Skip to comments.Radio Replies Second Volume - Church of Christ
Posted on 10/30/2013 9:24:15 AM PDT by GonzoII
No. Christ described His Church in very many significant ways—all of which apply to the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church only.
The true Church of Christ commenced then, but not what are called the Protestant "Churches of Christ." These can be traced back to a Rev. Alexander Campbell, who was born in 1788, and who was originally a Presbyterian. As Mr. Campbell grew up, he pressed the Protestant principle of "The Bible Only" to its extreme limits, and repudiated all creeds or statements of doctrine. He therefore felt compelled to leave the Presbyterians who clung to the Westminster Confession, based on Calvinism, and became a wandering preacher affiliated with the Baptists. However he was never strictly a Baptist, and soon began writing and lecturing as a free lance religious teacher. He soon gathered some devoted followers, and in 1827 these followers formed themselves into a sect called the "Disciples of Christ." The Rev. Mr. Campbell died in 1866, and his followers fell into disputes concerning methods of organization. As a result two sections arose, calling themselves respectively the "Progressives," and the "Conservatives." The "Progressives" retained the title "Disciples of Christ," whilst the "Conservatives" took the new title "Churches of Christ." As the division took place about the year 1900, the "Church of Christ" as an independent body dates from the beginning of this century.
Since those who form what are called the "Churches of Christ" repudiate creeds, it is not possible to state their doctrines very clearly. They say at least that people must be Christians, but they will not state what Christians must believe. They demand, of course, that the Bible be accepted as God's Word, but no exact statement of what the Bible means can be imposed on anybody by those who maintain the right of private interpretation. Probably the members of the "Churches of Christ" would like to be described simply as "Bible Christians," and nothing more.
On the score that they ignore or reject the faith, worship, and discipline Christ intended to prevail in His Church. Also their basic principle, held together with other Protestants, that the Bible only is the one rule of faith is false. Moreover, a Church which cannot trace back its history beyond 1827 is 1827 years too late to be the Church founded by Christ Himself. We have seen the force of that reason when dealing with the truth of the Catholic Church.
Preface To Volume One of "Radio Replies"
By RT. REV. MSGR. FULTON J. SHEEN, D.D
There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics "adore statues"; because they "put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God"; because they say "indulgence is a permission to commit sin"; because the Pope "is a Fascist"; because the "Church is the defender of Capitalism." If the Church taught or believed any one of these things it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.
If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which, in seasons of bigotry, men say must be destroyed in the name of God as men crucified Christ and thought they had done a service to God. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because He called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which is rejected by the world as Our Lord was rejected by men. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its Voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. But only that which is Divine can be infinitely hated and infinitely loved. Therefore the Church is Divine.
If then, the hatred of the Church is founded on erroneous beliefs, it follows that basic need of the day is instruction. Love depends on knowledge for we cannot aspire nor desire the unknown. Our great country is filled with what might be called marginal Christians, i.e., those who live on the fringe of religion and who are descendants of Christian living parents, but who now are Christians only in name. They retain a few of its ideals out of indolence and force of habit; they knew the glorious history of Christianity only through certain emasculated forms of it, which have married the spirit of the age and are now dying with it. Of Catholicism and its sacraments, its pardon, its grace, its certitude and its peace, they know nothing except a few inherited prejudices. And yet they are good people who want to do the right thing, but who have no definite philosophy concerning it. They educate their children without religion, and yet they resent the compromising morals of their children. They would be angry if you told them they were not Christian, and yet they do not believe that Christ is God. They resent being called pagans and yet they never take a practical cognizance of the existence of God. There is only one thing of which they are certain and that is that things are not right as they are. It is just that single certitude which makes them what might be called the great "potentials," for they are ready to be pulled in either of two directions. Within a short time they must take sides; they must either gather with Christ or they must scatter; they must either be with Him or against Him; they must either be on the cross as other Christs, or under it as other executioners. Which way will these marginal Christians tend? The answer depends upon those who have the faith. Like the multitudes who followed Our Lord into the desert, they are as sheep without a shepherd. They are waiting to be shepherded either with the sheep or goats. Only this much is certain. Being human and having hearts they want more than class struggle and economics; they want Life, they want Truth, and they want Love. In a word, they want Christ.
