GCM Forum: Today Mere Nick and Norton

B
B

September 25th, 2012, 8:31 pm #41

"Mortal men decided which books would comprise the biblical canon."

Mortal men maybe.....but don't think for one minute that God did not direct these mortal men in the compilation of these books. Therein lies the problem. It is complete but so many other people want to add books like Enoch and the book of mormon. God has protected and will continue to protect His Word. The additional books of Enoch and of mormon is not needed to tell about the salvation of Jesus and get the story out about how God has dealt with His people and enemies. Everything in the present 66 books is more than sufficient.

I agree with B in that he or anyone else would be sinful to add to the Word by labeling instruments, that are used to accompany and aid singing, as sinful....where God has not.
Some would argue that the apostolic epistles are not needed to tell the world about the Gospel, because the four Gospels are sufficient. We don't need the Book of Mormon, because the Bible does not quote from it. As far as I know, the Bible also does not quote from the Apocrypha, so we don't need that, either. But the Bible DOES quote from the Book of Enoch, so... go figure.
Quote
Share

B
B

September 25th, 2012, 9:00 pm #42

"Mortal men decided which books would comprise the biblical canon."

Mortal men maybe.....but don't think for one minute that God did not direct these mortal men in the compilation of these books. Therein lies the problem. It is complete but so many other people want to add books like Enoch and the book of mormon. God has protected and will continue to protect His Word. The additional books of Enoch and of mormon is not needed to tell about the salvation of Jesus and get the story out about how God has dealt with His people and enemies. Everything in the present 66 books is more than sufficient.

I agree with B in that he or anyone else would be sinful to add to the Word by labeling instruments, that are used to accompany and aid singing, as sinful....where God has not.
Actually, it is sinful to ADD instruments where God has only authorized and specified vocal music, but where He has not also authorized and specified instruments. Remember the neither-add-to-nor-take-from command (NATNTF). Since God specifies vocal music, then we may neither add instruments to that command nor may we take vocal music away and substitute instruments. God need not specify everything that violates His specific directives, because the NATNTF command takes care of that. In the face of the NATNTF command, if you STILL say it is "sinful" to condemn what God does not, you ignore the NATNTF command because of your personal desire to have instruments. That's as much as saying, "God didn't say not to have instruments, so condemning them is sinful." That philosophy is NOT found anywhere in the New Testament.
Quote
Share

Scripture
Scripture

September 25th, 2012, 9:53 pm #43

I thought I told you that God COMMANDS instruments. Yea, He FORCES people to OUT themselves as a way of ESCAPE.

Here are four translations of John 14:26.

John 14:26But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said to you. KJV

26But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you. ASV

26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. NIV, 1984

26But when the Father sends the Advocate as my representativethat is, the Holy Spirithe will teach you everything and will remind you of everything I have told you. NLT

Are any of the following correct in light of this passage?

A. The written word must be supplemented by the Advocate, the Holy Spirit.

B. Although we know the written word, we must depend on the Spirit to help us make decisions.

C. The Holy Spirit brings us toward the written word, and as a result to our salvation.

D. The Holy Spirit simply eliminates forgetfulness of the written word, and although we might know it thoroughly, the Spirit prompts us to remember it.

E. The Holy Spirit has produced the written word, and our remembrance is triggered thorough familiarity with the word.

F. Familiarity with the written word creates a new person within us, and that produces an unfailing compass by which we deal with all of life's decisions.
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

September 25th, 2012, 11:06 pm #44

Grace Centered Magazine Forum is devoted to trying to defeat efforts like Concerned Members and ALL of the tenets which makes The Church of Christ the Only known Apostolic Church: that which is defended by all of church history.

http://www.piney.com/GraceCenteredReview.html

.They are Post-Nicene Trinitarians (LU and tritheism)
.They are hostile to any Scripture quoted defending Baptism.
.They are hostile to any effort to prove that there can be NO instrumental MARKS in a church of Christ.
.They are hostile to what they call "legalism" when "grace" gives them permissive to be LEGALISTIC: seeking to aid God in what they call worship.
.They are hostile to any quotation of passages of Scripture IN CONTEXT.

Now, the discussion of the mansions in the House of God as being the various teachings of the Apostles. We will show that the mansions in a Church of Christ are REST STATIONS to get in out of the LADED BURDEN (music) imposed by the burden-laders known as PARASITES in their pattern from the not-commanded Sacrificial system.








"In the face of the NATNTF command, if you STILL say it is "sinful" to condemn what God does not, you ignore the NATNTF command because of your personal desire to have instruments."

Not sure what to make of all that NATNTF stuff.....but it would have gone over well at the democratic convention a few weeks ago in Charlotte. Lots of double speak....

If you add a sin to the Bible that is not there, then you are adding to the Word of God.

