OneheartinChrist : Messages : 1-30 of 1998

Messages: Show Message Summaries (Group by Topic) Sort by Date

#30 From: Keith@...
Date: Sun Jul 3, 2005 6:33 am
Subject: Re: Do many in the Lord's church follow human traditions? reginaldsisman
Offline
Send Email

Marion writing to Josh says "Even some of our Greek manuscripts and some of
the translations have Paul being the author. Our beloved KJV has him being
the author".

Keith adds, so does Wycliffe (1380) and Tyndale (1525).

Keith

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (27)

#29 From: "Josh Haley" <jdhaley@...>
Date: Sun Jul 3, 2005 4:30 am
Subject: Great Christian Internet sites jdhaley@...
Send Email

I would like to encourage everyone to check out these internet sites. There
are many great articles posted on the following sites, worthy of your
consideration and comments. There are a lot of Liberal Christians that like
to post and comment, and we could always use some help showing them the
correct way.

Josh Haley
www.1peter411.blogspot.com
www.contendingforthefaith.blogspot.com
www.2timothy316.blogspot.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Elliott" <scott73132@...>
To: <OneheartinChrist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 9:02 PM
Subject: [OneheartinChrist] Writer of Hebrews


> Brother Haley,
>
> Hebrews 2:3 could be referring to the personal ministry of Christ while on
> the earth.  If that is the case then Paul could still be the author.
> Throughout the book of Hebrews the author associates himself with the
> readers (3:14; 4:1-3, 11, 14-16; 6:1, 3, etc.).  This is how I try to
> preach
> as well.  When I am preaching I try to say we instead of you.  I would
> read
> Robert Milligan's comments on these passages.  He has some good things to
> say about what you are arguing.
>
> Scott Elliott
>
> www.1peter411.blogspot.com
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#28 From: "Josh Haley" <jdhaley@...>
Date: Sun Jul 3, 2005 4:13 am
Subject: Re: Writer of Hebrews jdhaley@...
Send Email

Josh here.

These are good points. However, each time the Apostle associates himself with the readers (from his epistles), the association is true for him as well. However, he cannot associate himself with his readers in a way that makes himself contradict a direct statement in another passage of scripture. For example, Paul can say from Heb. 3:14 that 'we' (he) was made a partaker, because he was made a partaker. Paul could have associated himself with the readers from 4:11 also because it applies to him as well. However, he could not say that unto him the gospel was preached, because that is not true for Paul, as Gal. 1:11ff states, esp. vs. 12.

Be that as it may- Scott, Brant, you are not far from the truth!

Your friend

josh

----- Original Message -----

From: Brant Stubblefield

To: OneheartinChrist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 9:25 PM

Subject: Re: [OneheartinChrist] Writer of Hebrews

I believe Paul was the author of Hebrews, too.

Brant

Scott Elliott <scott73132@...> wrote:

Brother Haley, Hebrews 2:3 could be referring to the personal ministry of Christ while on the earth. If that is the case then Paul could still be the author. Throughout the book of Hebrews the author associates himself with the readers (3:14; 4:1-3, 11, 14-16; 6:1, 3, etc.). This is how I try to preach as well. When I am preaching I try to say we instead of you. I would read Robert Milligan's comments on these passages. He has some good things to say about what you are arguing. Scott Elliott www.1peter411.blogspot.com _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (27)

#27 From: Brant Stubblefield <preacherbrant@...>
Date: Sun Jul 3, 2005 2:25 am
Subject: Re: Writer of Hebrews preacherbrant
Offline
Send Email

I believe Paul was the author of Hebrews, too.

Brant

Scott Elliott <scott73132@...> wrote:

Brother Haley, Hebrews 2:3 could be referring to the personal ministry of Christ while on the earth. If that is the case then Paul could still be the author. Throughout the book of Hebrews the author associates himself with the readers (3:14; 4:1-3, 11, 14-16; 6:1, 3, etc.). This is how I try to preach as well. When I am preaching I try to say we instead of you. I would read Robert Milligan's comments on these passages. He has some good things to say about what you are arguing. Scott Elliott www.1peter411.blogspot.com _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (27)

#26 From: "Scott Elliott" <scott73132@...>
Date: Sun Jul 3, 2005 2:02 am
Subject: Writer of Hebrews scott73132
Offline
Send Email

Brother Haley,

Hebrews 2:3 could be referring to the personal ministry of Christ while on
the earth.  If that is the case then Paul could still be the author.
Throughout the book of Hebrews the author associates himself with the
readers (3:14; 4:1-3, 11, 14-16; 6:1, 3, etc.).  This is how I try to preach
as well.  When I am preaching I try to say we instead of you.  I would read
Robert Milligan's comments on these passages.  He has some good things to
say about what you are arguing.

