Talk:Churches of Christ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Churches of Christ article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5

Contents 1 Necessary inference section 2 Imposing the NIV in this article 3 Some weaselling, IMO 4 Random statements

[edit] Necessary inference section

I'm going to try to take a whack at this section in the next few days. It's muddled, to say the least. The difference over institutions wasn't one over inferences/impications, but on who was tasked to take care of orphans and widows. Mixing that into the discussion only confuses things.

Seems to me the buildings debate has little to do with a necessary inference, either (while a place may be necessary, a purchased one is not). I may separate out the "principle of silence" into its own subsection as well. Just thought I'd give a heads-up to see if anyone had any good comments to add. Jdb1972 20:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the point of the current wording was to show the various hermaneutic principles in action, which is still a laudable concept. Agree that it's muddy as-is, but under which hermaneutic principle does the institutional issue fall? Command, example, necessary inference, principle of silence? If these principles are worth including at all (which I think they are), then the article would be better if we could see a discussion of the application of these principles woven into the rest of the discussion. Alan Canon 22:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC) (Signed after-the-fact, apologies.)

The institutional debate, IMO, didn't have much to do with a dispute over hermeneutic principle. NIs pointed out there was no S, C, E, or NI for institutionalism; institutionals generally pointed to James 1:27. When NIs replied by pointing out the context there is talking about individuals, not churches, the reponse was usually that there wasn't any difference (sans Scripture) followed by an emoptional condemnation. Which was usually answered by an equally caustic reply, and away they went. Power, politics, money, emotion, culture? All were factors. Hermeneutics? Didn't play much role.

I agree an example would be best, though. I personally tend to prefer the Acts 15 and Matthew 22, but pulling from the issues listed in the article would work as well. Jdb1972 22:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry it took me so long to see this informative comment.... Alan Canon 18:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC) ... and a few citations from the RM literature could really help nail this down: should be easy to find. Alan Canon 18:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to engage some discussion on the topic of neccessary inference. I doubt that many members of the churches of Christ could define or defend the concept. Specifically, which doctrines commonly held by members of the Church rely exclusively or largely on this principle of interpretation? I understand that it is taught in schools of preaching and has some history with prominent religous persons. RFranklin 03:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 9:41 pm 13 Aug 2006

I have audio from several debates on this issue. One thing that was argued by those advocating institutions was that orphan and widows homes, James 1:27 aside, are necessary (in the sense of necessary inference) for the church to be able to properly provide for the needs of its own, especially widows as mentioned in 1 Timothy. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imposing the NIV in this article

Just shown up in this article is the proposal to replace all the verse references with the NIV.
I oppose injecting NIV verse references into an article on the churches of Christ. The churches of Christ have no means to select for use as a body one translation over another, but there are some significant doctrinal issues with the NIV. Most notable are the doctrines of Calvinism which are presumed by the NIV. (see the section in the article on "Theology", churches of Christ are opposed to Calvinism. )

The References that are in the article now are to the very well respected and neutral BibleGateway. Whoever puts in the reference can pick a translation and once the translation verse text is selected, the reader can choose from nearly any available translation.
The choice is with the reader - this is neutral.
RFranklin 02:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd disagree with that. While a person can choose translations once they're there, the choice of initial translation can still fit POV because choosing one version suggests that this is the "main" version. Informally, I'd argue for the New King James Version to be the initial version. I worked in a bookstore that catered primarily to churches of Christ and their members. Until the publisher started phasing out the New King James, that was our most popular version. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Any noteworthy translation (as opposed to paraphrase like The Message) should be acceptable, so long as it is cited as such. NIV is by far the most popular version of the Bible in English, and most COC members don't have a problem with it. Charges of Calvinist bias may or may not be true, but it's mostly irrelevant to the scriptures that are in the article.--Velvet elvis81 06:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The NKJV has its problems as well. Maybe we should put links to the original Greek =)

[edit] Some weaselling, IMO

I'm not a big fan of the use of "progressive" to distinguish different elements of the churches of Christ. It suggests a negative connotation for the other elements. Also, as the goal of the churches of Christ is to get back to the New Testament, being "progressive" is in some ways an insult to the congregations to which it is applied, as it suggests a progression which, assuming that everyone was originally at the New Testament, can only be leading away from it. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random statements

I was looking for some reference of what I had heard as a child--that that members of the Church of Christ believe that only they go to heaven--are saved. I wasn't dismayed by the length of the article--just that the author didn't address this problem.

P.S. I don't really care if they sing acapello or with acompaniment.

If they think that people are going to hell because they like music with accompaniment--I think they're jerks! Teresa Gibson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.48.107.230 (talk • contribs).

The more conservative churches, the non-institutional ones, would say that you're going to hell if you're not in the Church of Christ (some ultra conservatives would even say if you're using instruments). The progressive Churches of Christ and Christian Churches are the only ones that accept more than just Church of Christers as being saved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.109.220.6 (talk • contribs).

Any reason why the above two random observations contributing nothing to the article shouldn't be deleted? Jdb1972 20:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)