We do interpret the Bible

Many brethren in the Churches of Christ insist that they do not interpret the Bible. Their elaborations are not interpretations, but what the Bible actually says or the Bible interpreting itself. If you dispute their elaborations or interpretations, they accuse you of not respecting the authority of God and his written word. Further still, they might accuse you of promoting the idea that the Bible cannot be understood by man.

We do interpret the Bible. Reading with comprehension and understanding is interpretation. Reading is not merely a matter of phonetic pronunciation either in the mind or orally.

If we didn’t have to interpret the Bible, we wouldn’t have to worry about brethren reading and being influenced by the periodicals of those not of our party. Errors would be obvious. We wouldn’t have to worry about the rank-and-file going to the meetings of so-called brethren-in-error or digressive brethren. We wouldn’t have to constantly propagandize our position(s) from our pulpits. These kinds of worry smack of partyism and confirm that we do interpret the Bible.

Coupled with this false premise over the years has been the assertion that we are the “people of the Book,” meaning the Bible. Some pride themselves on this assertion and their domination is built around this concept. They see it as necessary to perceive of themselves as “people of the Book” and perfectly faithful to it because they think that was the case with the first century Christians.

I deny that any segment of the Churches of Christ represent a group of people that is perfectly faithful to the Bible. Who will say that they know all of God’s written word as it is to be known and understood and apply and practice its precepts perfectly? Who among us is/are the official interpreter(s) of God’s written word? Who is at the top of the totem pole? Who has the right to demand conformity to his/their interpretations(s)? Who has the authority to judge brethren as deserving of hell because they don’t subscribe to the party creed?

Few people in the early church were literate. Until as recently as the past three centuries, few have had that ability. Over the centuries by far most Christians have been illiterate. God recognized that and that’s why he did not give a book to save the world, but he gave himself in the form of a Person. That Person is the ground of our faith, the source of our hope, and the basis of our unity. If a book could have done it, then Christ would not have needed to die.

The Church of Christ creed has not been Jesus is Lord, but our select interpretations of the scriptures. They are trusting in our own intellectual abilities to save them rather than faith in Jesus Christ.

Over the decades the Churches of Christ have degenerated into a denomination that confuses the text of the Book and its interpretation. In turn they want to make binding judgment relative to those interpretations. In fact, each segment usually has several interpretations that have reached canonical status and you question or challenge them at your own peril. They think of interpretation as an exact science, all the while becoming very emotionally attached to their comprehension of the text.

“Men seem to have lost sight of the obvious distinction which is to be made between the Bible and the Gospel.”

“It should never be forgotten that the Apostles and first preachers of the gospel had no Bibles, and not even a New Testament, to distribute; and there was no such thing among the early Christians as a formal union upon the ‘Bible alone.’ Nay rather it was a union upon the Gospel alone.”

I have made most of these same arguments many times. I think your statement about the illiteracy of the general public is a valid one. For these people they had no bible, they only had other men to teach them what the bible was saying.

Also your position on the early church finding union on the gospel and not necessarily the bible fits well.

3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)(Eph.3:3,4)

when ye read, ye may understand

when ye read, ye may understand

when ye read, ye may understand

Searching For Truth

http://www.searchingfortruth.org/

They had inspired letters they passed around to each congregation. The fact that they were not brought together in one book till the end of the first century does not diminish from the power of those inspired letters one bit.


16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.(Col.4:16)

http://missionprinting.us/mp_newindex.html

Click on Publications

I highly recommend the booklet entitled -

"A Reply To A Denominational Preacher

and

"How Can I Find the Right Church?"

Beautiful Feet wrote:

They had inspired letters they passed around to each congregation. The fact that they were not brought together in one book till the end of the first century does not diminish from the power of those inspired letters one bit.
16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.(Col.4:16)

It is interesting you bring up Col. 4:16

At first glance this does appear to support your stance. And I do agree that the power of the inspired letters its not diminished.

However in the scripture Paul is actually referring to something outside of the bible to teach the gospel.

Paul says: "and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea."

This is apparently in reference to a previously written letter from Paul to Laodicea.

Paul places equal importance on the sharing and reading of in the church, both of these letters.

The problem is the letter to Laodicea is apparently lost. So we do not have any record of what it contained, and it is therefore not included in the bible.

Taking that into account, this is an example of Paul using something outside of scripture to spread and teach the gospel.

HE - This is apparently in reference to a previously written letter from Paul to Laodicea.