Scott Elliott

www.1peter411.blogspot.com

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (27)

#25 From: MARION FOX <mrfox@...>
Date: Sun Jul 3, 2005 1:13 am
Subject: Writer of Hebrews marion4343
Offline
Send Email

Fellows,

Do not let my irony cause you to stop a discussion of the question of who wrote the book of Hebrews. I will just sit at my computer and enjoy the discussion and probably learn from it.

You will note that I gave this thread a new title.

Two points regarding proper participation in the discussion group.

1-Always identify yourself when you post to the group.

2-Always give your post a title appropriate with the subject being discussed.

3-Always conduct yourself as a Christian on the list (and off the list).

Yours in His service,

Marion R. Fox

http://www.okcsbs.com/

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (27)

#24 From: MARION FOX <mrfox@...>
Date: Sun Jul 3, 2005 12:23 am
Subject: Re: Do many in the Lord's church follow human traditions? marion4343
Offline
Send Email

Marion here,

Now, Josh, I must protest soundly because the second century church and most thereafter argued that Paul wrote Hebrews. We have the word of most of the people who were born after the age of miracles. Even some of our Greek manuscripts and some of the translations have Paul being the author. Our beloved KJV has him being the author. Therefore I reject your appeal the a logical interpretation of the Scriptures to prove your case (I have the word of most of the church [those born after the age of miracles] on my side, you only have a rational appeal to the Scriptures on your side).

Yours in His service,

Marion R. Fox

http://www.okcsbs.com/

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (27)

#23 From: "Josh Haley" <jdhaley@...>
Date: Sat Jul 2, 2005 11:53 pm
Subject: Re: Do many in the Lord's church follow human traditions? jdhaley@...
Send Email

Humm, I love controversy, so Let me start! Paul told the Galatians something regarding himself that he told no one else in a letter addressed to them. In strengthening their Faith in Christ and removing doubt to his authority, Paul said in Galatians 1:11-12 "For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ." Are we then to assume when the writer of Hebrews states the following that It is Paul that is stating it? Hebrews 2:3-4 "how shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation? which having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard; God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders, and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will."

Paul cannot state that he neither was taught the gospel by men nor received it by men and then state that he was taught by them that heard. Also, was not Paul one that God bore witness with by both signs and wonders? It would be a contradiction for Paul to state this.

Some say that Paul is just putting himself in the place of the receivers of the letter. He does this in many places, such as Ephesians 2:5 "even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved),". This statement does put Paul in the same place as those he is addressing, yet it is a true statement for Paul as well, as he had been dead through trespasses and then made alive through his obedience. Paul cannot put himself in the place of those he addresses if the statement is false for Paul, such as being taught the gospel by them that received it.

Anyway, Marion was egging us on, we all witnessed it. So I thought I'd chime in.

Josh Haley.

----- Original Message -----

From: MARION FOX

To: OneheartinChrist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 11:06 PM

Subject: [OneheartinChrist] Do many in the Lord's church follow human traditions?

To all on the One Heart List,

It is good to have you on the list.

One of the most bothersome things to me is that realization that many of our brethren are driven by human traditions. I hear men say "that is what we have always taught" or "that is what we have always done" or "that is what we have always believed" as justification for what they are teaching, believing, and/or doing.

What we should hear is: That is what the Bible teaches" or "that is what we find practiced in the Scriptures" or "we believe that because ______ (passage of Scripture) teaches it."

I have now completed the second Volume on the work of the Holy Spirit and should go to the printer with the manuscript some time next week. Now I will have more time to devote to some other pressing matters. However in this second Volume (as well as in the first Volume) I pointed out how many of our brethren justify their arguments by what men who were born after the age of miracles taught. For example, one will say "Guy N. Woods taught such and such, therefore it must be true." Guy N. Woods was a great man but he was not inspired of God and infallible. I prefer to quote Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James, and Judge (and the writer of Hebrews - probably Paul). In my studies on these matters I found that many of the books written by our brethren (even those who are teaching the truth on these matters) are filled with "proofs" that are nothing more than quotations of men born after the age of miracles.

