Your foundational principle of sola Scriptura — your entire approach to religion — correlates to your group’s initial presence in history. A group (the Catholic Church of Christ) that existed before the Bible’s formation does not begin with a premise that denies the first eighteen centuries of its own existence, but your group (the Protestant Church of Christ) was born at a time when the labor of creating the Bible had already been performed, and it approaches religion by approaching an already-produced product (if your community were old, it must deny the first eighteen centuries of its existence!). As such, the Catholic Church is the Church of history, and any “Bible-only” Restoration group is not. Surely if your community existed before sola Scriptura was invented (the New Testament Scriptures did not exist at Pentecost when you believe your community was born) you would appeal to the original pattern, and approach Christianity by approaching the Church (as those at Pentecost had). But of course, your community is new, and your approach to Christianity is new as well.
If the Catholic Church is not the original Church (as you would argue), and if the Protestant Church of Christ is in fact the original Church, then why does each group’s approach to the Faith communicate the opposite? Would the ancient Church not approach the Faith in the same manner as it had at its beginning? And would a modern community not approach the Faith in the same manner as it had at its beginning?
If your group were in fact the nascent Church, then it would not approach a library of books as its only source of theological truth; it would have been intrinsically joined with the books’ writing, compilation, and decisions — the Church — that presuppose the New Testament Scriptures. Put differently, your group’s reluctance to examine history leads you to an unexamined and faulty principle that invalidates itself, and your group’s approach to Christianity, by itself, proves that your group is not the nascent Church.
• "Your website is a troll." "You son of Satan."
-Scott J. Shifferd, Dean Road Church of Christ
• "Pax [(he thinks "pax" means "Pat" and not "peace")] cannot do us no harm and that why he wont fly to Martinsville not unless we foot he bill [to debate me on my television show]. . . . Really now I just want you to man up and bring your false doctrine to the airwaves but You and me know that wont happen because all you can do is play book writer and site master. You take that book momey Buy a plane tickey then we post it all on youtube how about that?"
-Johnny Robertson, founder of Church of Christ WDTBS Television Show
• "You are not a model of ethicality."
-Neal Pollard, Bear Valley Church of Christ; instructor at Bear Valley Bible Institute
• "Patrick Vandapool you will pay for your crimes against God." "You and your Church are condemned, better accept the Gospel and leave your Church before you die in your sins. you are an alien sinner!" "Your brainwashed." "Your site is a propaganda site." Your not a true Christian." "Your a fool... . I never called you a fool."
-John Riddle; "well tranned priest of the Lord's Church"
• "Are you an unmarried man under 25? Your writing style and wisdom match such a profile."
-Steve Rudd, Hamilton Church of Christ; founder of CofC propaganda website bible.ca
• "You have to be the most immature person that I've ever "met" in WordPress, and that includes the atheists, by which in overwhelming numbers show more common courtesy and respect that you. Are you 10 years old? ...if that's what your readers enjoy then it says as much about them as it does you."
-Eugene Adkins, Keltonburg Church of Christ