Posted on 08/17/2007 11:11:00 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Q:My grandson is marrying a lovely young lady of a different faith. She did not want a wedding in her church because instrumental music was not allowed. She also did not want to get married in our church. She wanted a backyard wedding.
Would you please enlighten us on the beliefs of the Church of Christ?
Elaine, Piedmont
A:Each Church of Christ traces its heritage to the Restoration Movement that swept the new American nation in the late 1700s and early 1800s.
Baptists in New England, Methodists along the Middle Atlantic Coast and Presbyterians in the Appalachian Mountains, among others, grew distressed by what they saw as too much highlighting of denominational beliefs and not enough emphasis on what Christ taught and the earliest Christian church practiced.
Led predominantly by transplanted Scotsman Alexander Campbell and Presbyterian clergyman Barton Stone, some worshippers withdrew from their denominations and established individual, self-governing churches that sought to restore Christianity to ancient practices and biblical teachings. They threw out all creeds, such as the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Apostles' Creed, and announced they had only one creed, the Bible.
They saw no reason to name themselves in any way other than as believers in Jesus Christ. Individual congregations, therefore, were called churches of Christ, disciples of Christ or Christian churches. In the beginning, these groups found it important to use lower case rather than capital letters when referring to themselves, to avoid the appearance of denominationalism.
They opposed any organization that was not at the local church level alone. For example, the Restoration Movement believed the New Testament showed that ancient churches engaged in mission work individually and did not form umbrella organizations for that purpose. The movement, therefore, eschewed mission societies in which various churches pooled their efforts for evangelism, charity or any other work.
In 1906 and 1968, divisions occurred in the Restoration Movement, leading to three groups: Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the most liberal, which has become a denomination in the traditional sense; Christian Church/Churches of Christ, the centrist group, which retains complete local church autonomy, and the Churches of Christ, the most conservative of the groups and the one about which you asked.
Using the Bible — and giving great weight to the New Testament — each Church of Christ decides for itself what it believes and teaches. Despite this autonomy, there is a surprising degree of similarity among churches in practice and doctrine.
As your future daughter-in-law mentioned, Churches of Christ typically prohibit the use of musical instruments in worship. Members tend to read the Bible literally and to allow in church only those things that the New Testament specifically authorizes. They find direction for singing in Ephesians 5:19, "Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord ... .”
While the Old Testament mentions the use of musical instruments, the New Testament does not, so Churches of Christ practice only a cappella singing during services.
Adherents often point out that instrumental music was not used in Christian churches until the 600s, and the term "a cappella,” meaning to sing without instrumental accompaniment, is Italian for "as in the chapel.”
Churches of Christ tend to teach that each person has free will to accept or reject saving grace offered by God. In keeping with this teaching, they believe that predestination is limited to God ordaining that those who are righteous will be saved while those who are not righteous will be damned.
A person accepts God's offer of grace by being baptized, according to most Churches of Christ; therefore, only a person who has reached the age of accountability and can make such a decision may be baptized. Baptism is by immersion because it is believed that John the Baptist submerged Jesus when baptizing him and because the New Testament Greek root of "baptize” means to dip, plunge or immerse.
While some Christian denominations believe "once saved, always saved,” Churches of Christ typically teach that a person may lose or reject the salvation he or she once accepted.
Churches of Christ do not consider themselves as Protestants, nor do they count themselves as Orthodox or Roman Catholic. They do, however, celebrate Holy Communion every week, using grape juice instead of wine.
Churches of Christ interpret literally I Timothy 2:11, which says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” Therefore, the congregations are led by male elders.
The Pastor of my Church is a woman, and a great Bible teacher gifted in many languages. I have no doubt that God’s Spirit directs her for our benefit ... the perfecting the called out ones don’tchaknow.
Next time you find an acorn, gently open its kernel. In between the two halves you will see a tiny Oak Tree.
Which keeps the metaphor going nicely ... what you see on the surface of the NT may not look much like what exists today.
So go beneath the surface.
Well I hate to burst your Aramaic bubble but they spoke Hebrew quite well in the Jewish communities of that era, particularly around Jerusalem. When Paul spoke to the crowd in Jerusalem, he did so in the language that they understood:
"Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue ... And when they heard that he spoke in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept more quiet." [Acts 21:38-40, 22:2]
Furthermore the inscription on the cross testifies against the Aramaic myth because the "superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS." [Luke 23:38]
If no one knew Hebrew or spoke Hebrew, then why would they inscribe the cross in Hebrew? And where is the Aramaic inscription??? It wasn't inscribed in Aramaic because the Jews didn't speak Aramaic there. They spoke Hebrew.
to this day, Aramaic - the language of Jesus - is retained for the Institution Narrative. It is as close as one comes to the Last Supper.
Sorry but the language of Jesus was Hebrew and He even spoke it from heaven, as Paul recalls his Damascus Road Conversion:
"I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul ..." [Acts 26:14]
The word "Aramaic" does not even appear in the New Testament.
And in what language did Jesus make His last pronouncement, that ‘It is finished’? He spoke it in the language of the marketplace, in Aramaic. Incidentally, Aramaic and spoken Hebrew are close to each other and were written in similar ways for more than a century with Aramaic still retaining some of the same Hebrew letters and syntax, if old memory serves.
You know....they have to convince the world that Aramaic was the preferred dialect in order to justify their silly notion that [Matthew 16:18] somehow gives them the right to dictate doctrine......on going.
From the scriptures you have provided this idea is completely debunked.