BF - I noticed you used the word "apparently". But then you go on to speculate who wrote the letter. Not only did you speculate that the letter was penned by Paul but you assumed the letter had to be information which was not found in what we know now to be the bible.

Can you prove any of this assumption of yours?

I am pretty sure you would not agree with what we read in (2Peter 1:3).

...his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness,...

That information was "once delivered" (Jude 3).

We have "all things" and it was "once delivered."

It is called the gospel (Rom.1:16)

Since all things pertaining to life and godliness was deliverd once through the first century apostles there is no need for expecting or waiting on more revelation from God.

The revelation of God is complete (perfect)(1Cor.13:10)(Eph.4:11 -15). It must be or there is no way the scriptures could say to speak the same thing (1Cor.1:10),walk by the same rule and be of the same mind (Phil.3:16-19). This was said in the first century.

There is a standard to which each man must submit (Rom.6:16-18)(2Cor.3:18)(Rom.1 2:1,2). That standard is the bible and it does not change (Gal.1:6-9)(1Tim.1:3). Unlike many churches which seenm to change doctrine with the wind direction.

http://missionprinting.us/mp_newindex.html

Click on Publications

I highly recommend the booklet entitled -

"A Reply To A Denominational Preacher

and

"How Can I Find the Right Church?"

Beautiful Feet wrote:

BF - I noticed you used the word "apparently". But then you go on to speculate who wrote the letter.

Not only did you speculate that the letter was penned by Paul but you assumed the letter had to be information which was not found in what we know now to be the bible.

I did you use the word apparently. It was intentional, hence the speculation, and deductive reasoning.

The letter may very well not have been penned by Paul. We have no way to know for sure as the letter itself does not still exist to our knowledge. It just seems the most likely explanation, that Paul means they are to acquire a letter from him, that the Laodiceans currently possess, that had been written to that neighboring church.

However all that aside the authorship is not even very important to our discussion here.

What we do know is that Paul placed emphasis on both letters equally. Clearly the two letters were sufficiently different enough, that Paul thought it proper for both letters to be read in each congregation.

Beautiful Feet wrote:

"assumed the letter had to be information which was not found in what we know now to be the bible."

If you mean I assume the pertinent info in that letter is not contained somewhere else in the bible or covered in multiple books, then no I do no assume that. That is quite possible.

If on the other hand you mean I assume this letter in its entirety is not included in the bible then yes. There does not seem to be a book in the bible to associate it with. The only theory I have heard of is that he meant the letter to Ephesians, however Ephesians was written AFTER Colossians so that ends up not working out.

Beautiful Feet wrote:

I am pretty sure you would not agree with what we read in (2Peter 1:3).

...his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness,...

I agree with it but not in the way you do. The next part of the verse says: "through our knowledge of him"

This does not imply only scripture.

Beautiful Feet wrote:

Since all things pertaining to life and godliness was deliverd once through the first century apostles there is no need for expecting or waiting on more revelation from God.

I never said that I was waiting on further revelations. I just pointed out what appears to be a reference to a non biblical source in teaching the gospel. Although you would most likely disagree this is not the only occurrence of this.

That is ok though, because the bible never claims itself to be "sole" rule of faith.

Bobby:
I have made most of these same arguments many times. I think your statement about the illiteracy of the general public is a valid one. For these people they had no bible, they only had other men to teach them what the bible was saying.

Also your position on the early church finding union on the gospel and not necessarily the bible fits well.

Stinky feet:
when ye read, ye may understand

when ye read, ye may understand

when ye read, ye may understand

Bobby:
How do illiterate people read?????

How do illiterate people read?????

How do illiterate people read?????

16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.(Col.4:16)

Perhaps there were many more people who could read than you think.

The Interactive Bible

http://www.bible.ca/

Beautiful Feet wrote:

16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.(Col.4:16)
Perhaps there were many more people who could read than you think.
The Interactive Bible
http://www.bible.ca/

Were they the only ones with the power to be saved and live righteous lives? Is God a respecter of persons?

You see, the legalist restrict the power of the gospel. Those who must depend on being able to read, those who die before they can find water and those who are not in the coc are all powerless to receive Christ, without people like Nova, heath and Johnny.

