I just finished reading some of your web page, specifically the article about various religious denominations having different views toward salvation. I just wanted to state my position that the true church of Christ is not a man made establishment. If there is a denomination that goes by the name "Church of Christ," membership therein is in no way essential to salvation and has no scriptural authority. The church of Christ is made up of all people who have obeyed the gospel in its pure form. The church has no president or headquarters. Each congregation is autonomous and independent from any other congregation. Contrary to popular belief, the Bible is not a difficult to understand book. Many people have simply distorted scriptures "to their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16)." Any reader of this posting that would like to talk further please feel free to email me at RKT422@aol.com

-DM-

Randall:

Thank you for your feedback to Thomas Doubting's <a href="http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=192" target="_blank">Christian Salvation?</a>.

Your stated position agrees with that of a typical fundamentalist Bible church but it is certainly not a position which is universally held by all Christian denominations or all Christian scholars.

That the Bible is not difficult to understand is, in my opinion, a simplistic and untrue statement. Many highly qualified biblical scholars who are themselves sincere and devout Christians--all of them allegedly operating under the guidance of the so-called Holy Spirit--disagree on the meaning of various Bible verses. Even more damaging to your contention, however, is the fact that your contention disagrees with what the Bible itself says.

If the author of 2nd Peter says that some things in Paul's letters are hard to understand, and if Paul's letters are considered scripture as claimed by the author, then the Bible is hard to understand, thus proving false--if you believe the Bible--your contention that it is not difficult to understand. Further, there is no way that you can be certain that what you have learned from others has not been distorted.

If Jesus himself says that "the secret of the kingdom of God is said to those on the outside [of the circle of disciples] so that they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding, otherwise they might turn and be forgiven--then I say that you haven't a leg to stand on when it comes to your contention that the Bible is NOT difficult to understand.

---------

Certainly a perfect and omnipotent "God" could have, should have, and would have done a better job of making it clear as to what is and is not required to call oneself a Christian and to be "saved." Anything less is morally reprehensible.

--Don--

BLoggins02

Does this person honestly believe that we don't know the difference between the Church of Christ denomination and the church (or "body") of Christ doctrine that Paul espouses in 1 Corinthians and elsewhere?

Why do people think that atheists don't understand Christianity and the Bible?

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

beachbum

BLoggins

How could we possibly know anything about the "Church" since we are "Not of the Spirit" or some such bullshit.

Was he possibly speaking about that othe Church of Christ sometimes listed in your phone book as Christian Churches? Not the real fundy CofC but a little more mainstream. Just not sure, should we just wait until he comes back and tells us exactly what he was talking about? I'll wait right over there..........&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt ;

Godless Dave

Randall, what is the pure gospel?

-DM-

When I was a devout Christian myself, "the pure Gospel" was the pure Gospel taught by my church as opposed to the pure Gospel taught by the Satanic church down the street.

--Don--

Godless Dave

So "proprietary gospel" might be a more accurate term.

B. H. Manners

Mr Randall,

Even though you are not referring to the denomination "Church of Christ" I wish to ask some of its members who are frequenting this board some questions.

If the Church of Christ is the true church:

1. If the Bible is so easy to understand as you claim why did Paul tell the Romans to respect weaker brethren who lack knowledge in Romans 14? If the truth could be understood by everyone easily why is there really a need for anything like Romans 14? Everyone could just read the word (or back then get a revelation) and know the "truth" like everyone else and there would be no reason to disagree over the likes of meats, days, ect.

2. If the Bible teaches us to "Mark those who cause division" (Romans 15, "Warn a divisive person once...a second time.. and have nothing to do with him" (Titus 3)and mark false teachers why do CoC preachers pick and choose at whim which doctrines are false and which are not? Church A will not fellowship Church B over some stupid issue but A still fellowships church C which does not think B is really doing anything wrong. CoC's choose at whimsy what is false and what is not and are very inconsistent. If the Bible held the truth there would be no leeway for this.

3. In the CoC people say false doctrine should be disfellowshiped but differences of opinion are not. However,in reality it seems to me that in the COC what is a false doctrine to one is an opinion to another. How do we know who is right? All the preachers I have asked about how to know when something is false and not opinion is when your conscience hurts to fellowship someone who hold some doctrine you disagree with. That makes it a false doctrine. However, I have heard 1,000,000 sermons about conscience not being a guide in itself but only when there is knowledge of the scriptures. Well, hells bells, what if someone's conscience offends them but it is due to their biblical ignorance and not because the person their miffed at is really teaching false doctrine?

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]</p>

B. H. Manners

More questions for our fly by apologist...

4. If the Bible was easy to understand why are Christians not able to reach a concensus over issues like what is greed, idolatry (in a material goods sense, swindling, ect. These things are not a difference of opinion. The Bible tells us that the above sins are a disfellowshipable offense (I Cor 6:9) but I have yet seen a man thrown out of a CoC for being a swindler, or being greedy, ect. Please keep in mind that just because something is legal does not mean it is biblically acceptable so that dodge with not work. Please tell us just when someone is being greedy or a swindler or whether they are honest men who have made a lot of wealth unfortunately affecting other peoples lives in a negative way. Infidels don't jump me here for being a class agitator. The Bible says we aught to be able to know 100% these things and let our CoC friends tell us the answers.

5. If the Bible is the word of God why would "God" allow his word to become corrupted with all sorts of variant texts, additions, and apparent editorial attempts? Why do Christians have to use such stupid how-it-could-have been scenerios to try to resolve contradictions? If the Bible was the word why would there be a need for such, surely God would have seen to it that his word was clearer than that.

6. It says in Rev. 22:18-19 that we are not to add to or take away from that "book of prophesy". Context indicates this really is applying to Revelations alone but I could cite other verses saying do not tamper with the scriptures. Why does how-it-could-have-been scenerios not violate those verses? Please keep in mind I have read many versions of how it could have beens for each discepancy and often they would contradict each other. In Mark 15:56 it says that those who opposed Jesus contradicted themselves and so their testimony was void. Why should not the same principles apply to how it could have beens? It is apparent that you just do not know what happened do you?

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]</p>

B. H. Manners

O.k. here is some more yet...

As you are aware Alexander Campbell started the Restoration Movement in the early 19th century. For those of you not familiar with this it was an attempt to restore or bring back to existence the true church that had fallen into apostacy. Damn all you former Catholics (hee hee, just kidding) for it was your denomination that gets blamed for this in the CoC. Campbell brought back the true CoC to existence, supposedly.

Now if this is true:

1. You admit the church was destroyed yet Jesus said regarding the kingdom "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Well, it sure looks to me according to your logic that Satan really gave the church an ass fucking if there ever was one and destroyed it. If the church did fall completely away for 1800 years then why is Jesus not a liar and false prophet because of that qoute from him above?

2. If you are one of those COC's who are in the minority and admit that the church did not fall completely away answer this question: If the true church always retained an existence,though meager, why is there a need to bring it back into existence? It never did die so why the need for Campbell to "restore it."? Its a pure redundancy.
Also, since you do not regard denominationalists (a CoC term for all other churches which are of course false) as Christians at all you cannot dodge my logic and say you are trying to restore them to pure Christianity. You cannot make that argument because according to CoC doctrine those denominations never were a true church or their members Christians in the first place. I can never retore to a state of purity that which never had a state of purity.

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]</p>