If the evidence we give for our faith is quotations of men born after the age of miracles, then our faith is not based upon the Word of God (it is based upon human tradition). I hope our faith is built upon the message of God's Word (Rom. 10:17). I remind you that the word translated "hearing" (Rom. 10:17) is a noun, not a verb or participle. The word translated "hearing" is the same word translated "report" (Rom. 10:16 [note also Jn. 12:48]). Our faith comes from the Isaiah's report (the gospel - Rom. 10:16) not from the writings of men born after the age of miracles.

Now then my comment "probably Paul" may stir up another bit of controversy and cause some discussion. Have at it everyone.

Yours in His service,

Marion R. Fox

http://www.okcsbs.com/

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (27)

#22 From: Keith@...
Date: Sat Jul 2, 2005 4:32 pm
Subject: Re: One Cup reginaldsisman
Offline
Send Email

Johnny Hinton writes:

"Interestingly, but the article to which I referred in an earlier post does
also indicate that a silver cup DOES in fact aid in the antiseptic work."

Hi Johnny, I do not deny this, it's just in my humble oppinion does not aid
enough :)

Keith

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)

#21 From: "Johnny Hinton" <j_d_hinton@...>
Date: Sat Jul 2, 2005 4:27 pm
Subject: RE: Re: One Cup j_d_hinton
Offline
Send Email

The one cup issue is one for sure that you want ALL sick people to stay home
and absolutely no tobacco chewers or dippers in the congregation.



CHURCHES OF CHRIST
The Christ  ~  The Church  ~  The Christians
T h e r e   i s   o n l y   o n e !
(John 14:6; Matt. 16:18; Acts 2:47; Rom. 16:16; Eph. 4:4-6)

Johnny D. Hinton, Evangelist
Deer Creek Church of Christ / 6225 NW 178th St. / Edmond, OK 73003

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)

#20 From: "Johnny Hinton" <j_d_hinton@...>
Date: Sat Jul 2, 2005 4:26 pm
Subject: RE: Re: One Cup j_d_hinton
Offline
Send Email

Keith,

Interestingly, but the article to which I referred in an earlier post does
also indicate that a silver cup DOES in fact aid in the antiseptic work.



CHURCHES OF CHRIST
The Christ  ~  The Church  ~  The Christians
T h e r e   i s   o n l y   o n e !
(John 14:6; Matt. 16:18; Acts 2:47; Rom. 16:16; Eph. 4:4-6)

Johnny D. Hinton, Evangelist
Deer Creek Church of Christ / 6225 NW 178th St. / Edmond, OK 73003

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)

#19 From: "Johnny Hinton" <j_d_hinton@...>
Date: Sat Jul 2, 2005 4:24 pm
Subject: RE: One Cup j_d_hinton
Offline
Send Email

Willam Rushton wrote about getting a sore throat after a one cup experience.

William I believe that once only coincidental.

My brother in law works for the Health Department and he gave me an article
several years ago about the one cup issue.

It was some research done in England.  Apparently the Anglican church, much
like the Roman, is a one cup tradition.  The concern of the Ministry of
Health was communicable diseases.

They did a diligent study of the possibility and probability of passing
disease by means of the common cup.

They decided that there was virtually zero risk involved.  They said there
was not only an absence of actual cases.  But also that their study showed
the extreme difficulty in passing germs.

It seems that grape juice is a very strong natural antiseptic.  It begins to
kill bacteria in as quick as 15 seconds.  One study that they did showed the
cup to be completely germ free in as little as 30 minutes...after 100 people
has drooled into it intentionally... not just taking a sip.  Kinda sick
but...

The darker the grape the better, and the alcohol in wine actual reduces
rather than enhances the antiseptic strength.

I have no problem with those who choose to be one cup.  The problem is when
they make our multiple cup a matter of fellowship and therefore salvation.



