This entry was posted on 8/24/2007 6:49 AM and is filed under uncategorized.
We hear about the "unchurched." Those persons who may profess to be Christians but do not attend anywhere regularly. In this lesson, we examine should a person "be in a church" and if so which church would God "put you in." We use some answers from "Ask The Pastor." A VERY good call comes in at the end to demonstrate the attitude so many people have about the church. WATCH!
10/8/2007 4:18 PM
Randy wrote:
biblesays81@hotmail.com, maxey@zianet.com
Johnny, I watched the message you preached on TV last Sunday night and you were preaching about a "pattern" that Christians are to follow. I have pasted some questions below from someone else in the church of Christ who sent these questions to another brother in Christ ( Al Maxey ). I have copied Al on this email and await your reply, so please hit reply to all, so Al can join the conversation. Al says he will be happy to discuss these things via email dialog. I have done much reading and chatting with people accross the nation, who are in the church of Christ and have seen that there are many claiming to teach the right pattern, but teaching diff things on the same subjects. Please answer the questions below and reply to Al amd myself. I know you are having a tent meeting and may take a while to reply. I couldnt remember Norms or James email, so feel free to send this to them if you dont have time to address the questions. Thanks. Reply to this
I couldn't find any better spot to write a response to your broadcast of Oct 14, so I'll put it here. I’d like to answer your argument about the qualifications of an elder.
I disagree with your strawman argument about the issue of Peter having children. First, the minister with whom you are bickering said that he couldn't find a passage in the Bible that said Peter had children. This is not a dishonest statement. You didn't find a passage that said he did, either - you found a passage that said he was an elder. So, your argument that he had children depended upon your interpretation of Scripture that an elder must have children.
So, let’s look at the passages that discuss the qualifications for an elder:
1 Timothy 3:12 says “the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well."; 1 Timothy 3:4 says "One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;" Titus 1:6 says “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.”
All three passages deal with the way that a deacon should relate with his family – the obvious reason being that the way he relates with his family will reflect the way he relates with the folks in the Body.
If you study the Greek text, you find that these passages are open to the interpretation that you put forward – that a deacon must be married, and he must have children. However, you also find that they are also open to the interpretation that if he is married then he must be married to only one woman (or be a “one-woman man”) and if he has children, then his children must be well-raised; that it is not necessary to be married and have children to be an elder.
In other words the passage is open to either interpretation.
So, according to your opponent’s interpretation of Scripture, the Bible doesn’t say Peter had children. According to your interpretation of Scripture, you can deduce that Peter did have children. The bottom line is that it’s all a matter of interpretation. You might have other reasons for doing so, but this particular argument is certainly not conclusive enough to warrant labeling your opponent as a “false teacher”.
If I can give my opinion, your view also does not seem to be appropriate in light of Paul's advise of 1 Corinthians 7:8,9 "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." It seems doubtful that Paul would give advice to young, unmarried men that would disqualify them from the potential of church leadership. It must also be noted that Paul was himself single (perhaps a widower), although he was definitely part of the church leadership.
On a different note, If I might make a suggestion, don’t spend so much time playing and replaying clips either from the pastors you are discussing or from past shows. Play it once and move forward. Reply to this
10/19/2007 7:12 AM
James Oldfield wrote:
Nathan, First let me say that one problem you are having is not understanding the difference in a "pastor" (bishop,elder, overseer, presbyter, shepherd) and a "minister." You use those interchangeably and the Bible does not. Then later in you response you say "a deacon." True, Paul does give the qualifications for a deacon in 1 Tim 3, but we are talking about an ELDER (bishop, pastor, overseer, presbyter, shepherd). Please use the correct terms in you discussing this matter.
My statement that Peter MUST have had children was not "my interpretation." It was based upon correct reasoning from the Scriptures. An elder MUST have, among other things, children "having his children in subjection with all gravity"
If you, like the lady who called in last night, want to make this an option because "must" is not before the statement, then which of the other qualifications for an elder are optional? Will you please tell me? 1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Come on Nathan, I would like to see which are optional and which are mandatory (must).
Concerning your suggestion on clips, it must be hard to hear a preacher that you think is telling you the Truth be exposed as telling a lie. You and they would want me to "play it once and move on."
And concerning last nights program, the lesson was about how people can be presented with the Truth and still reject it and believe a lie. I did not use this topic as a point until near the beginning of the second hour. But it just goes to show that you seem to be one of the ones who are being deluded to believe a lie (2 Thess 2:10-12) Reply to this
I acknowledge that I ran the qualifications for bishop and deacon together. Would you say that according to your interpretation of Scripture, both a bishop and a deacon must be married and have children? If so, then it really doesn’t matter that I ran them together, because the argument is the same.