2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.(2Tim.2:2)


2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.(2Tim.4:1-3)

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.(Thess. 2:10-12)

earching For Truth

http://www.searchingfortruth.org/

How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!(Rom.10:15)

Searching For Truth

http://www.searchingfortruth.org/

Beautiful Feet wrote:

How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!(Rom.10:15)
Searching For Truth
http://www.searchingfortruth.org/

I agree, but your message is with stinky feet. You need the grace of God, not another powerless message.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Bobby wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree, but your message is with stinky feet. You need the grace of God, not another powerless message.

The message of God is one which the preacher must teach both the grace of God and the obedience of man according to (Titus 2:11,12)(Acts 10:34,35)(Heb.5:9).

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Grace - 11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Obedience of man - 12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

The grace of God appeared to the world and that grace teaches man what to do to apply the grace of God.

(vs) 12."deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;"

The message really is simple but some pervert the simple message of God (Gal.1:6-9). A perverted gospel has no power to save. A perverted gospel is a diluted gospel (twisted)(2Peter 3:16). That is what is being taught by the saved by grace alone crowd,a perverted gospel.



Searching For Truth

http://www.searchingfortruth.org/

Many brethren in the Churches of Christ insist that they do not interpret the Bible. Their elaborations are not interpretations, but what the Bible actually says or the Bible interpreting itself. If you dispute their elaborations or interpretations, they accuse you of not respecting the authority of God and his written word. Further still, they might accuse you of promoting the idea that the Bible cannot be understood by man.

We do interpret the Bible. Reading with comprehension and understanding is interpretation. Reading is not merely a matter of phonetic pronunciation either in the mind or orally.

If we didn’t have to interpret the Bible, we wouldn’t have to worry about brethren reading and being influenced by the periodicals of those not of our party. Errors would be obvious. We wouldn’t have to worry about the rank-and-file going to the meetings of so-called brethren-in-error or digressive brethren. We wouldn’t have to constantly propagandize our position(s) from our pulpits. These kinds of worry smack of partyism and confirm that we do interpret the Bible.

Coupled with this false premise over the years has been the assertion that we are the “people of the Book,” meaning the Bible. Some pride themselves on this assertion and their domination is built around this concept. They see it as necessary to perceive of themselves as “people of the Book” and perfectly faithful to it because they think that was the case with the first century Christians.

I deny that any segment of the Churches of Christ represent a group of people that is perfectly faithful to the Bible. Who will say that they know all of God’s written word as it is to be known and understood and apply and practice its precepts perfectly? Who among us is/are the official interpreter(s) of God’s written word? Who is at the top of the totem pole? Who has the right to demand conformity to his/their interpretations(s)? Who has the authority to judge brethren as deserving of hell because they don’t subscribe to the party creed?

Few people in the early church were literate. Until as recently as the past three centuries, few have had that ability. Over the centuries by far most Christians have been illiterate. God recognized that and that’s why he did not give a book to save the world, but he gave himself in the form of a Person. That Person is the ground of our faith, the source of our hope, and the basis of our unity. If a book could have done it, then Christ would not have needed to die.

The Church of Christ creed has not been Jesus is Lord, but our select interpretations of the scriptures. They are trusting in our own intellectual abilities to save them rather than faith in Jesus Christ.

Over the decades the Churches of Christ have degenerated into a denomination that confuses the text of the Book and its interpretation. In turn they want to make binding judgment relative to those interpretations. In fact, each segment usually has several interpretations that have reached canonical status and you question or challenge them at your own peril. They think of interpretation as an exact science, all the while becoming very emotionally attached to their comprehension of the text.

“Men seem to have lost sight of the obvious distinction which is to be made between the Bible and the Gospel.”

“It should never be forgotten that the Apostles and first preachers of the gospel had no Bibles, and not even a New Testament, to distribute; and there was no such thing among the early Christians as a formal union upon the ‘Bible alone.’ Nay rather it was a union upon the Gospel alone.”

Beautiful Feet wrote:

<quoted text>
The message of God is one which the preacher must teach both the grace of God and the obedience of man according to (Titus 2:11,12)(Acts 10:34,35)(Heb.5:9).
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Grace - 11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Obedience of man - 12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
The grace of God appeared to the world and that grace teaches man what to do to apply the grace of God.
(vs) 12."deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;"
The message really is simple but some pervert the simple message of God (Gal.1:6-9). A perverted gospel has no power to save. A perverted gospel is a diluted gospel (twisted)(2Peter 3:16). That is what is being taught by the saved by grace alone crowd,a perverted gospel.
Searching For Truth
http://www.searchingfortruth.org/

Yes you pervert the gospel by adding human works. The gospel is for the unsaved to know God. The works we are called to are for the saints not the un-regenerate. You have it exactly backwards.