CHURCHES OF CHRIST
The Christ  ~  The Church  ~  The Christians
T h e r e   i s   o n l y   o n e !
(John 14:6; Matt. 16:18; Acts 2:47; Rom. 16:16; Eph. 4:4-6)

Johnny D. Hinton, Evangelist
Deer Creek Church of Christ / 6225 NW 178th St. / Edmond, OK 73003

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)

#18 From: Keith@...
Date: Sat Jul 2, 2005 4:21 pm
Subject: Re: One Cup reginaldsisman
Offline
Send Email

Hi brother Scott,

No you would not if you knew the elder Frank :(

What really gets to me is that these folks reject multi cups as
un-scriptural, but have two 'one' cups, is that not multi cup? :-)

The weird thing is that in other areas they are liberal, there are many
congregations like that in the UK, liberal but one cup. I no longer have
fellowship with them. This event happened when I was a new Christian and
knew too little. The church here is divided over various matters including
baptism, MDR and who is a Christian.

Brotherly, Keith



> Brother Keith,
>
> I like you would want to be on the front pew in that situation.
>
> Scott Elliott
>

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)

#17 From: "Scott Elliott" <scott73132@...>
Date: Sat Jul 2, 2005 4:05 pm
Subject: RE: Re: One Cup scott73132
Offline
Send Email

Brother Keith,

I like you would want to be on the front pew in that situation.

Scott Elliott

www.1peter411.blogspot.com



>From: Keith@...
>Reply-To: OneheartinChrist@yahoogroups.com
>To: OneheartinChrist@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [OneheartinChrist] Re: One Cup
>Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 10:14:10 -0400
>
>Hi Mike,
>
>Greetings from England, land of the 'one' cuppers..
>
>The church at Corby (England) uses two 'one' cups (yes, it is a doctrinal
>issue), so in order not to get a sore throat or worse (anyone who knows
>anything about Corby would not wish to drink from a 'one' cup), I with my
>family sat right at the front. One of the elders (Frank) ordered me and my
>family away to the back! He sits right at the front with his wife!!
>
>They argue that the electrolysis caused by the silver in reaction with the
>grape kills any lurgies in the juice, I'm not convinced and prefer cheap
>American plastic to quality English silver on this matter!
>
>We here at Ramsey use American multi plastic cups but our container is
>English being very heavy, made of solid brass, it seems an excellent
>compromise :)
>
>Brotherly, Keith
>
>
>
> > Marion, this is William I am using my yahoo email for the group
> > instead of outlook express.  I was wondering how you feel about using
> > just One Cup and One loaf of bread for the Lord's Supper?  Me and
> > Caren my wife went to a small Church of Christ here in Wichita Falls,
> > TX and that is what they used they said it was safe but 3 days after
> > that first time I came down with a sore throat.
> >
> > Mike
> >
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee�
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)

#16 From: Keith@...
Date: Sat Jul 2, 2005 2:14 pm
Subject: Re: One Cup reginaldsisman
Offline
Send Email

Hi Mike,

Greetings from England, land of the 'one' cuppers..

The church at Corby (England) uses two 'one' cups (yes, it is a doctrinal
issue), so in order not to get a sore throat or worse (anyone who knows
anything about Corby would not wish to drink from a 'one' cup), I with my
family sat right at the front. One of the elders (Frank) ordered me and my
family away to the back! He sits right at the front with his wife!!

They argue that the electrolysis caused by the silver in reaction with the
grape kills any lurgies in the juice, I'm not convinced and prefer cheap
American plastic to quality English silver on this matter!

We here at Ramsey use American multi plastic cups but our container is
English being very heavy, made of solid brass, it seems an excellent
compromise :)

Brotherly, Keith



> Marion, this is William I am using my yahoo email for the group
> instead of outlook express.  I was wondering how you feel about using
> just One Cup and One loaf of bread for the Lord's Supper?  Me and
> Caren my wife went to a small Church of Christ here in Wichita Falls,
> TX and that is what they used they said it was safe but 3 days after
> that first time I came down with a sore throat.
>
> Mike
>

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)

#15 From: "Michael Rushton" <william_m_rushton@...>
Date: Sat Jul 2, 2005 1:28 pm
Subject: One Cup william_m_ru...
Offline
Send Email

Marion, this is William I am using my yahoo email for the group
instead of outlook express.  I was wondering how you feel about using
just One Cup and One loaf of bread for the Lord's Supper?  Me and
Caren my wife went to a small Church of Christ here in Wichita Falls,
TX and that is what they used they said it was safe but 3 days after
that first time I came down with a sore throat.

