictures is intentionally wearing a head cover. Why? Because it was a practice that no one questioned, and they followed it perfectly the scripture, therefore no one needed to restore it at the time. It is based on creation order just like 1 Timothy 2:11-14 and they knew this and practiced it.
If we are not practicing how Paul instructed in both passages, then we are a denomination that has moved away from Paul’s teaching and interjected our own.
It did not take the children of Israel, many generations to depart from the instruction to build booths as a remembrance. But they did step aside from this instruction, and when they found out, they had been neglectful of this instruction they wept and brought it back as they should have. I believe it’s time for a restoration movement regarding Paul’s instructions on the head cover and a re-examination of what Jesus was really taught regarding divorce and remarriage and it’s time to apply what Paul spoke to Christians in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11,39.
I know we do not want to identify ourselves as a denomination, but if we are not practicing as Paul instructed and how Christ intended then yes sadly we are a denomination that has denominated from the one true church and pattern established for us, and based on divine reasons.
@@Phil-bm4xo there are many things that the New Testament Church did that the restorationist church of Christ doesn't do.
@@Journey_of_Abundance I agree. Could you give some examples?
@@Phil-bm4xo Unlike the coC, the Church of the Bible observed Pentecost (Acts 2), laid on hands for the reception of the Holy Spirit (Acts 7), held church councils above the local churches (Acts 15), believed in a priestly ministry (Romans 15), gave Unction to the sick (James 4), and had bishops over and above local churches (Titus 1). I could go on and on.
@@Journey_of_Abundance the laying on of hands was for this age, the miraculous age. The “gift of the Holy Spirit” was miraculous.
It was necessary then to confirm the word of God. It was the purpose and work of the spirit. We still have Bishops/elders today in the church.
@@Phil-bm4xo Nope. Everyone in the Church receives the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 makes this clear. Also, the prophecy cited at Pentecost was "My Spirit will be poured out on ALL flesh." Acts 7 gives context to Acts 2:38 by telling us that the gift of the Holy Spirit is given through the laying on of hands. The Church never stopped this practice.
The restorationalist "churches of Christ" are indeed just another protestant denomination. Just because they think they got the name right, it doesn't follow that this makes them the true Church. Especially when you consider that they started in the 1800s and have absolutely no continuity with the Church in the Bible.
All of their polemics are against the Roman Catholic Church and other protestant denominations. None of their arguments work against the Orthodox Church, which is actually the true Church of Christ.
How would you support the authority of Orthodox tradition? How do we confirm today that those traditions are in line with the will of God? It is clear that God didn't support all Jewish rabbinical tradition even though the teaching lineage was historically continuous and linealogically pure. It is clear even at the time of the writing of the New Testament that "Christian" traditions were forming that were not divinely approved.
@@bryannorris8049 We can validate the authority of Orthodox tradition by what the Church continued to believe after the time of the apostles. This is the same Church that received Pentecost in the book of Acts. We can trust that the Lord continued to guide and preserve His Church and that it did not just disappear until Stone and Campbell revived it 1800 years later.
We can also support it by asking where the valid ministers are per the scriptures. The only provision for ordination of ministers in the New Testament is what we would call apostolic succession. If the Bible is true, then this is where the true preservation of the faith lies. We can see this being exemplified by Paul in 2 Timothy 2:2. If you do not possess apostolic succession, then you have no way to be in accordance with this prescription.
I would argue that the rabbinical jews hold absolutely no continuity with the old testament Jews, and that the Church is the actual continuity with old testament Israel.
I would turn this question back on you and ask how do you support the authority of the "church of Christ's" interpretation of scripture?
@@bryannorris8049 We can support the authority of Orthodox tradition by showing that 1. validating what the successors to the apostles believed, and 2. demonstrating that the Orthodox Church present day are the true successors of the apostles via apostolic succession.
Now I would turn this question back on you and ask how would you support the authority of the interpretations of scripture of the "church of Christ"?
@@Journey_of_Abundance Many in the church of Christ would argue that the church didn't disappear for 1800 years, but was likely alive in places throughout history that we have no historical record of. This may seem odd, but I understand that some missionaries have found groups of people following worship, lifestyle, and organization the same as would be typical of a church of Christ without ever having been contacted by a member of the church of Christ and only had a copy of the Bible to understand how to be Christians.
To not be too long winded, 2 Ti 3:16-17 claims that the purpose of scripture is to produce a complete Christian, and scripture is sufficient to do so. This is in line with how the Israelites were supposed to consider the words of prophets(1 Kn 13) and how Christians are supposed to judge the truthfulness of the words of apostles and ministers (Acts 17:11), or even something appearing as a divine messenger (Gal 1:8-9). In the end, I'm going to be judged by the words of Christ(Jn 12:48) not anyone else's so I better know them and be able to understand them personally even if I've never been in contact with any particular tradition.