You wrote: “An elder MUST have, among other things, children "having his children in subjection with all gravity"
James, be careful that you don’t misrepresent Scripture. The Bible does not say that an elder “must have children, ‘having his children in subjection with all gravity’”. If it said that, I’d agree with you. It says an elder must “have his children in subjection with all gravity”. “Children” only appears once, and the emphases is not on the fact that he must have children, but that he must have them “in subjection with all gravity” – or he must raise his children to behave a certain way.
Likewise, the issue with the wife is not that he must have a wife, but that he must be “the husband of one wife” – which can be interpreted that he mustn’t be married multiple times (either through divorce and remarriage, or polygamy).
You like to consider yourself a person who reasons correctly – well reason this: if you are trying to say that a person must be married, isn’t it reasonable that you would say “an elder must be married” rather than that he “must be the husband of one wife”? It seems that the emphasis here is on “one”. Also, wouldn’t you say “an elder must have children” instead of “have his children in subjection with all gravity”?
I realize that you spend most of your days putting people into boxes, but I’d appreciate it if you would avoid doing that with me. I’m not from this area, and I don’t know anything about the people whose clips you play except what you say about them. My point is from an audience perspective, that it is extremely irritating for you to loop a quote over and over ad nauseum. I know you think you are making a strong point by doing that, but what you are doing is coming across as unprofessional (from a media standpoint) and petty. Give your audience the benefit of the doubt that they can hear the point you are trying to make after you play it once.
James, your program last night was an almost exact copy of your Sunday night program. You talked about the tent meeting, you launched into your “serpent” accusations, you played a few clips of people with whom you disagree, and then you spent the majority of the program dealing (again) with this issue of whether or not Peter had children.
What lie am I deluded into believing? Is it a lie that what you did was bad in terms of quality broadcasting? I felt like I had tuned into a rebroadcast of Sunday’s program, just with different callers (except for Billy - he's an interesting bloke, isn't he?).
I acknowledge that I ran the qualifications for bishop and deacon together. Would you say that according to your interpretation of Scripture, both a bishop and a deacon must be married and have children? If so, then it really doesn’t matter that I ran them together, because the argument is the same.
You wrote: “An elder MUST have, among other things, children "having his children in subjection with all gravity"
James, be careful that you don’t misrepresent Scripture. The Bible does not say that an elder “must have children, ‘having his children in subjection with all gravity’”. If it said that, I’d agree with you. It says an elder must “have his children in subjection with all gravity”. “Children” only appears once, and the emphases is not on the fact that he must have children, but that he must have them “in subjection with all gravity” – or he must raise his children to behave a certain way.
Likewise, the issue with the wife is not that he must have a wife, but that he must be “the husband of one wife” – which can be interpreted that he mustn’t be married multiple times (either through divorce and remarriage, or polygamy).
You like to consider yourself a person who reasons correctly – well reason this: if you are trying to say that a person must be married, isn’t it reasonable that you would say “a elder must be married” rather than that he “must be the husband of one wife”? It seems that the emphasis here is on “one”. Also, wouldn’t you say “an elder must have children” instead of “have his children in subjection with all gravity”?
I realize that you spend most of your days putting people into boxes, but I’d appreciate it if you would avoid doing that with me. I’m not from this area, and I don’t know anything about the people whose clips you play except what you say about them. My point is from an audience perspective, that it is extremely irritating for you to play loop a quote over and over ad nauseum. I know you think you are making a strong point by doing that, but what you are doing is coming across as unprofessional (from a media standpoint) and petty. Give your audience the benefit of the doubt that they can hear the point you are trying to make after you play it once.
James, your program last night was an almost exact copy of your Sunday night program. You talked about the tent meeting, you launched into your “serpent” thing, you played a few clips of people with whom you disagree, and then you spent the majority of the program dealing (again) with this issue of whether or not Peter had children.
What lie am I deluded into believing? Is it a lie that what you did was bad in terms of quality broadcasting? I felt like I had tuned into a rebroadcast of Sunday’s program, just with different callers (except for Billy).
10/22/2007 8:18 AM
James Oldfield wrote:
Nathan, I will again ask you if MUST only qualifies that a bishop be "blameless" then does that make the other qualifications optional? You seem to want to tiptoe around that question but the answers you give seem to leave that impression. Am I right or wrong?
Nathan, I agree that the Bible says that an elder must have children in subjection with all gravity. That brings me back to my first question that you never have really answered. Does this mean that children are optional or not? Or is it saying that "in the even that he has children, they must be in subjection?" That is what I want you to answer.