Then you teach a system of works that you and your cronies cannot live up to and try to bind it to others as a test of salvation. You guys are really messed up trying to live in your own strength while at the same time you deny the very source of power that you need and is available to you-Holy Spirit indwelling.

Army of God wrote:

Many brethren in the Churches of Christ insist that they do not interpret the Bible. Their elaborations are not interpretations, but what the Bible actually says or the Bible interpreting itself. If you dispute their elaborations or interpretations, they accuse you of not respecting the authority of God and his written word. Further still, they might accuse you of promoting the idea that the Bible cannot be understood by man.
We do interpret the Bible. Reading with comprehension and understanding is interpretation. Reading is not merely a matter of phonetic pronunciation either in the mind or orally.
If we didn’t have to interpret the Bible, we wouldn’t have to worry about brethren reading and being influenced by the periodicals of those not of our party. Errors would be obvious. We wouldn’t have to worry about the rank-and-file going to the meetings of so-called brethren-in-error or digressive brethren. We wouldn’t have to constantly propagandize our position(s) from our pulpits. These kinds of worry smack of partyism and confirm that we do interpret the Bible.
Coupled with this false premise over the years has been the assertion that we are the “people of the Book,” meaning the Bible. Some pride themselves on this assertion and their domination is built around this concept. They see it as necessary to perceive of themselves as “people of the Book” and perfectly faithful to it because they think that was the case with the first century Christians.
I deny that any segment of the Churches of Christ represent a group of people that is perfectly faithful to the Bible. Who will say that they know all of God’s written word as it is to be known and understood and apply and practice its precepts perfectly? Who among us is/are the official interpreter(s) of God’s written word? Who is at the top of the totem pole? Who has the right to demand conformity to his/their interpretations(s)? Who has the authority to judge brethren as deserving of hell because they don’t subscribe to the party creed?
Few people in the early church were literate. Until as recently as the past three centuries, few have had that ability. Over the centuries by far most Christians have been illiterate. God recognized that and that’s why he did not give a book to save the world, but he gave himself in the form of a Person. That Person is the ground of our faith, the source of our hope, and the basis of our unity. If a book could have done it, then Christ would not have needed to die.
The Church of Christ creed has not been Jesus is Lord, but our select interpretations of the scriptures. They are trusting in our own intellectual abilities to save them rather than faith in Jesus Christ.
Over the decades the Churches of Christ have degenerated into a denomination that confuses the text of the Book and its interpretation. In turn they want to make binding judgment relative to those interpretations. In fact, each segment usually has several interpretations that have reached canonical status and you question or challenge them at your own peril. They think of interpretation as an exact science, all the while becoming very emotionally attached to their comprehension of the text.
“Men seem to have lost sight of the obvious distinction which is to be made between the Bible and the Gospel.”
“It should never be forgotten that the Apostles and first preachers of the gospel had no Bibles, and not even a New Testament, to distribute; and there was no such thing among the early Christians as a formal union upon the ‘Bible alone.’ Nay rather it was a union upon the Gospel alone.”

Yes, if perfection is required, there was no need for Jesus to die for us. We are all a work in progress.

These conservatives really do not promote doctrinal perfection, which is clearly seen in their profession and unwritten creeds. But none practice their unwritten creeds. We have Shawn on record here admitting that two conservatives debated over the Holy Spirits role, but he added that they “remained in fellowship” meaning they AGREED TO DISAGREE. So much for the unwritten creed “we speak where the bible speaks”

Shawn is just as progressive as those who are labeled progressive. Shawn is just in the closet and peeks his head out sometimes and then slams the door shut when we seen him.

He knows if he opens that door too much that his brethren will take that paycheck, so he is forced to not open the door too widely. Shawn, you can stay in the closet, we really understand. We know you have to stick to what you have been taught by other traditional Church of Christ preachers. You can’t even admit when you are wrong for fear that they dis-fellowship you.

So, rather than answer, you run after rabbits ….round in circles so that you fool some of those reading the threads. You wish to mask each thread with parroting comments so your flaws are lost in the threads. Sorry, but we will constantly bring this back to the surface.

Come out of that closet and lets discuss the inconsistencies within the Church of Christ. Stop hiding this Shawn. Will hiding this under the rug help? Not when we plan to tear up all of the carpet. And we plan to rip that door from the closet too. So walk on out and face the failures of the conservative Church of Christ – deal with the inconsistencies.