Mike

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)

#14 From: MARION FOX <mrfox@...>
Date: Fri Jul 1, 2005 2:31 pm
Subject: Re: Do many in the Lord's church follow human traditions? marion4343
Offline
Send Email

Marion here,

Andy, I probably did not write clearly. I intended to make this a matter of human traditions (not the traditions of the apostles [the Word of God]). When I was writing my Vol. II on the work of the Holy Spirit, I found several books that contained almost no arguments except quotations of what our brethren have taught. One particularly comes to mind: "A resource and reference volume on the Holy Spirit" by Goebel Music. Most of his book (1400+ pages) is mostly just the quotations of men who assert (without offering any proof) the position that Goebel is trying to prove. He does have one argument in his book (he quotes denominational authorities when they are functioning as commentators). I do not see any arguments that he establishes from anything but human traditions.

Allow me to comment on your comments.

Boshers <boshers@...> wrote:

I am not anti-tradition. I believe traditions are good. 2 Thess 2:15 agrees!

Marion here,

Andy, I agree that the traditions of the apostles must be followed, but I was writing of the traditions of men (cf. Mt. 15 for a discussion of human traditions [cf. Gal. 1:14 also]). There are only two sources of authority (Mt. 21:25, Mk. 11:30, Lk. 20:4, etc.).

We practice some traditions that are founded in generic authority. For example we assembly for worship on the first day of the week at the Barnes congregation at 10:30 AM. This is our tradition but it is based upon scriptural authority. If we were to make a law saying that we cannot fellowship congregations that meet at any other time on the first day of the week, we would be wrong. The traditions that we practice that are good must have scriptural authority in order to be good. Nothing is good unless it is derived from the Word of God.

You continued:

If we have taught, believed or done something that is right and scriptural, then there is no reason to change. Change for the sake of change is not taught in the Bible that I can find.

Marion here,

I agree with this totally. The key here is "something that is right and scriptural." How can we know it is right and Scriptural if not by sound reasoning from the Scriptures?

You continued:

I do not find traditions generally bothersome. Is there some particular tradition you have in mind that bothers you?

Marion here,

There is no particular tradition that I have in mind, it is just the justification of what we practice, by some in the church, by traditions. When we cannot justify our actions by reasonable appeals to the Scriptures (even if our actions are according to the Scriptures), then we are not walking by faith. Even if our actions are right, they must be done by faith (we must derive our authority from the Scriptures - Rom. 10:17). If the only reason that can be given for a practice, doctrine, or belief is "this is what we have always done", then we do not walk by faith (even if we practice, teach, or believe what is right). We must practice (do), teach, and believe what is right for the right reasons.

I fear that we have a number of people in the Lord's church who could not give you a reasoned-out answer to the question of why we do not use instrumental music in our worship, except to say "that is the way we have always done it or brother so-and-so taught it." (I use instrumental music here as one example of many such areas where many in the Lord's church cannot give a reasoned-out answer.)

No doctrine supported solely by human tradition can stand. Now I understand that the reason for not using instrumental music is sound but the lack of knowledge of those reasons and the justification of our practice by saying "that is the way we have always done it" is not walking by faith.

I hope that my children and grandchildren can (and will) say "we do, teach, and believe this because the Bible teaches us to do, teach, and/or believe it. They must not just assert this (as good as that is) but they must then take the Bible and prove that the Bible teaches what they do, teach, and believe.

You continued:

As for arguers providing references to the conclusions of other non-inspired scholars, I am not sure I see the harm in that. Most people can weigh the evidence and place paramount importance on what the scripture says. But if another has previously come to conclusions based on scriptural evidence, then it seems fitting to consider their work, too. As example, you read many books by non-inspired scholars in your studies on the Holy Spirit. Why did you not just read the scriptures?

Marion here,

If you have my book "The work of the Holy Spirit, Vol. I", I suggest that you read Chapter One where I discuss this question extensively. I agree with most of what you wrote (above) but I do not agree that "most people can weigh the evidence" because most people are not trained how to think logically. It is an unfortunate result of the work of the atheist John Dewey, that our school systems do not teach the students how to reason. I develop this extensively in my book "A study of the biblical flood." It is rare to find members of the Lord's church who are trained in logical thinking. I am not saying that people are not basically logical, but I am saying that the lack of training in logic makes it easier for them to be fooled by unsound reasoning.