Simple enough for you?
Quote
Share

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

September 26th, 2012, 12:42 am #45

If you add that which is NOT commanded and sow massive discord you PRETEND that you are God. The church is built meaning EDUCATED on the Prophets and Apostles both of who radically condemn any of the GENDER-MARKED performances which spits in the face of Jesus now The Holy Spirit who comes to give us REST from the silly singing sisters.

The Spirit OF Christ spoke both inclusively and exclusively about the future REST from presumptious people who think that Christ's silence is THEIR supernatural power to SPEAK.


Quote
Like
Share

B
B

September 26th, 2012, 1:46 am #46

"In the face of the NATNTF command, if you STILL say it is "sinful" to condemn what God does not, you ignore the NATNTF command because of your personal desire to have instruments."

Not sure what to make of all that NATNTF stuff.....but it would have gone over well at the democratic convention a few weeks ago in Charlotte. Lots of double speak....

If you add a sin to the Bible that is not there, then you are adding to the Word of God.

Simple enough for you?
The sin lies in adding more to a command than what God specifies within that command. That's the whole basis for the neither-add-to-nor-take-from command (let's abbreviate that as the NATNTF command).

Simple enough for you?

Example: If you add instrumental music when God only specifies vocal music, you add to the Word of God; hence, you sin. Don't you know that, given the NATNTF command, it is redundant and unnecessary for God to list every conceivable item that would violate His commands? Yet that's what the change agents demand when they say, "Condemning instrumental music is a sin because God didn't say not to have instrumental music." Actually, instrumental music IS SINFUL, based on the NATNTF command. The change agents just don't want to abide by it. They demand that God write in the Bible, "Thou shalt only have vocal music, but not instrumental music, in Christian worship."

God doesn't jump when the change agents bark.
Quote
Share

Scripture
Scripture

September 26th, 2012, 3:02 am #47

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]It is unfortunate that the expression in Matt. 28:19, "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost," is used to prove the Nicene/Catholic Trinity Doctrine.

I find it "strange" that those who believe that the "Holy Spirit" being the third person in the Trinity are not that comfortable in asserting that the "Holy Ghost" is that same "third person" of the Trinity. Are they afraid of "ghosts"? Or, are they confused by stating that a "ghost" is a person? Why is the "Holy Spirit" not the first person? Or the second person?

I do not think that the Trinity Doctrine should be a mystery because it is man-made.

What should seem to be a mystery is when the Word in the beginning became flesh (John 1:1,14) only some 2,000 years ago, and was the [another] Comforter, the Spirit of truth, after his resurrection (John 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7).

It appears to me that the book of John explains the embodiment of the "Godhead" in Jesus Christ.

On that basis, the expression "in the NAME of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost" is the same NAME as "in the name of Jesus Christ." And, no, I do not see any difference and the need for re-baptism.

I'm aware of Matt. 28:19 as the only passage that uses "in the name of..." in that manner. Again, it's the same NAME to me. It is SINGULAR -- ONE NAME. It does not say: (1) in the name of the Father; (2) in the name of the Son; and (3) in the name of the Holy Ghost.

Please note all the other expressions (the majority) in these passages [I've done my search in this order]:[/color]
  • Matt.21 [9] in the name of the Lord
    </li>
  • Matt. 23 [39] in the name of the Lord
    </li>
  • Mark 11 [9],[10] in the name of the Lord
    </li>
  • Luke 13 [35] in the name of the Lord
    </li>
  • Luke 19 [38] in the name of the Lord
    </li>
  • John 12 [13] in the name of the Lord
    </li>
  • John 3 [18] in the name of the only begotten Son of God
    </li>
  • Acts 2 [38] be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
    </li>
  • Acts 3 [6] In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth
    </li>
  • Acts 4 [18] in the name of Jesus
    </li>
  • Acts 5 [40] in the name of Jesus
    </li>
  • Acts 8 [16] in the name of the Lord Jesus
    </li>
  • Acts 9 [27] in the name of Jesus
    </li>
  • Acts 9 [29] in the name of the Lord Jesus
    </li>
  • Acts 10 [48] to be baptized in the name of the Lord
    </li>
  • Acts 16 [18] in the name of Jesus Christ
    </li>
  • Acts 19 [5] they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus
    </li>
  • 1Cor 5 [4] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ
    </li>
  • 1Cor 6 [11] in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God
    </li>
  • Eph. 5 [20] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ
    </li>
  • Col. 3 [17] in the name of the Lord Jesus
    </li>
  • 2 Thess. 3 [6] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ
    </li>
  • Jas. 5 [10] in the name of the Lord
    </li>
  • Jas. 5 [14] in the name of the Lord</li>
Your observation that numerous verses express "in the name of Jesus" does give support to baptizing more in the style of Acts 2:38; as opposed to the statement in Matt. 28.