How silly. Jesus spoke Aramaic from the cross: ‘lama sabachthani’ is definitely Aramaic and some of the phrases in the Old Testament are precisely Aramaic. When Jesus spoke to the little girl who had died, He said ‘talitha, qumi’ which is Aramaic. It’s language not dogma.
The language does.
"Eli, eli, lama sabacthani" is not Hebrew. It's Aramaic.
"Talitha koum" is not Hebrew. It's Aramaic.
"Ephphatha" is not Hebrew. It's Aramaic.
Josephus and other secular sources agree that the common language of the Jews at that time (among themselves) was Aramaic, not Hebrew. Hebrew was reserved for the synagogue, for prayer and Torah study.
As far as references to the "Hebrew language," that might refer to the language Hebrew, or it might refer to the common language of the Hebrews, Aramaic. Without being there, it's hard to know for sure.
A portion of the titulus on the Cross still exists. Unfortunately it contains only Latin and Greek letters; the Hebrew or Aramaic portion has been lost.
What we know for sure is that at least one of the languages Jesus spoke was Aramaic. It's in the Bible.
It can just as easily come from the Greek for "head" and the Aramaic for "rock", both of which (kephalaios and kepha) are similar to Cephas.
No pants in the NT either.
!!!
There are a lot of French words in the English language, but it is still called English not French.
Just because Jesus used Aramaic words or phrases with the Hebrew, does not mean that the Hebrew now becomes Aramaic.
His final pronouncement was Aramaic but what language did he use to speak to John at the foot of the cross and the thief on the cross??? One of the inscriptions on the placcards was always in the language of the one who hung there --- and for Jesus and the Jews that was the Hebrew inscription. The Latin was for the Roman soldiers and the Greek was for the rest.
You have a pleasant evening. Tetelestai
Just because he incorporated Aramaic words into the Hebrew that He spoke does not mean that the Hebrew now becomes Aramaic.
If I say: "I had an enchilada for dinner." ---- Am I speaking English or Spanish??? Just because I incorporate a Spanish word in my sentence does not mean that I am now speaking Spanish, does it???
y tu tambien.
Very little in scripture appears in Aramaic. Most is in Hebrew and Greek. The Aramaic crowd in the Old Testament were not of Israel [Genesis 31:45-47] And Jacob took a stone, and set it up for a pillar. And Jacob said unto his brethren, Gather stones; and they took stones, and made an heap: and they did eat there upon the heap. And Laban called it Jegarsahadutha (Aramaic): but Jacob called it Galeed. Laban was considered a Syrian: [Genesis 25:20] And Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah to wife, the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Padanaram, the sister to Laban the Syrian.
[II Kings 18:26] Then said Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebna, and Joah, unto Rabshakeh, Speak, I pray thee, to thy servants in the Syrian language (Aramaic); for we understand it: and talk not with us in the Jews' language in the ears of the people that are on the wall.
[Ezra 4:4-7] Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building, And hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia. And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they unto him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue (Aramaic), and interpreted in the Syrian tongue.
[Daniel 2:4] Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriack (Aramaic), O king, live for ever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation.
Sure Our Saviour could speak Aramaic! So what! He could speak Swahili and Mandarin also. The point being, Hebrew was the language of the Old Testament scriptures (Except for the corrupted Septuagint) and Greek is the language of the New. Aramaic is continually hoisted as some type of theological banner with a Roman agenda.....and we all know why.
Unless you are speaking to them in Hebrew ----
Well Said ——
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Can I figure it out? Sure. I was waiting to see how long you resorted to denigrating Sola Scriptura. 117 posts.
Your entire belief system hinges on Peter being the first Pope, and that successive writings are binding as the word of God.
Even though Paul EXPLICITELY states in Galations 1:6-9
” I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”
you must still install Peter as the chief Apostle and head of the church on earth, WHEN THE SCRIPTURES EXPLICITELY say that Christ is the head of the church.
As Catholics, you have the church as an ever-changing and adapting body, making dotrine, then changing doctrine.
Paul said that “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines....” Hebrews 13:8-9
Paul told Timothy “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:15-17)
Why would I need anything else if the scripture available in the first century could make perfect and complete to Salvation?
Jude told us “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Jude 3
That word “once” in Greek is hapax
hä’-päks (Key)
1) once, one time
2) once for all
And it means what it says, ONCE.
The doctrine of papology, or chief apostle to chief bishop to chief elder is a perversion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Chapter and verse, please. Other than a few questionably obscure references there is no evidence that Peter the Apostle was even in Rome at all. Justin Martyr, your own beloved Church Father, who writes to Romans in the early 2nd century says nothing about Simon Peter being in Rome at all, but tells us a lot of Simon Magus's sojourn there, as does Irenaeus.
Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that: " ... we possess no precise information regarding the details of his [Peter's] Roman sojourn".
They have no evidence of anyone who saw him there, spoke to him there, of anything that he might have said there or done there, and they don't believe Eusebius or Jerome's embellished accounts of that legendary 25 year Roman episcopacy for which there is not a lick of evidence. The legend to his being there does not begin to evolve until after the Gnostic apocryphal literature of Simon Magus's disciples begins to show up in the early 3rd century. Peter's Roman sojourn is legend --- and no bones about it.
But the sorcerer Simon Magus's 25 year episcopacy that established a false religion counter to Christianity is a well-established historical certainty attested to by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Jerome ---- and his bones are probably those that were discovered under St Peter's Basilica --- in that pagan cemetery upon which the Vatican was built. What a curious foundation!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.