CoC doctrine on authority is highly inconsistent

[williamray123]

CoC doctrine on authority is highly inconsistent - they say the old law is nailed to the cross, so that means we only go by the new testament, however, they have no problem pointing to passages in 1st Corinthians that point to the law as the authority.

I'm sure you've heard preachers point to 1st Cor 9:9 to show authority for paying preachers:

For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.”

That passage is from the new testament, but point directly back to the old law as the inferred (INFERENCE) authority. As does 1st Cor 14:34 that CoC preachers love to quote for women to keep silent in the service.

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says."

Ignoring for the moment whether or not that passage is specific to the culture and the time, it does show example (EXAMPLE) of the law as the authority.

Romans 3:31 says "we uphold the law" - a COMMAND to uphold the law.

So we have the complete CoC authority to uphold the law - COMMAND, EXAMPLE and INFERENCE. The "holy trinity" of CoC authority. And don't forget CoC'rs themselves love to point to the old testament when they want to for example - Nadab and Abihu - Uzzah, but if you point to the Psalms to show musical instruments - then they jump into the "that's old testement and not binding" argument, when Paul himself showed the old testament was still the authority.

We know from other passages, we aren't under law for salvation, but the law remains. Comments?

[agricola]

I was taught the same thing: the OT is the old law and we aren't under the old law. Except we are supposed to follow the ten commandments. Except the one about keeping the Sabbath, because that's the old law.

Even at 6 I had some problems with that one.

When I was older, the explanation was trotted out using the NT verse about how 'all scripture is useful for instruction' when meant we could use the OT law when we needed to but if we didn't then we didn't have to because it was just instruction and not, you know, actual LAWS. Even when the OT verses explicitly SAID 'this is a law for all time' it didn't really MEAN it.

Buffleheaded.

[williamray123]

OT god and NT God are clearly two different entities. Basically the CoC keeps what it likes from the OT (gays are an abomination) and discards what it doesn't (bans on bacon cheeseburgers). All the other Christian denominations do the same thing but the CoC paints itself in an illogical corner with its insistence that they are consistently applying a literal interpretation.

Well the difference is most protestant churches admit Jesus said the law would not change in Matt 5:18 and John 16:16-17, but that all of the law doesn't necessarily apply today, not being in the official camp of Israel. CoC is one of the few denominations that say "the old law is nailed to the cross" and we only follow the new testament, thus rejecting what Jesus said about the law, saying "fulfilling" the law somehow did indeed abolish it, what Jesus said he specifically was not doing.

[KLP]

I agree the CofC is inconsistent on authority and use of CENI. I do not think it is improper to look for traits and characteristics from the OT even though technically the OT Mosaic Laws were given to a specific people. Murder was wrong long before the Decalogue.

[Pitts S2C]

They vehemently follow Jesus Christ although Jesus lived his entire life within the Old Testament and under the Old Law. It has always seemed ironic to me that they don't discount his entire life and testimony. Just like the thief on the cross who was saved under the Old Law (as they like to argue). All of their arguments are inconsistent.

Bring that up sometime during Bible class. Watch the group divide before your very eyes.

[zeek]

.

[cathym]

What I was taught was that the Mosaic law no longer applied, but other part of the OT, like the laws given to Abraham and to Noah did.

[zeek]

.

[agricola]

Nobody - and I mean NOBODY - actually follows ALL the Bible (old or new or both) literally - and that was indeed a very funny book! It also illustrates the lengths you have to go to in order to actually observe 'everything' and it further illustrates that SOME degree of interpretation must ALWAYS happen.

It isn't THAT people 'pick and choose' so much that they should admit that they DO 'pick and choose' and have some sort of rationale as to how and why, and a consistent and reliable way of interpreting how they 'read' things. Does the text have authority or not? what kind of authority and how much? Do we use modern understanding and knowledge to re-interpret what the text says, or do we ignore modern knowledge, or accept it entirely? Who decides (each individual or does the church/denomination have experts who lay things out for the lay member)?

[Opie]

Those are excellent questions to think about, agricola. N.T. Wright has a very helpful book dealing with many of the questions you raise titled "Scripture and the Authority of God". Wright's book helped me understand exactly how the CoC got so badly off track in the way they interpret the bible using their CENI method.