I read the writing of non-inspired men to see what arguments from Scripture they make. I have over 80 books (my quick count showed 84) on the work of the Holy Spirit that have been written by members of the Lord's church and I have studied all of them. You will find that in my writings I do not cite what these men believe but I cite their arguments. I cite sound arguments (labeling them as sound) and unsound arguments (labeling them as unsound and showing why they are unsound) in both Volumes on the work of the Holy Spirit.

Let me say that if a doctrine cannot be established with a logical argument derived from Scripture, it is not sound. I do quote authorities in the area of Greek language (but even then I distinguish between their opinions and what they have proven). For example, when Thayer is defining a Greek word, he has his definition in italics. When Thayer is giving his commentary, he has it in other type print. Some brethren do not realize this, and improperly quote his commentary as if it were a definition. Quoting Thayer's commentary as if it were a definition is most unscholarly.

You continued:

Or is your post pointed at someone who gives no scriptural evidence at all? I have not noticed commentaries or other books by brethren that exclusively appeal to non-inspired authority. But I may have just stopped reading them if they had no other substance. And I do not read many recent publications. I generally wait till the author is dead before reading what he had to say!

Marion here,

Most of the commentaries are not guilty of totally citing traditions. It is not an either-or situation but the establishment of any doctrine solely on human tradition is what I have in mind. In the Deaver-Moffitt Debate (where I served as one of the moderators) both Mac Deaver and Jerry Moffitt spent a significant amount of their time in debating whether or not Alexander Campbell, J. W. McGarvey, Moses Lard, etc. taught the doctrine being affirmed by the disputant. This was in spite of the fact that both had affirmed propositions saying "the Bible teaches ..." I was sorely disappointed in both disputants when they went to "what the restoration preachers taught" as their authority.

I would like for you to read what I have written before I die. I hope you read this before I die! :)

You continued:

While I do not 'justify' what I believe based on what men like Woods or McGarvey or Whiteside taught, I do find it helpful to learn why they taught what they did. If I find I
disagree with their conclusions, I think long and hard before I take a stand against them. And I do not believe I am being 'driven by human traditions' if I change my mind after studying their arguments.

Marion here,

Your point here is correct. You look for their conclusions (the result of sound reasoning - hopefully sound reasoning from the Scriptures). If one does not draw his conclusions solely from the Scriptures, they are not sound. I do not accept anything these men say unless they prove it or unless I have studied it out and seen proof of it from other sources.

My purpose in my first post on this subject line was to provoke thought and make us examine our convictions. I hear such assertions that we must keep the status quo and that anyone who wishes to change the status quo needs to supply a reason to do so. I partially agree with this until it comes to a status quo that has not been established by sound reasoning from the Scriptures. This is precisely the kind of argumentation that I have heard from Mac Deaver on his error on the influence of the Holy Spirit. Others are using this kind of reasoning in their defense of other doctrines, practices, or beliefs.

(When I have used the word "beliefs" I have used it in an accommodative sense that is in the sense that the world uses it. True faith is based upon absolute evidence. I would argue that if we truly believed [as the Scriptures use the word "believe"] a thing, it is based upon the Scriptures [absolute truth].)

Yours in His service,

Marion R. Fox

http://www.okcsbs.com/

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (27)

#13 From: "j_d_hinton" <j_d_hinton@...>
Date: Fri Jul 1, 2005 2:11 pm
Subject: Hello to one and all j_d_hinton
Offline
Send Email

Hello my friends.

I hope that this new list will be to our edification and growth.

God bless you and yours.

Johnny

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#12 From: Keith@...
Date: Fri Jul 1, 2005 11:47 am
Subject: Re: Prayers needed reginaldsisman
Offline
Send Email

Dear Marion,

We're delighted to have an English family showing interest, it is rare to
have contact with English people, let alone a family. This is a marvelous
opportunity that needs prayer.

Brotherly, Keith



> Keith, we pray for the success of your efforts in converting the lost to
Christ.
>
> Yours in His service,
>
>
>
>
> Marion R. Fox
>

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (27)

#11 From: Boshers <boshers@...>
Date: Fri Jul 1, 2005 5:44 am
Subject: Re: Do many in the Lord's church follow human traditions? one_poster
Offline
Send Email

I do not know who is reading this as the memberlist is
hidden. But I will throw my line in the water and see what
comes to the surface.