The statement of Matt 28:18-20 is used almost universally--however, the statement that the results would be remission of sins and gift of the Holy Spirit borrows from Acts 2:38 to produce a hybrid expression.

Previous generations tended to leave out "gift of the Holy Spirit" but "remission of sins" was mentioned.

It is my understanding that D. Lipscomb and Wm. Lipscomb stated that God gave remission of sins in baptism, although they felt that this did not need to be mentioned previous to the baptism.

Quote
Share

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

September 26th, 2012, 5:54 pm #48

Grace Centered Magazine Forum is devoted to trying to defeat efforts like Concerned Members and ALL of the tenets which makes The Church of Christ the Only known Apostolic Church: that which is defended by all of church history.

http://www.piney.com/GraceCenteredReview.html

.They are Post-Nicene Trinitarians (LU and tritheism)
.They are hostile to any Scripture quoted defending Baptism.
.They are hostile to any effort to prove that there can be NO instrumental MARKS in a church of Christ.
.They are hostile to what they call "legalism" when "grace" gives them permissive to be LEGALISTIC: seeking to aid God in what they call worship.
.They are hostile to any quotation of passages of Scripture IN CONTEXT.

Now, the discussion of the mansions in the House of God as being the various teachings of the Apostles. We will show that the mansions in a Church of Christ are REST STATIONS to get in out of the LADED BURDEN (music) imposed by the burden-laders known as PARASITES in their pattern from the not-commanded Sacrificial system.








Theophilus to Autolycus Inventor of Trinity

http://www.piney.com/Theophilus.Autolycus.II.html

was the first to use the word TRIAS. Scholars thought of God, His Word and His Wisdom or Spirit as personae in that we can be described in terms of body, soul and spirit. Yet, personae did not mean that their were THREE GODS as taught by latter day scholars who would make God pretty deranged. This was the "formula" used at Nicea which did not treat The Holy Spirit on the same level of God the Father and Jesus Christ His Lord or ruler.

Quote
Like
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

September 26th, 2012, 6:38 pm #49

Grace Centered Magazine Forum is devoted to trying to defeat efforts like Concerned Members and ALL of the tenets which makes The Church of Christ the Only known Apostolic Church: that which is defended by all of church history.

http://www.piney.com/GraceCenteredReview.html

.They are Post-Nicene Trinitarians (LU and tritheism)
.They are hostile to any Scripture quoted defending Baptism.
.They are hostile to any effort to prove that there can be NO instrumental MARKS in a church of Christ.
.They are hostile to what they call "legalism" when "grace" gives them permissive to be LEGALISTIC: seeking to aid God in what they call worship.
.They are hostile to any quotation of passages of Scripture IN CONTEXT.

Now, the discussion of the mansions in the House of God as being the various teachings of the Apostles. We will show that the mansions in a Church of Christ are REST STATIONS to get in out of the LADED BURDEN (music) imposed by the burden-laders known as PARASITES in their pattern from the not-commanded Sacrificial system.








"God doesn't jump when the change agents bark."

Agreed!


He also has a place besides heaven for those who add to His Word.
Quote
Share

a/the spirit of Racnor
a/the spirit of Racnor

September 26th, 2012, 11:21 pm #50

The sin lies in adding more to a command than what God specifies within that command. That's the whole basis for the neither-add-to-nor-take-from command (let's abbreviate that as the NATNTF command).

Simple enough for you?

Example: If you add instrumental music when God only specifies vocal music, you add to the Word of God; hence, you sin. Don't you know that, given the NATNTF command, it is redundant and unnecessary for God to list every conceivable item that would violate His commands? Yet that's what the change agents demand when they say, "Condemning instrumental music is a sin because God didn't say not to have instrumental music." Actually, instrumental music IS SINFUL, based on the NATNTF command. The change agents just don't want to abide by it. They demand that God write in the Bible, "Thou shalt only have vocal music, but not instrumental music, in Christian worship."

God doesn't jump when the change agents bark.
"The sin lies in adding more to a command than what God specifies within that command. That's the whole basis for the neither-add-to-nor-take-from command (let's abbreviate that as the NATNTF command).

Simple enough for you?

Example: If you add instrumental music when God only specifies vocal music, you add to the Word of God; hence, you sin. Don't you know that, given the NATNTF command, it is redundant and unnecessary for God to list every conceivable item that would violate His commands? Yet that's what the change agents demand when they say, "Condemning instrumental music is a sin because God didn't say not to have instrumental music." Actually, instrumental music IS SINFUL, based on the NATNTF command. The change agents just don't want to abide by it. They demand that God write in the Bible, "Thou shalt only have vocal music, but not instrumental music, in Christian worship."

God doesn't jump when the change agents bark."

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

God did not condemn IM, "B" did.

BTW, "B" is the one doing the A&W barking.


Quote
Share