It is to these millions who believe wrong things about the Church and to these marginal Christians, that this little book is sent. It is not to prove that they are "wrong"; it is not to prove that we are "right"; it is merely to present the truth in order that the truth may conquer through the grace of God. When men are starving, one need not go to them and tell them to avoid poison; nor to eat bread because there are vitamins in bread. One need only go to them and tell them that they are starving and here is bread, and the laws of nature will do the rest. This book of "Radio Replies" with 1,588 questions and answers goes out on a similar mission. Its primary task is not to humble the erroneous; not to glorify the Catholic Church as intellectual and self-righteous, but to present the truth in a calm, clear manner in order that with the grace of God souls may come to the blessed embrace of Christ.
It is not only the point of "Radio Replies" to prove that the Church is the only completely soul-satisfying Church in existence at the present day; it is also to suggest that the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many minds miss its obviousness. When therefore you, the readers of "Radio Replies" in the twentieth century, wish to know about Christ and about His early Church, and about His mysteries, we ask you to go not only to the written records but to the living Church which began with Christ Himself. That Church or that Mystical Person which has been living all these centuries is the basis of our faith and to us Catholics it speaks this way: "I live with Christ. I saw His Mother and I know her to be a Virgin and the loveliest and purest of all women in heaven or on earth; I saw Christ at Caesarea-Philippi, when, after changing Simon's name to Rock, He told him he was the rock upon which the Church would be built and that it would endure unto the consummation of the world. I saw Christ hanging on a cross and I saw Him rise from His tomb; I saw Magdalene rush to His feet; I saw the angels clad in white beside the great stone; I was in the Cenacle room when doubting Thomas put fingers into His hands; I was on Olivet when He ascended into heaven and promised to send His Spirit to the apostles to make them the foundation of His new Mystical Body on earth. I was at the stoning of Stephen, saw Saul hold the garments of those who slew him, and later I heard Saul, as Paul, preach Christ and Him crucified; I witnessed the beheading of Peter and Paul in Rome, and with my very eyes saw tens of thousands of martyrs crimson the sands with their blood, rather than deny the faith Peter and Paul had preached unto them; I was living when Boniface was sent to Germany, when Augustine when to England, Cyril and Methodius to the Poles, and Patrick to Ireland; at the beginning of the ninth century I recall seeing Charlemagne crowned as king in matters temporal as Peter's vicar was recognized as supreme in matters spiritual; in the thirteenth century I saw the great stones cry out in tribute to me, and burst into Gothic Cathedrals; in the shadows of those same walls I saw great Cathedrals of thought arise in the prose of Aquinas and Bonaventure, and in the poetry of Dante; in the sixteenth century I saw my children softened by the spirit of the world leave the Father's house and reform the faith instead of reforming discipline which would have brought them back again into my embrace; in the last century and at the beginning of this I heard the world say it could not accept me because I was behind the times. I am not behind the times, I am only behind the scenes. I have adapted myself to every form of government the world has ever known; I have lived with Caesars and kings, tyrants and dictators, parliaments and presidents, monarchies and republics. I have welcomed every advance of science, and were it not for me the great records of the pagan world would not have been preserved. It is true I have not changed my doctrine, but that is because the doctrine is not mine but His who sent Me. I change my garments which belong to time, but not my Spirit which belongs to eternity. In the course of my long life I have seen so many modern ideas become unmodern, that I know I shall live to chant a requiem over the modern ideas of this day, as I chanted it over the modern ideas of the last century. I celebrated the nineteen-hundredth anniversary of the death of my Redeemer and yet I am no older now than then, for my Spirit is Eternal, and the Eternal never ages. I am the abiding Personage of the centuries. I am the contemporary of all civilizations. I am never out of date, because the dateless; never out of time, because the timeless. I have four great marks: I am One, because I have the same Soul I had in the beginning; I am Holy, because that Soul is the Spirit of Holiness; I am Catholic, because that Spirit pervades every living cell of my Body; I am Apostolic, because my origin is identical with Nazareth, Galilee and Jerusalem. I shall grow weak when my members become rich and cease to pray, but I shall never die. I shall be persecuted as I am persecuted now in Mexico and Russia; I shall be crucified as I was on Calvary, but I shall rise again, and finally when time shall be no more, and I shall have grown to my full stature, then shall I be taken into heaven as the bride of my Head, Christ, where the celestial nuptials shall be celebrated, and God shall be all in all, because His Spirit is Love and Love is Heaven."