@@bryannorris8049 I am familiar with these arguments about purported "churches of Christ" throughout history (I used to be in the church of Christ, after all). You yourself stated the problem with this however, which is that there is no historical record of this and this is an argument presented without evidence. By contrast, we can show a succession of present day bishops and continuity of the Orthodox Church, both in ecclesiology, belief and practice, all the way back to the apostles
I agree that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says that scripture is able to make us complete, but nowhere does it say scripture alone makes us complete nor does it say that scripture is sufficient in and of itself. This also has to be reconciled with several places where the apostles teach us that the oral traditions are to be obeyed and passed on. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Timothy 2:2 are examples of this. And we know this to be the case because the men who led the Church after the apostles believed they inherited tradition from the apostles along with the written traditions aka the new testament.
Basically every defense I hear from CoC members about being the one true church that Christ established are the same and no different here.
“Just look at our church sign! It literally says Church of Christ! Therefore we must be!”
Most really are sincere, but unfortunately so deceived.
@Stew12345 - What you wrote is not a “defense” given in this video, and it’s not one I have ever heard any member of the church make. In fact, I constantly hear members of the Lord’s church teach that you cannot determine a faithful church by the sign in front of the building, but only by their adherence to the teaching of Christ (2 John, 9). I believe you are bearing false witness against us. It appears that you did not watch the video or listen to what they said, and that’s unfortunate.
@@brettcarter6189 - Hey there, the deeper point I was trying to make is that the arguments I hear given for CoC being the “Lord’s church and no one else” tend to be very shallow in nature. This is from personal experience but here’s an example of what I’m talking about from the video.
Mike, in trying to refute the claims of the CoC starting out of the Campbell restoration movement, brings up Romans 16:16. (35:56) And basically says “Actually, you can find us right here in the Bible. The Churches of Christ salute you”. (Paraphrased obviously but watch for yourself). Please feel free to let me know if you think I’m misunderstanding his words here and I assure you I’ll listen to your reasoning. I don’t aim to be prideful.
I understand you have an interpretation of the Bible that you believe is correct. So does every denomination. However, I would refute the whole “We are the Lord’s church and no one else” argument by saying that salvation is a matter of the heart (Romans 10:9-10).
I’m sure there are true believers that attend a CoC that trust fully in Jesus’ work on the cross and not in their own works. Likewise, there are many in my own circles (Reformed Baptist) who have not trusted in Jesus and have not been regenerated.
Unfortunately, CoC doctrine teaches you to trust in your own works. However.. while it’s extremely important to attend a church that is biblical and accurately follows scripture alone, the church that you attend does not play a part in your salvation. You can be saved outside of the modern day “Church of Christ” but you can’t be saved outside of the church mentioned in the Bible. The church in the Bible isn’t referring to your denomination, it’s referring to the body of Christ, those who have placed their faith in Christ for salvation.
Praying for you and looking forward to your response!
Almost all denominations formed the same way CoC did. They read their bibles and saw something wrong with the religious structure they were apart of. Lutherans saw things practiced by the Catholic Church were unbiblical and traditional which led to the affirmation of sola scriptura. Baptists saw that infant baptism was unbiblical, also holding to sola scriptura. CoC is no different… they just chose the best name.
They did??? Was that based upon their inability to align with sola scriptura??
The Bible gives no official name for the Church. It also calls the Church "church of God." These are simply descriptors, not official names.
@@Journey_of_Abundance agreed.. there are also many other descriptions of the church. I say CoC chose the best name because it makes it very clear that the focus is on Christ.
But God isn’t coming back looking for members a physical church with a specific name, he is coming back looking for the believers who have believed the gospel, have been sealed with the Holy Spirit, and have kept in step with the Spirit.
@@Seekingchristdaily Its not that there needs to be an official name, but I only see one unified Church in the Bible. Surely God will judge those outside of that Church based on their hearts and what they know and did not know. That doesn't take away from the fact that Christ gave us one Church as the ark of salvation, and there can only be one true Church. Obviously I don't believe that the restorationist "church of Christ" is that Church
@@Journey_of_Abundance my guess is you are either Eastern Orthodox or Catholic?
The Church of Christ that came out of the restoration movement in the 1800s chose a name just like all the other denominations did. They chose a good name, but their doctrine is in error.
Care to elaborate?
@stanleygavin32fb Here's one...
They teach a works gospel which does not save.
@@3Rhc__6
I think this is always a semantics issue.
I don't know anyone that thinks faith is just a mental ascent - a person who claims to follow Christ but seemingly has made no changes whatsoever after confession.
If you fall in that camp, it does mean the works save you, but I think it is biblical that a saving faith will show itself in at least some works.
What do you think?
@swilliams7850 Trusting in the blood of Jesus to wash away all of our sins is what saves us. It's instant. No thing done by us physically saves us, including water baptism.
@RHC3-ls3bk
Would you believe Jesus? Mark 16:16
What about Peter? Acts2:38
What about Paul? Romans 6:3-7 & 2 Thess 1:8 ....the Gospel is simple!
@GBNTV Here is my rebuke...