I am not anti-tradition. I believe traditions are good.
2 Thess 2:15 agrees! If we have taught, believed or done
something that is right and scriptural, then there is no
reason to change. Change for the sake of change is not
taught in the Bible that I can find.

I do not find traditions generally bothersome. Is there some
particular tradition you have in mind that bothers you?

As for arguers providing references to the conclusions of
other non-inspired scholars, I am not sure I see the harm in
that. Most people can weigh the evidence and place paramount
importance on what the scripture says. But if another has
previously come to conclusions based on scriptural evidence,
then it seems fitting to consider their work, too. As
example, you read many books by non-inspired scholars in
your studies on the Holy Spirit. Why did you not just read
the scriptures?

Or is your post pointed at someone who gives no scriptural
evidence at all? I have not noticed commentaries or other
books by brethren that exclusively appeal to non-inspired
authority. But I may have just stopped reading them if they
had no other substance. And I do not read many recent
publications. I generally wait till the author is dead
before reading what he had to say!

While I do not 'justify' what I believe based on what men
like Woods or McGarvey or Whiteside taught, I do find it
helpful to learn why they taught what they did. If I find I
disagree with their conclusions, I think long and hard
before I take a stand against them. And I do not believe I
am being 'driven by human traditions' if I change my mind
after studying their arguments.

That is enough now for the discussion if anyone wants to
take the bait.

Regards,
Andy Boshers

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (27)

#10 From: MARION FOX <mrfox@...>
Date: Fri Jul 1, 2005 4:40 am
Subject: Re: Prayers needed marion4343
Offline
Send Email

Keith, we pray for the success of your efforts in converting the lost to Christ.

Yours in His service,

Marion R. Fox

http://www.okcsbs.com/

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (27)

#9 From: Keith@...
Date: Fri Jul 1, 2005 4:27 am
Subject: Prayers needed reginaldsisman
Offline
Send Email

Brethren,

We had a family visit last week, they were reached through personal
evangelism. Mum, dad and two children.

Please pray for them and us as we try to share the good news of Jesus and
salvation. The family is English, new to our area, and have no or little
religious connections. It is very strange for them coming into contact with
the Lord's Church. The main religion here is Anglican which is very
Catholic, we must seem strange!

Please pray for the work here, and the upcoming lectures in October.

Brotherly, Keith
http://www.Ramsey-church-of-Christ.org
http://www.The-English-Lectures.org

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (27)

#8 From: MARION FOX <mrfox@...>
Date: Fri Jul 1, 2005 4:06 am
Subject: Do many in the Lord's church follow human traditions? marion4343
Offline
Send Email

To all on the One Heart List,

It is good to have you on the list.

One of the most bothersome things to me is that realization that many of our brethren are driven by human traditions. I hear men say "that is what we have always taught" or "that is what we have always done" or "that is what we have always believed" as justification for what they are teaching, believing, and/or doing.

What we should hear is: That is what the Bible teaches" or "that is what we find practiced in the Scriptures" or "we believe that because ______ (passage of Scripture) teaches it."

I have now completed the second Volume on the work of the Holy Spirit and should go to the printer with the manuscript some time next week. Now I will have more time to devote to some other pressing matters. However in this second Volume (as well as in the first Volume) I pointed out how many of our brethren justify their arguments by what men who were born after the age of miracles taught. For example, one will say "Guy N. Woods taught such and such, therefore it must be true." Guy N. Woods was a great man but he was not inspired of God and infallible. I prefer to quote Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James, and Judge (and the writer of Hebrews - probably Paul). In my studies on these matters I found that many of the books written by our brethren (even those who are teaching the truth on these matters) are filled with "proofs" that are nothing more than quotations of men born after the age of miracles.

If the evidence we give for our faith is quotations of men born after the age of miracles, then our faith is not based upon the Word of God (it is based upon human tradition). I hope our faith is built upon the message of God's Word (Rom. 10:17). I remind you that the word translated "hearing" (Rom. 10:17) is a noun, not a verb or participle. The word translated "hearing" is the same word translated "report" (Rom. 10:16 [note also Jn. 12:48]). Our faith comes from the Isaiah's report (the gospel - Rom. 10:16) not from the writings of men born after the age of miracles.