Introduction To The American Edition Of "Radio Replies" Volume One
"Radio Replies" by Rev. Dr. Rumble, M.S.C., is the result of five years of answering questions during a one-hour Question Box Program over Radio Station 2SM Sydney, N.S.W. The revision of "Radio Replies" for American readers was prompted by the widespread interest the Australian edition created among Protestants and Catholics during the summer of 1937, when I was carrying on as a Catholic Campaigner for Christ, the Apostolate to the man in the street through the medium of my trailer and loud-speaking system. In the distribution of pamphlets and books on Catholicism "Radio Replies" proved the most talked of book carried in my trailer display of Catholic literature. The clergy and laymen engaged in Street Preaching agree that it is not so much what you say over the microphone in answer to questions from open air listeners but what you GET INTO THEIR HANDS TO READ.
My many converts of the highways and parks throughout the Archdiocese of St. Paul have embraced the faith as a result of studying this book. Whole families have come into the Church through reading the book by this renowned convert from Anglicanism. The delay in getting copies from Sydney and the prohibitive cost of the book on this side of the universe led me to petition the author to have published a CHEAP AMERICAN EDITION in order to get this Encyclopaedia of Catholic Doctrine into the hands of fellow citizens. Because of the author's genius for brevity, preciseness, fearlessness and keen logic that avoids the usually long Scriptural and Traditional arguments of the average question and answer book, which is beyond the capacity of the man in the street, this manual of 1,588 questions and replies has already attracted readers throughout Australia, New Zealand, Africa, India, England, Ireland, Canada and now the United States.
The questions he answers are the questions I had to answer before friendly and hostile audiences throughout my summer campaign. The piquant and provocative subject matter of this book makes it a fascinating assembly of 300 or more worth-while pamphlet tracts, a dictionary of doctrine for the desk of the FAMILY, the STUDENT, the SHOP HAND, the OFFICE WORKER, the ATTORNEY, the DOCTOR, the TEACHER, and the PREACHER. It is a handy standard reference book of excellence for popular questions which are more than ever being asked by restless and bewildered multitudes. It is a textbook for the Confraternities of Christian Doctrine Classes and Study Clubs.
A non-Catholic Professor after reading the book stated that, "If the Catholic Church could defend herself so logically as 'Radio Replies' demonstrates, then I do not see why you don't get more converts." Members of the Knights of Columbus, the Holy Name Societies and numerous women's societies have written in that they no longer have to apologetically say, "I can't answer that one." Catholic students in non-sectarian colleges and universities write in that they now walk the campus with this book under their arms, ready for all challenges and that this manual of ready reference has cured their INFERIORITY COMPLEX ON EXPOSITION OF CATHOLIC CLAIMS. Lapsed Catholics have come into my trailer-office to confess that the reading of "Radio Replies" has brought them back to the Church.
I am grateful to His Excellency Archbishop John G. Murray, D.D. for his approval of this compendium of dogmatic and moral theology for readers of the American Commonwealth and I am deeply appreciative to Rt. Rev. Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen, D.D. for writing the Preface to this American edition.
From my experience on the Catholic Radio Hour, on the lecture platform, and in the pulpit, I do not hesitate to say that HERE AT LAST is the book that has something for everybody, the book for the UNINFORMED CATHOLIC, THE UNEDUCATED AND EDUCATED LAPSED CATHOLIC, and the PROSPECTIVE CONVERT.
Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty
Historical Context of "Radio Replies"
If one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.
It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919 and also published in pamphlet form in 1853.
While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way.
And of course, they'd both remember the American Protective Association, "Guy Fawkes Days" (which included burning the Pontiff in effigy), the positions of the Whigs and Ultra-Torries, and so on.
