Doctrine and division

Bruce Bowman
Bruce Bowman

July 9th, 2002, 4:33 pm #1

Once upon a time, a few Godly men in a local community decided to establish a brand new congregation of the church of Christ. They had certain doctrinal beliefs about what the Bible says about worship, and all of those men and their friends and families were in agreement about what those beliefs were. They included, of course, singing, praying, preaching, and the Lord's Supper.

This group of Christians differed from some other congregations in that they thought having more than one room in the building they met in was literally "division in the body." This literal translation of all those "division" verses meant that they believed the Bible taught directly against having any type of separate bible study or "Sunday school." One other difference they had with some congregations was that they took Jesus' example of having one cup during communion literally?they only used one cup, and each member took a sip as it came around. But, it worked here since all involved were in agreement.

After this congregation had met for several years without any significant problem, a couple of new Christian families moved into the community, and began to worship with this same congregation. They believed, just as strongly, that children benefited from study other than the sermon while they were all together on Sunday morning. The newcomers also thought that one common cup was very unsanitary, and that having only one cup wasn't a crucial doctrinal issue.

This obviously caused some problems for the elders; they and their families had their beliefs and were forced to reevaluate them. Two services were tried for a while, but that was felt to be "division." Eventually, the original founding elders and parts of their families left to begin another congregation ten miles away.

Which "side" was right? Which "side" caused the division? Did either side really have all the answers? Did human pride get in the way? By the way, the original congregation was founded around 1940 and split about ten years later.

It would appear that doctrinal differences and personal viewpoints aren't new.

What's my point? Members of the church of Christ have historically prided themselves on having the answers?to be prepared to answer doctrinal issues when asked. After all, we're to "study to show ourselves approved," so we're not "carried about with every wind of doctrine." I believe we've become really good at tearing each other down. Is that how we really want to be known?

========================
Posts made prior to 10-24-2002 have been archived.
<a href="http://www.concernedmembers.com/forumar ... 4e.txt">[b]
Click here to read the archive.[/b]</a>
========================
Last edited by ConcernedMembers on October 24th, 2002, 11:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

Just
Just

December 26th, 2014, 1:29 pm #2


Last paragraph sums it up well and is very telling. There has been no response in over 12 years.
Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

December 26th, 2014, 8:58 pm #3

Once upon a time, a few Godly men in a local community decided to establish a brand new congregation of the church of Christ. They had certain doctrinal beliefs about what the Bible says about worship, and all of those men and their friends and families were in agreement about what those beliefs were. They included, of course, singing, praying, preaching, and the Lord's Supper.

This group of Christians differed from some other congregations in that they thought having more than one room in the building they met in was literally "division in the body." This literal translation of all those "division" verses meant that they believed the Bible taught directly against having any type of separate bible study or "Sunday school." One other difference they had with some congregations was that they took Jesus' example of having one cup during communion literally?they only used one cup, and each member took a sip as it came around. But, it worked here since all involved were in agreement.

After this congregation had met for several years without any significant problem, a couple of new Christian families moved into the community, and began to worship with this same congregation. They believed, just as strongly, that children benefited from study other than the sermon while they were all together on Sunday morning. The newcomers also thought that one common cup was very unsanitary, and that having only one cup wasn't a crucial doctrinal issue.

This obviously caused some problems for the elders; they and their families had their beliefs and were forced to reevaluate them. Two services were tried for a while, but that was felt to be "division." Eventually, the original founding elders and parts of their families left to begin another congregation ten miles away.

Which "side" was right? Which "side" caused the division? Did either side really have all the answers? Did human pride get in the way? By the way, the original congregation was founded around 1940 and split about ten years later.

It would appear that doctrinal differences and personal viewpoints aren't new.

What's my point? Members of the church of Christ have historically prided themselves on having the answers?to be prepared to answer doctrinal issues when asked. After all, we're to "study to show ourselves approved," so we're not "carried about with every wind of doctrine." I believe we've become really good at tearing each other down. Is that how we really want to be known?

========================
Posts made prior to 10-24-2002 have been archived.
<a href="http://www.concernedmembers.com/forumar ... 4e.txt">[b]
Click here to read the archive.[/b]</a>
========================
Just what does that have to do with the Biblical Text?

2 Cor 10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number,
or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves:
but they, measuring themselves by themselves,
and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.