Now then my comment "probably Paul" may stir up another bit of controversy and cause some discussion. Have at it everyone.

Yours in His service,

Marion R. Fox

http://www.okcsbs.com/

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (27)

#7 From: "logicserch" <logicserch@...>
Date: Fri Jul 1, 2005 3:44 am
Subject: Able to post again logicserch
Offline
Send Email

Gary S Smith logicserch@yahoo .com writes-->

It is refreshing to be able to freely post again. Group members --
Please do not hold back. Let's talk and learn about God's word, HIs
people, and what we can do to help win the souls of men and women. It
is good to be here. Now, where are you guys?  Sincerely Gary S Smith

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (27)

#6 From: Brant Stubblefield <preacherbrant@...>
Date: Thu Jun 30, 2005 5:47 pm
Subject: Re: Gospel publications preacherbrant
Offline
Send Email

Reflections is a new publication that is sound in the faith, and a breath of fresh air. Do you receive it? If not, write to us at reflections, c/o church of Christ, 1205 W Cherokee, Lindsay, Ok 73052. The subscription is free, although donations are appreciated.

In Him, Brant Stubblefield, edito

"Donald K. Lord" <dklord@...> wrote:

Brethren, What publications do you read and recommend that are solid true to the gospel? Thank you, Don Lord

Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (2)

#5 From: "Donald K. Lord" <dklord@...>
Date: Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:49 pm
Subject: Gospel publications donlordinyukon
Offline
Send Email

Brethren,

What publications do you read and recommend that are solid true to the
gospel?

Thank you,

Don Lord

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (2)

#4 From: "neverprosper" <benjamin.j.williams@...>
Date: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:23 am
Subject: Authority of a Non-Christian Man neverprosper
Offline
Send Email

For your consideration:

Does a non-Christian man have any spiritual authority?

If not, does he have some other kind of authority that woman would
usurp while teaching with authority?

If not, why can't a woman teach with authority a non-Christian man?
Why can't a woman preach to a non-Christian man?

I'm still trying to get things straight.  Sorry for all messes that I
have made.

Ben

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (32)

#3 From: MARION FOX <mrfox@...>
Date: Sat Jun 25, 2005 9:27 pm
Subject: Re: New List marion4343
Offline
Send Email

Yes, we will allow any honest questions. We will even allow some dishonest questions on this list (we may not know whether or not they are dishonest). I understand that the list is limited to 50 people (by the rules of Yahoo). I will be inviting about 8 to 10 people per day until we reach about 40 people on the list (I will leave about 10 openings to be able to add people later).

Yours in His service,

The Bellah's <bellah426@...> wrote:

Marion,

Will you allow people to ask honest questions on this list? Just wondering.

John Bellah

Marion R. Fox

http://www.okcsbs.com/

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (3)

#2 From: "The Bellah's" <bellah426@...>
Date: Sat Jun 25, 2005 8:53 pm
Subject: New List bellah426@...
Send Email

Marion,

Will you allow people to ask honest questions on this list? Just wondering.

John Bellah

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (3)

#1 From: MARION FOX <mrfox@...>
Date: Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:56 pm
Subject: Introduction to our new list marion4343
Offline
Send Email

Brethren:

We will begin our discussion list with some basic information about our list. All of you know me and most of you know Gary Smith. I am officially the moderator of the list but Gary will be helping me with this work.

We expect everyone to conduct themselves as Christians. We do not expect anyone to use foul language, profanity, or insults on our list. Any person who posts should be treated with respect (even if his/her post seems irrational). All of us are unreasonable sometimes.

We do not expect that you will use any sarcasm in your posts (even with the smiley face after the sarcasm).

Let us go to the Scriptures and them alone for our authority for what we practice.

If you do not want to be on the list, just go to the instructions and have yourself deleted.

You must sign your name to each post and must not post more than five posts per day. There is also a limit to the length of each post. Do not just resend the post to which you are giving a reply (only quote a much as you need to make your point clear). There is a limit to the size of our files.

Yours in His service,

Marion R. Fox

http://www.okcsbs.com/

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...

Messages

Yahoo! My Yahoo! Mail
	Sign In New User? Sign Up
		Groups Home - Help

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...

Best of Y! Groups

Messages