A strong degree of "in your face" from people in the position of authoritativeness was required back in the 1930s, as there was a large contingent of the populations of both the US and the British Empire who were not at all shy about being "in your face" toward Catholics in the first place (in other words, a particularly contentious day on Free Republic would be considered a mild day in some circles back then). Sure, in polite, educated circles, contention was avoided (thus the little ditty about it not being polite to discuss religion in public, along with sex and politics), but it would be naive to assume that we all got along, or anything resembling that, back in the day.
Having said all of the above, reading the articles from the modern mindset and without the historical context that I tried to briefly summarize above, they make challenging reading, due to their bluntness.
The reader should also keep in mind that the official teaching of the Church takes a completely different tone, best summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324
269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
322 LG 15.
323 UR 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.
Radio Replies Volume Two: Destiny of Man/Death
Radio Replies Volume Two: Immortality of Man's Soul & Pre-existence Denied
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Human Free Will
Radio Replies Volume Two: Determinism Absurd
Radio Replies Volume Two: Necessity of Religion
Radio Replies Volume Two: Salvation of the Soul
Radio Replies Volume Two: Voice of Science
Radio Replies Volume Two: Religious Racketeers
Radio Replies Volume Two: Divine Revelation
Radio Replies Volume Two: Gospels Historical
Radio Replies Volume Two: Missing Books of the Bible
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Bible Inspired
Radio Replies Volume Two: Biblical Account of Creation
Radio Replies Volume Two: New Testament Problems
Radio Replies Volume Two: Source of Christian Teaching
Radio Replies Volume Two: Jewish Rejecton of Christ
Radio Replies Volume Two: Christianity a New Religion
Radio Replies Volume Two: Rational Foundation for Belief
Radio Replies Volume Two: Causes of Unbelief
Radio Replies Volume Two: Divisions Amongst Christians
Radio Replies Volume Two: Schisms Unjustified
Radio Replies Volume Two: Facing the Problem
Radio Replies Volume Two: Wrong Approach
Radio Replies Volume Two: Is One Religion as Good as Another?
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Petrine Text
Radio Replies Volume Two: St. Peter's Supremacy
Radio Replies Volume Two: St. Peter in Rome
Radio Replies Volume Two: Temporal Power
Radio Replies Volume Two: Infallibility
Radio Replies Volume Two: Unity of the Church
Radio Replies Volume Two: Holiness of the Church
Radio Replies Volume Two: Catholicity of the Church
Radio Replies Volume Two: Apostolicity of the Church
Radio Replies Volume Two: Indefectibility of the Church
Radio Replies Volume Two: Obligation to be a Catholic
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Claims of Science
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Holy Trinity
Radio Replies Volume Two: Creation and Evolution
Radio Replies Volume Two: Angels
Radio Replies Volume Two: Devils
Radio Replies Volume Two: Grace and Salvation
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Sacraments [Baptism]
Radio Replies Volume Two: Confession
Radio Replies Volume Two: Holy Eucharist
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Sacrifice of the Mass
Radio Replies Volume Two: Holy Communion
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Catholic Priesthood
Radio Replies Volume Two: Marriage and Divorce
Radio Replies Volume Two: Extreme Unction
Radio Replies Volume Two: Judgment
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Inquisition
Radio Replies Volume Two: Astrology
Radio Replies Volume Two: Other Superstitions
Radio Replies Volume Two: Attendance at Mass
Radio Replies Volume Two: Sex Education
Radio Replies Volume Two: Burial Rites
Radio Replies Volume Two: Candles and Votive Lamps
Radio Replies Volume Two: Rosary
Radio Replies Volume Two: Lourdes Water
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Scapular
Radio Replies Volume Two: Communism Condemned
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Fascist State
Radio Replies Volume Two: Morality of War
Radio Replies Volume Two: May Individuals Become Soldiers?
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Church and Peace
Radio Replies Volume Two: Eutychianism
Radio Replies Volume Two: Coptic Church
Radio Replies Volume Two: Greek Orthodox Church
Radio Replies Volume Two: Anglican Episcopal Church
Radio Replies Volume Two: The "Free" or "Nonconformist" Churches
thank you for this
I haven’t heard from you in ages!
