You can jibe the mainliners about their inconsistencies with the old testament, or suggest to the non-classers that they too could have a scriptural bible class if they would just organize them like they do their singing schools or singing classes. It is even safe somewhat to rib the non-institutional preacher how they preach against helping a non-member out of the church treasury but let them drink from the water fountain and use the church bathroom all paid for out of the treasury that relieves thirst and relieves a full bowel.williamray123 wrote:That's a good point. I think about that a lot. Church of Christ folks have no problem running to the OT to prove their point, but if you point them to Ps 149 or 150 - full of all kind of musical instruments, that is the OLD testament, not applicable to us. Then if you show them Ps 119:160 that says the law is eternal, they go into an explanation that it means something other than eternal.B.H. wrote:I giggle how in their arguments with the anti-class brethren the mainliners will run to the Old Testament to find their Sunday School (Moses divided the people into different groups sizes to teach the law, ect) and it was somehow okay to get Sunday School from the OT but you couldn't get instruments from it. WTF? And to show the stupidity of the non-class people instead of calling them on it they run to the OT and qoute "My doctrine shall drop as rain" in favor of the non-class position.
They say "denominations" problem is they don't study the bible, but if you do know your bible, you can show their inconsistency. "We just follow the bible" turns into "That verse doesn't really mean what it clearly says".
But never, ever, never, under any circumstance whatever, ever tell a one cup person that the fruit of the vine represents both the blood and the new covenant. In Luke 22 "poured out" modifies cup and not bood in that verse, so the cup was poured out (the contents). They will go ape shit nuts on you and actually threan your life if you tell them that.