With all due respect, you teach error much of the time.
Your church (the Church of Christ - the one from the restoration movement in the 19th century right here in the US) does not rightly divide the word of truth. If you were to be asked where you divide the word of truth, you don't have an answer. It is because you don't divide the word of truth at all. You know that you don't. As a result, you teach confusion and a false gospel. You don't even recognize the dispensation of the gospel of the grace of God that Christ revealed to Paul for us because you think that that gospel (the one revealed only to Paul) was already known in the gospels and in Acts 2. You think that Peter already knew that gospel and preached it in Acts 2, but according to Paul, that gospel was a mystery kept secret in God since the beginning of the world until it was revealed to him. That also means that you think the body of Christ started in Act 2, but that was another mystery given to Paul. Not only does the bible tell us specifically that Paul and Peter had different gospels committed unto them, it is also easily seen by simply reading their respective writings (for anyone looking).
The lack of dividing the word of truth results in confusion and false doctrine on just about every subject; baptism, justification, end times, kingdom, body of Christ, future Israel, new covenant, rapture, judgments, resurrections, faith/works, and the list goes on and on. It is the sole reason why most of Revelation must be allegorised or explained away, rather than just reading it and letting it mean what it says. The most dangerous result, though, is teaching that a person actually has to do an act in the flesh to be saved, instead of teaching that Jesus did all the work for our salvation on the cross.
I understand that for the Church of Christ to learn to rightly divide, it would destroy much of their currently held beliefs. Unfortunately, it is my experience that they are not really interested. Especially since they think they are the only body of Christ on the planet. Some say this is what makes them a denomination.
Is anyone at @GBNTV interested in learning to rightly divide the word of truth instead of treating the new testament like a buffet?
2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2 Timothy 4:2
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine
Bob, you doing a most excellent job!!! This reply is not for the average reader, but for one with a good bit of knowledge in the Word of God. The Great Commission required the kingdom gospel to be preached and those baptized to receive the Holy Spirit and signs. The formula originating from Acts 2:38 determined one to be saved by hearing the gospel, repenting, and being baptized for the remission of sins. The death, burial, and resurrection was added later, but is not an issue with the context of Acts 2:38. Peter called for his audience to be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ. Was this command given as such, for the official administration of a baptism ceremony, or is there something else we need to understand?? In order to understand the importance of being baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” we must first understand what is meant by the phrase “in the name of. “Name” is sometimes used as a figure of speech Metonymy of Adjunct, which is defined in the Companion Bible as, “When something pertaining to the subject is put for the subject itself”. In this verse the word “name” is used as that which pertains to Jesus Christ, Who is the Subject. It is used as a figure of speech for Who He is. In other words, by being baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” one is declaring belief in Who Christ is, i.e. the Son of God. In fact, I would argue the aforementioned to be true and further add: saved by God the Father, through the death, burial, resurrection of His Beloved Son, and sealed to the day of redemption by the Holy Spirit!! What an awesome God that gave us His grace!!!! So, let's look at this formula: Hearing! Like hearing and reading Eph. 1:13-14 "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest (guarantee) of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory." So that covers hearing. "Repent": Is repent an element of the Mystery gospel?? It is not. Why?? It is actually part of the mystery. "Baptized for the remission of sins" are sins washed away by being baptized?? So if you baptized today, and ALL yo sins gone, "WASHED AWAY" what are you going to do tomorrow when yo new sins are piled so high they obstruct yo vision?!?!!? So are sins forgiven by repentance, or baptism??? OH!!!! AND, is salvation by faith?!?!!? Bet we can find twenty, thirty verses!!! Sorry this was so long!!!
Mark 16:16, it’s still highlighted in orange in my bible, hasn’t gone anywhere.
@colewalker130 And it's a great verse for the kingdom dispensation. We live in the dispensation of the grace of God, which started with Paul. The gospel of the kingdom is not the same as the gospel of grace. It's all there in scripture rightly divided.
@bobconolty2692 - what a long reply! I see my brothers touched a nerve with you and riled you up. That’s okay. My great grandparents were VERY riled up when they first learned the truth, but they kept studying their bibles and realized that they had both been taught unbiblical doctrines. One of them had been a Baptist and the other a Methodist. They argued constantly about religion throughout their married life…until they both learned to accept the Bible alone. They became Christians and did away with their divisive denominational doctrines and manuals, and lived in peace and harmony together for the rest of their lives, working together in service to the Lord. They taught their children the Bible and remained faithful to God until they died. My family and I are Christians today by following their example of making the Bible their only guide in faith and in practice. It’s so simple and authentic. John 8:32, John 17:17
@brettcarter6189 Not exactly. I am just trying to practice 2 Timothy 4:2 whenever i see false doctrine.
What exactly in my previous comment do you think is unscriptural?
Also, I'm already saved.
Praise God for that.
Lastly, i completely agree with you regarding using the bible only. I just think we should rightly divide it so as not to be ashamed.