Maybe you can explain?
We used to have some great wars on FR with the C of C back in the mid 2000s.
Near here are five different CofCs that came out of the Stone/Campbell revivals, whose doctrines, others said, were formulated by Sidney Rigdon who also formulated the Mormon early doctrines.
The Disciples of Christ.
The no musical instrument Church of Christ, Sunday School ok.
The No music, no Sunday School, no permanent preacher, no kitchen CofC.
The First Christian Church, Music ok.
The ONE CUP CofC. No individual communion cups. No music, no sunday school, no kitchen.
All demand immersionist baptism in their church and do not recognize other denomination’s baptisms to be valid.
Each holds to it’s peculiar doctrine and often will not associate with the other groups. They consider all other churches which do not cross the “t” and dot the “i” their way to be “false christians”!
Here is a CofC publishing house some CofCrs on FR claimed did not exist. There are others.
You forgot to mention another C of C, not started by Campbell. The Philippine Church of Christ (Iglesia ni Cristo) started by a man named Felix Manalo
What about the church of God at Corinth? Who founded it? When?
Perhaps the author simply doesn’t understand how the word “church” is used in the Scriptures.
Sola Scriptura is Yeshua’s rule #1
His preface to all doctrinal statements is “It is written.”
If there is any church that definitely cannot be the church of Yeshua, it is the catholic church due to the blasphemy known as the ‘mass’ and their man made creation they call the “Eucharist.”
These are made by man through the in-dwelling of Satan.
Everyone must be labelled, eh? :-)
Are you Republican or Democrat?
Libertarian, Conservative, or Liberal?
Capitalist or Communist?
Catholic or Protestant?
Baptist or Methodist?
It’s a quick way to identify those with whom we agree, I suppose. But then how will we ever settle our disagreements?
You can’t read the Bible without seeing case after case after case of MEN coming up with their own ideas about how to serve God. Whether it’s Nadab and Abihu offering “strange fire”, or false teachers forbidding people to marry. And often such men draw away many followers with them into disobedience.
Jesus promised His apostles that the Spirit would come, and would guide them into all truth. And those who want to know this truth can read what God’s inspired prophets have written for us. In his second epistle, Peter explains that this is how we can ensure our salvation.
So perhaps we don’t need labels after all, but will unite on our willingness to submit to the will of God found in the Scriptures, and abandon the divisions brought about by disobedient men. Then we can be labelled simply as saints, disciples, believers, Christians.
The Disciples of Christ was a break-away from the Baptists.
The surest way to get your own church started is to claim that there is special knowledge that the disciples dared not write down, and that only the select few can understand and interpret that knowledge.
You’ll have a huge following in no time at all.
“and their man made creation they call the Eucharist.
You can’t be serious?
I do admit Christ is both God and man.
“Sola Scriptura is Yeshuas rule #1”
Mat_4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mat_10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mat_10:27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.
Mat_11:1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.
Mar_1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Mar_1:38 And he said unto them, Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth.
Mar_3:14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,
Mar_16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Luk_4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luk_4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
Luk_4:43 And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent.
Luk_9:2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
Luk_9:60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
Act_5:42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.
Act_10:42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
Act_14:15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:
Act_15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Act_16:6 Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,
Act_16:10 And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavored to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.
Act_17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
>> “What did He ever write? He told his Apostles to go and teach and preach” <<
He didn’t write, he spoke, and when he spoke it was always a recital of the scriptures.
The Eucharist is Satan’s weapon against the Holy Spirit.
Do you have even the foggiest clue what you're talking about?
Was Passover Satan's weapon against the Holy Spirit as well? Version 1.0, maybe?
The eucharist is nowhere to be found in Yehova’s word, it is of Satan completely.
You have no clue of the Passover so why do you bring it up?
My reply is not intended to offend; my apologies in advance if it does.
After studying all religions for 30+ years I finally realized that arguing religion is like arguing the color of the rainbow, with each person arguing that their color is the only true and correct color. They are all correct but fail to see the other perspectives or the bigger picture.