The same is true with the wife. "Husband of one wife" is saying that he must not be a polygamist nor in an unscriptural marriage, BUT how can he be "the husband of one wife" unless he is married? Again, are you saying this qualification is just "in the event that he is married?"
"Must" qualifies all of the qualities listed. Furthermore, Paul states in Titus: "If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly." (Titus 1:6) The qualifications listed, therefore, require that a man MUST be married and MUST have children AND that is further qualifies what his marriage is like and what his children are like.
Also, Nathan, another qualification of elders is: "One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) (1 Tim 3:4-5). How would he be a man that "ruleth well his own house" if he did not have a wife and children?
This is why I only responded with my previous question of whether these are optional or not. I a man does not HAVE to have children or a wife, what then stops us from saying the rest only apply in certain situations?
As far as looping the clips, I have been in the teaching field for some time as well as coming from a family of teachers and one thing I have learned is "repetition" is the key to learning and that is why I "make the point" so many times because I do not want it missed. Plus, the preachers etc are the ones who are irritated as well and that is part of the reason. They do not like to hear themselves speak falsely over and over. They would hope that the audience would miss there "faux pas".
Also, (and not that I am trying to be "entertaining"), but many of the people I speak to find a great deal of "entertainment" in the looped pieces. But thanks for the input.
Let me get the lighter thing out of the way - bottom line, it's your show, your money pays for it, and you can run it like you'd like. That sort of looping may play well for the home crowd, but if you're trying to be convincing and reach the non-Church of Christ folks, then realize that the non-Church of Christ perspective is that it's irritating. And, I do speak for them all.
But seriously, I do understand the value of repetition in teaching, and I don't have a problem with it when it's done reasonably. But, when you (and Johnny) do it, you go beyond reasonably into the area of the beating of already dead horses. Dead horses. Dead horses. Dead horses. Already dead horses. Dead horses. Dead... de-dead horses.
See my point?
Now, to the Biblical subject:
1. I believe that the point of the passage is to tell church leadership that a bishop is to be the husband of one wife and should raise his children well. However, I don't believe that that limits bishops (and deacons, for that matter) to being married with children, and point #2 explains why.
2. Paul, one of the biggest unmarried leaders in the early church, exhorts other unmarried potential leaders in the church in Corinth to stay that way (1 Cor 7), saying "...it is good for them if they abide even as I. (1 Cor 7:8), and then goes on to deliver one of the strongest messages AGAINST marriage that you could find (1 Cor 7:32-40).
Now, using that reasoning we both like to talk so much about, doesn't it stand to reason that Paul wouldn't exclude people such as himself from positions of leadership in the body, especially when he lauds the state of being unmarried as being the end-all and be-all (vs. 38)?
Part of the problem here is that you are looking at the notion of the "house" through 21st Century eyes - as it being a nuclear family: a husband, a wife, and a couple of kids. A house in the first century could include those relationships, but there were also parents, grandparents, servants, extended family, etc. So, it is entirely possible that a man with no wife and children would have had a house to "ruleth well".
Bottom line? I read this to say that a person can be unmarried and without children and still be qualified to be a bishop. Looking over the rest of 1 Tim 3, I don't see any other ambiguous qualifications, so it's not a slippery slope.
We may just need to agree to disagree.
I have another question: why do you folks in the church of Christ only use the KJV?
Nathan, I am glad that you know all of the people who are not in the Lord's church I guess I should ask those who are not who say they do like it if they know you and if not point them to you.
Concerning elders, we are not discussing "church leadership" period. This is not an all inclusive subject. We are discussing elders which is a specific position in the church. For those in this position, they must be married. Paul was not an elder (pastor, bishop, overseer, shepherd etc) nor was he an deacon. If he were he would have to meet these qualifications.
Do you think that the qualifications to be president are flexible? Or does the person who is running have to meet the qualifications set forth in the Constitution? Did the framers mean what they wrote when they said a candidate must be a born citizen of the US? If not, AH-nold should run for President and use your reasoning.
Paul was a minister (evangelist, preacher) and as such he did not have to be married.
I think a problem you are having is one that so many people have and that is that the "pastor" is the "preacher." The Bible does make a distinction. A pastor may preach and thus be a preacher but the preacher is not necessarily a pastor.
Furthermore, according to your reasoning, could a woman be in this position?
I don't know if you received my last message, but after watching your broadcast tonight (10/18), it doesn't really matter, because you talked about the same thing.
Again.
For two hours.
I hope you don't get insulted if I say that I missed Norm.