How does that differ from any religious institution which is not a School of the Word where the command is to PREACH the WORD (only) by READING the word. The Word is the LOGOS which means a regulative principle. It will do not good to speak about divided classes or like the Christian Churches in the NE who split over whether to end the services with a prayer or a song. Of course neither of them had any attention of SPEAKING that which is written for our learning then SPEAKING (Dicto) A hymn and then going out until the next appointed hour, next yer.
Quote
Like
Share

Just
Just

December 26th, 2014, 9:21 pm #4


Did you give up on the Catholic Bible (DRB) or perhaps just giving it a rest. Speak only (no singing) makes you the ultimate "change agent" in the COC.
Quote
Share

Scripture
Scripture

December 26th, 2014, 10:46 pm #5

Just what does that have to do with the Biblical Text?

2 Cor 10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number,
or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves:
but they, measuring themselves by themselves,
and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.


How does that differ from any religious institution which is not a School of the Word where the command is to PREACH the WORD (only) by READING the word. The Word is the LOGOS which means a regulative principle. It will do not good to speak about divided classes or like the Christian Churches in the NE who split over whether to end the services with a prayer or a song. Of course neither of them had any attention of SPEAKING that which is written for our learning then SPEAKING (Dicto) A hymn and then going out until the next appointed hour, next yer.
The original description of churches of Christ dividing over Bible classes and one cup is a good example of

HATE LITERATURE.

It is contemptuous in that it overlooks the broad and positive influence of Churches of Christ in our culture.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

December 27th, 2014, 5:32 am #6

Did you give up on the Catholic Bible (DRB) or perhaps just giving it a rest. Speak only (no singing) makes you the ultimate "change agent" in the COC.
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Just, just ask me (Donnie).

No, I haven't given up on a very good translation of not one but two verses from the Douay-Rheims Bible (Catholic):[/color]
[color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]"And a hymn being said, they went out unto mount Olivet." (Matthew 26:30)

"And when they had said an hymn, they went forth to the mount of Olives." (Mark 14:26)[/color]
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]CONSISTENT.

UNINFLUENCED BY any preconceived idea.

Note: An accurate translation of specific verses from a Catholic Bible does not make me a Catholic convert. [/color]



Quote
Like
Share

Just
Just

December 27th, 2014, 1:29 pm #7

The original description of churches of Christ dividing over Bible classes and one cup is a good example of

HATE LITERATURE.

It is contemptuous in that it overlooks the broad and positive influence of Churches of Christ in our culture.
We would all like to cherry-pick our favorite doctrine and ignore the rest. Sometimes we need a full tune-up to ensure all the problems are addressed.
Quote
Share

DCA
DCA

December 27th, 2014, 3:08 pm #8

The original description of churches of Christ dividing over Bible classes and one cup is a good example of

HATE LITERATURE.

It is contemptuous in that it overlooks the broad and positive influence of Churches of Christ in our culture.
Full Definition of HYMN

1
a : a song of praise to God
b : a metrical composition adapted for singing in a religious service
2
: a song of praise or joy
3
: something resembling a hymn : paean


When have you ever heard a hymn be SAID?
Quote
Share

Just
Just

December 27th, 2014, 4:02 pm #9

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Just, just ask me (Donnie).

No, I haven't given up on a very good translation of not one but two verses from the Douay-Rheims Bible (Catholic):[/color]
[color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]"And a hymn being said, they went out unto mount Olivet." (Matthew 26:30)

"And when they had said an hymn, they went forth to the mount of Olives." (Mark 14:26)[/color]
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]CONSISTENT.

UNINFLUENCED BY any preconceived idea.

Note: An accurate translation of specific verses from a Catholic Bible does not make me a Catholic convert. [/color]



Douay-Rheims Bible vs Other Protestant Bibles

Well one of the biggest things would be that the DR has the apocryphal books in it that protestant bibles don't have. So its more complete.

**************************

No thanks, I will pass on the DRB.
Quote
Share

Just
Just

December 27th, 2014, 4:33 pm #10

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Just, just ask me (Donnie).

No, I haven't given up on a very good translation of not one but two verses from the Douay-Rheims Bible (Catholic):[/color]
[color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]"And a hymn being said, they went out unto mount Olivet." (Matthew 26:30)

"And when they had said an hymn, they went forth to the mount of Olives." (Mark 14:26)[/color]
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]CONSISTENT.

UNINFLUENCED BY any preconceived idea.

Note: An accurate translation of specific verses from a Catholic Bible does not make me a Catholic convert. [/color]



Note: An accurate translation of specific verses from a Catholic Bible does not make me a Catholic convert. happy.gif X3

*********************

I agree. I think it is a case of "cherry-picking". I promise not to use the term "cherry-picking" again today.



Quote
Share