It doesn’t matter what religion we are, the anatomy & physiology of our bodies is pretty much the same. It doesn’t matter what religion we are, the anatomy & physiology of our souls or spirits are pretty much the same. Unlike the physical body, which we can observe, dissect, run tests and compile scientific data, the soul is much more intangible. Accordingly people have developed theories, speculations and philosophies on the anatomy & physiology of the human soul. These theories & philosophies have become religions.
The people of these religions all argue that they are correct and all others are wrong. The arguments turn into wars lasting perpetually.
All these religions are similar to the Hindu or Buddhist parable of the 5 blind men who are led to an elephant for the first time. The first grabs the trunk and proclaims an elephant is like a python or large snake. The second blind man gets the tail and argues that an elephant is like a rope. The third blind man gets the ear and argues that an elephant is like a palm tree. The fourth gets the leg and argues that it is like a column in a building while the fifth gets the side and argues that an elephant is like a stone wall! The argue and fight over who is correct. If they could only see the bigger picture, they are all correct.
By looking at all religions you find that they have a lot in common. Look further into the commonalities and you will begin to understand the bigger picture. Seek to understand the mystics in Christianity and all religions. This will help you understand the bigger picture.
I am Christian and accept Jesus as my Savior. But I am also Buddhist and Hindu and see no discrepancies between their teachings. The are all just different perspectives of trying to understand the anatomy & physiology of the human soul. None of them are wrong, but none provide the bigger picture individually.
The problem with most Christians is that they put Jesus on a pedestal and worship him like an idol. They say He is their savior and treat Him like a lifeguard who can pluck them out of the water when they are drowning. While He can do that, which would you sooner have, a lifeguard who waits until you are drowning and plucks you out, or a lifeguard who teaches you how to swim. Jesus was a rabbi, a teacher. He was trying to teach us how to be like him just as He was teaching Peter to walk on water. Remember Jesus’ comment as He sent out His disciples, “The things that I do and more, you too shall do in my name.” He was telling the truth. We need to learn how to swim... Not fear the water and pray for Him to save us when we drown.
The things Peter mentioned in Act 2 while quoting the Prophet Joel are happening now. We are truly in very special times.
I thank you for posting all these in depth religious teachings. I read and study them and pray to understand their wisdom. They are correct, but only part of the bigger picture. Seek and you will find. The truth is in the experience, not in the theory. When we follow the path, the anatomy and physiology of the human spirit or soul becomes physical and tangible, thus allowing us to see and experience the greater truth in all religions.
Be careful on your journey. The Bible is the truth. If your new knowledge causes you to discount the scriptures, do not accept your new found knowledge. However, return to the Bible, reread the scriptures and pray on their meaning to determine if their is a different interpretation of the words that has insightful knowledge in light of your new knowledge. Forever remain a skeptic and learn discernment.
While all religions contain truth to varying degrees, all religions can’t be equally true, since they all teach some contradictory doctrines of varying importance.
For example, Christians believe that God is Truth Itself, while Hindus believe that God’s Oneness transcends the categories of truth and falsity (is that rue?). Similarly, Islam emphasizes God’s Will over Truth.
These differences mark errors at the highest level.of abstraction, and fundamental disagreement over the nature of God.
These errors do not make members of these religions necessarily evil or reprobate, nor does it mean that all of their teachings are wrong,
No offence taken and happy to have you on the ping list.
Believe it or not I don’t consider myself one who argues really. I try and toss out there what I hold to be true
and hope that it sticks—with God’s help.
No doubt He quoted the Scriptures (the Old Testament) because He was their fulfillment. But what are we to do with the New Testament? Where did He say they were to be the sole rule of Faith along with the Old Testament?
Yeshua never told us to follow anything but Torah.
There was no “new testament” when he was alive.
To the extent that any NT writing is compliant with what is set out in Torah, (and all that I have read are) we should follow them.
The almost-never-used church of Christ Ping List...
You’ll want to get me off of your ping list as soon as possible.
Oops. Would YOU please take me off of your ping list at your earliest convenience.
Tremendous amount of misinformation on here.
It’s one thing to twist facts to make a political point. Best to approach the Almighty with a bit more humility.