Anyway, since your topic tonight was the same, I thought I'd resend it to you.
---
I want to answer your argument about the qualifications of an elder.
I disagree with your strawman argument about the issue of Peter having children. First, the minister with whom you are bickering said that he couldn't find a passage in the Bible that said Peter had children. This is not a dishonest statement. You didn't find a passage that said he did, either - you found a passage that said he was an elder. So, your argument that he had children depended upon your interpretation of Scripture that an elder must have children.
So, let’s look at the passages that discuss the qualifications for an elder:
1 Timothy 3:12 says that the potential deacon must be:
"the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well."
And 1 Timothy 3:4 says he must be: "One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;"
And Titus 1:6 says that a man can be a deacon: “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.”
All three passages deal with the way that a deacon should relate with his family – the obvious reason being that the way he relates with his family will directly reflect upon the way he relates with the folks in the Body.
If you study the Greek text, you find that these passages are open to the interpretation that you put forward – that a deacon must be married, and he must have children. However, you also find that they are also open to the interpretation that if he is married then he must be married to only one woman – or be a “one-woman man”, and if he has children, then his children must be well-raised; that it is not necessary to be married and have children to be an elder.
In other words the passage is open to either interpretation.
So, according to your opponent’s interpretation of Scripture, the Bible doesn’t say Peter had children. According to your interpretation of Scripture, you can deduce that Peter did have children. The bottom line is that it’s all a matter of interpretation. You might have other reasons for doing so, but this particular argument is certainly not conclusive enough to warrant labeling your opponent as a “false teacher”.
Finally, if I might make a suggestion, don’t spend so much time playing and replaying clips from past shows. Play it once and move forward. You spent so much time playing and replaying the clips of your opponent, that you didn’t have the time to address your opponent’s second issue – that of Paul not having a wife and children. Reply to this
10/22/2007 8:07 AM
James Oldfield wrote:
Nathan, We have been involved in a 2 week tent meeting where we knocked doors and passed out 6000 flyers. We were on TV for 11 hours during that time and made copies of all the lessons under the tent plus those on TV to give away each night.
I am sorry that during the 16 or 17 hour days that I was working during that time that I did not get around to answering you comments. Why did you not come out to the tent and have some of these discussions in person?
You know, I've been wondering about something with the Churches of Christ. When I was in college, I visited a congretation in Birmingham, Alabama, and they weren't using any instruments, like piano or organ. I figure you probably answered this about 100 times, but I'm curious why this is so?
11/5/2007 2:20 PM
James Oldfield wrote:
Chester, The reason no mechanical instruments of worship are used is because they are not authoriszed by God. God tell us what He wants when he says "sing and make melody in your hearts" (Eph 5:19) and offer up the "fruit of our lips" (Heb 13:15). We simply give God what He says He wants.
You said that I'm tiptoeing around the word "must". Look again, where I wrote:
"...and the emphases is not on the fact that he must have children, but that he must have them “in subjection with all gravity” – or he must raise his children to behave a certain way."
That seems pretty cut and dry - not tiptoeish.
When things calm down for you, I'd appreciate a response to my full message. If you don't want to, just let me know and I'll ask Norm or Johnny.
Also, I work in entertainment, and so my advice about your looping is from that standpoint - not from some theological perspective or bias against you.
When are you going to debate me on infant baptism? Do you really need your rules of discussion to have a debate on the subject? You don't seem to need those rules when you ask about the holy kiss. Come on now, be a man and let's debate pedobaptism.
11/5/2007 2:12 PM
James Oldfield wrote:
Luke, I do not have a church, but in the church I am in we do not. Nor do we wash feet, since both of those were customary greetings and practices of that time. We do shake hands and some people embrace each other, just as they did in the Bible (Gal 2:9; Ac 20:1). Reply to this
Sorry to barge into your conversation with Luke, and he might be planning to write himself, but this is something I have wondered about as well.
How do you qualify this as just a custom? I've done a bit of reading on this, and it seems that to the Romans, kissing was not a custom. And the fact that Paul used the word "holy" is pretty significant to me as well.
I am really and genuinely surprised that folks in the Church of Christ don't follow this instruction, especially when it directly precedes your most famous of passages where the Bible mentions "churches of Christ" - Romans 16:16.
And also, the instruction to greet with a kiss is given at least four other times in the NT:
Greet ye one another with an holy kiss. (1 Corinthians 16:20) Greet one another with an holy kiss. (2 Corinthians 12:12) Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss. (1 Thessalonians 5:26) Greet one another with a kiss of charity. (1 Peter 5:14)
It seems a bit out of character for you to not follow this instruction when you condemn others for doing the same thing in different situations.
11/27/2007 9:03 AMKenneth wrote:
James, Why does your church not uphold I Cor 11 concerning the headcovering on the woman? You said that was a custom of that day and not in effect for today. Can we not also say that water baptism or communion are customs of that day and not in effect for today? You used verse 16 to justify your position, but why would Paul give an exposition on submission and the symbolic meaning of the headcovering, then, as you interpret it, say "we don't have a custom like this in the church"? Context would mandate that Paul taught and the "churches of God" understood that he wanted the women to wear a headcovering - he went all the way back to Adam and Eve to justify his teaching. In the same chapter Paul speaks on communion, the symbolic representation of the Lord's death. Obviously that is not a custom just for the Corinthian church. Context is everything James. You say your church follows the N.T. pattern, yet you wash over the headcovering issue. Well, if you are wrong on this, how much more are you in error on? Certainly you are in grave error concerning the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and baptism, and don't forget original sin. Denominationalism is a minor that you are majoring on. While at the same time you are minoring on the Holy Spirit. You really need to study on the indwelling and the filling of the Holy Spirit - there is a difference in the Scriptures, one you fail to see. Read John 20 concerning the disciples and the indwelling(when they were baptized into the Spirit) and then read Acts 2 when these same disciples were filled with the Spirit. Christ promised the Spirit was with them, would be in them and would come upon them. You have so much to learn, yet you cannot be taught because you deny the One that teaches Truth. Take care and keep searching the Scriptures for in them you will see Christ, but only His Spirit can give you understanding. Reply to this
I thought you might be interested to know that since I have such a hard time getting you and Norm to post my comments in a timely fashion, I've started my own blog to address my concerns about the things you are teaching in this community.
Please feel free to come over and join the conversation at:
Is it true that you told a caller that you get saved over and over again? If so, are you baptized each time you are saved?
Also, now that Jason Hairston has left the church does this mean he will now perish in Hell?
I was looking for the "Church of Christ" but only saw a "Holiday Inn" sign. If I'm not mistaken, the holiday inn is referenced nowhere in the Bible.. What gives? Reply to this
2/15/2008 8:55 AM
James Oldfield wrote:
No I never said that. Once a person has obeyed the Gospel (heard the Truth, believes Jesus is the Son of God, Repents of their sins, confesses Christ and is baptized for the remission of sins) they do not need to be baptized again. They have the privilege of asking God for forgiveness of any sin they commit (1 John 1:7-10)
My prayer is that Jason will repent and return to the church.
Do yo not understand that the Building is not the church? The church is made up of people. the Holiday Inn is where the church meets. Would we not be the church if we were meeting under a tree or a brush arbor like the olden days? Please read your Bible.
2/21/2008 1:39 PM
kj wrote:
James, I'd like to point out that you are taking 1 John 1:7-10 out of context. Lets look at what it does not say first: It does not say "ask God for forgiveness fo any sin they commit."
Now, lets get the context of 1 John. Why did John write this letter? What was the predominent heresy at that time? Answer - Gnosticism.
In verse 7 John gives a stipulation "if we walk in the light". See, context is everything - "Christ IN you, the hope of glory" a doctrine you deny. Yet, if Christ is in the believer by the Person of the Holy Spirit, then the believer is ALWAYS in the Light. For the Holy Spirit never leaves us as He did with the Old Testament saints. Our fellowship is based on the Light Jesus Christ and His fellowship with the Father. Verse 7 does not tell us to "ask God's forgiveness". Verse 8 doesn't either. Now, verse 9 - your proof text. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" Now, what does the verse not say? "Ask God for forgiveness of any sin." Confess never means "ask God's forgiveness". Go to any greek lexicon to verify this. Secondly, how many times can one be cleansed from "ALL" unrighteousness? Surely, we must say ONCE and for ALL. The greek wording and tenses would literally be read "He is faithful and just to have forgiven us our sins, and His cleansing of all unrighteousness was a one time act that has present results." "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission." I believe the Bible teaches that His blood was applied to all sin upn the cross. That we are totally forgiven as believers, never to be judged for any sins. For that judgement was put on Jesus Christ. I also believe that there is only one sin that will send anyone to hell, that being explained in John 3:15-18.
That is the essence of the believers security in Christ Jesus. That is why I reject conditional security in general and pelagianism specifically.
As you recommended to others, so too do I recommend to you: Please read your Bible, contextually that is, without the blinders of your denominational affiliation(yes, Church of Christ/Campbellism is a denomination). Reply to this
I guess I should ask those who are not who say they do like it if they know you and if not point them to you. 