Wrong! The Disciples of Christ (Christian Church) is a denomination which was formed out of the Restoration Movement in the Sixties. Those Christian Churches, which did not join the denomination are known as the Independent Christian Churches.
There is considerable misinformation about the churches of Christ in the above article and comments. I will attempt to address them tomorrow. Grace and peace, G B
Ah, I see the Roman Catholic mafia finally got around to your denomination. Earlier today they posted against the Lutherans. Luther seems to be their favorite straw man. That is what these Catholic Answers articles are all about...creating straw man arguments for cut and paste ease for the Biblically illiterate. I await your most informed response most eagerly DR. Gary.
Wrong! The Disciples of Christ (Christian Church) is a denomination which was formed out of the Restoration Movement in the Sixties. Those Christian Churches, which did not join the denomination are known as the Independent Christian Churches.
There is considerable misinformation about the churches of Christ in the above article and comments. I will attempt to address them tomorrow. Grace and peace, G B
>> “Wrong! The Disciples of Christ (Christian Church) is a denomination which was formed out of the Restoration Movement in the Sixties.” <<
My wife’s Grandfather was a DOC minister before WW II.
>> “That is what these Catholic Answers articles are all about...creating straw man arguments for cut and paste ease for the Biblically illiterate.” <<
My wifes Grandfather was a DOC minister before WW II.
Up until the Sixties the Restoration Movement consisted of the Disciples of Christ and the churches of Christ. Both groups were composed of independent churches. The liberal branches of the DoC broke off from the conservative branch in the Sixties, and formed the DoC Denomination, with the conservatives now labeled the independent Christian Churches. I am ordained in the latter, but have my membership in the church of Christ.
Liberal is an understatement!
They are out and out Marxists to the core. They make the Unitarians look conservative.
I am not a member of the DoC, but I am very familiar with the denomination. To equate them with either Marxists or Unitarians is simply not true.
On the Lords Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, 11 which said: Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.
NIV. (Re 1:1011). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Is the true church the Catholic Church, Baptist, or churches of Christ? Which of the seven churches listed above did Christ claim as His own? Clearly being the oldest wasn't listed as one of the attributes He desires. The Lord is looking for those who love Him, and humbly worship Him in spirit and truth.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
All of them. They were all local churches, just as we have today the Diocese of Fresno or the church at Fresno or the Diocese of Los Angeles or the church at Los Angeles that belong to His Church. And they are all Catholic.
"Clearly being the oldest wasn't listed as one of the attributes He desires."
It's a matter of being the right one and that is the one that has the pedigree going right back to the first century.
When did your church start?
If it wasn't in the first century then it can't possibly the one established by Christ.
And followed it up with (or some variation of) "But I say unto you...." at least 5 times.
Oh, so the Lord picks out a church, and the members can live without faith. Maybe some of your churches are the ones at Ephesus, and Christ has removed His lampstand. Rev. 2:5
Are you a member of the church at Pergamum, and have members holding to the teaching of Baalam? Likewise, do any of your members hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans? God looks at the heart and not if someone is a great-g-g-g-grandson of someone who had faith. It's the faith He sees now, not what your ancestors did for Him.
>> “And followed it up with (or some variation of) “But I say unto you....” at least 5 times.” <<
And not one of those five times in any way altered what is written.
>> “To equate them with either Marxists or Unitarians is simply not true.” <<
Churches full of “peace” symbols, “pro choice” posters, and schedules for “action” protests say that you are quite mistaken.
I will say my rosary for you to night.
Such satanic linkage can do me no harm, for the Holy Spirit watches over me.
>> “t’s a matter of being the right one and that is the one that has the pedigree going right back to the first century.” <<
A church cannot save.
Salvation is a one on one face to face between you and Yeshua. Is your name written in the Book of Life?
Actually it will probably do you some good, but only if you really are open to the Holy Spirit.
It was the Holy Spirit that showed me that the RCC is the “synagogue of Satan.”
*SNERK* and that is a more intelligent reply than your comment deserves. feel free to have the last word, I know how important that is to certain individuals.
Obviously, you didn't read my tag-line.
That is the exception.