Ex-Church of Christ Support Board

How effective is this remark for a church to say this when trying to reach out to non-Christians? "We are the only way." Especially a denomination that's only been around for about 130 years or so of human history.

They probably would not be upfront with non-Christians about the CofC being the “only way”. They would find that out later.

faithfyl wrote:How effective is this remark for a church to say this when trying to reach out to non-Christians? "We are the only way." Especially a denomination that's only been around for about 130 years or so of human history.

Interesting as no two people interpret the Bible in the same way. The CoC is a new comer to the scene claiming anything derived from the consolidated Church under Constantine by 325 CE is evil? If you don't look you don't see. They really don't know because they did not look. They assumed. You can find excellent churches if you look, but you have to look. I cannot name one specific Church for everybody. Most human organizations have problems. Which set of problems suit you. It's much like a marriage. I contend that restoration movement may itself be heresy. Jesus said the Gates of Hell will not prevail against my Church. If they did then become an atheist. If other words you cannot have it both ways. Either Jesus lied and the Church died or not.

In my experience with several "scholarly" and respected preachers and elders over the years has been that generally speaking history begins with Luther. Certainly there are references to people before 325, but are usually quoted for specific and narrow purposes. An example would be Justin's description of a Sunday worship service, however a more comprehensive reading of Justin would prove problematic. Those people that would do more study fall prey to the anti-catholic Protestant view of history and always view any thing from the early church as "seeds of the future Roman Church".

There is not an all encompassing single church for everyone, well not defined the way the CoC would define it. One interesting point that is always made when they teach about the Church and how to be added to it is that in Acts, they point out, that God adds those that were being saved. So, how do we know? Do we accept the premise that some preachers in Kentucky finally figured it all out and restored the Church to the original condition? Or is it just their brand of Christianity that they are comfortable with and believe is close to the original. This of course presupposes a stronger weight to bible rather than Church continuity and authority and relies heavily on private interpretation and effective branding. In other words, they found the rules and regulations and know most effectively how to apply them thus legalism, judgementalism and separatism. All of the things we have live with and continue living in some degree because of our past association with the CoC. I would be fine with them if they had cultivated and promoted the "comfortable brand" but it didn't happen and under the circumstances it never really would have happened.

They re-discovered the only Way. However, to a good portion then and now the Way is a set of rules and regulations, not Christ. I believe that to be the difference when speaking to non-Christians. They tend to want to set out in a logical manner the process with all the rules and progressive steps to completion instead of displaying a life influenced and directed towards Christ.

At some cofc places I know, the speakers were pretty close to illiterate and had no notion of critical thinking, logical argument, or skills in presentation of an argument. Yet it seems that these places talked the most about the need for attending all assembly and the need for constant Bible study (meaning attending Bible classes). Maybe I was just more sensitive when it was such a limited person going on and on about the need for so much study. In fact almost no "study" or "learning" was occurring because the person was not capable plus...the sheer amount of time spent talking about the need for attendance and Bible study.

At some point it seems to just be patting themselves on the back for being in attendance and all the so called class time they have accumulated. And these are folks who cannot even make a CENI argument for not using instrumental music or baptism or Lord's Supper or any of the other earmarks of CofCism...these folks often just seem to be on auto-pilot and doing the traditions and rules because that is how they have "always" been done.

KLP wrote:At some cofc places I know, the speakers were pretty close to illiterate and had no notion of critical thinking, logical argument, or skills in presentation of an argument. Yet it seems that these places talked the most about the need for attending all assembly and the need for constant Bible study (meaning attending Bible classes). Maybe I was just more sensitive when it was such a limited person going on and on about the need for so much study. In fact almost no "study" or "learning" was occurring because the person was not capable plus...the sheer amount of time spent talking about the need for attendance and Bible study.

At some point it seems to just be patting themselves on the back for being in attendance and all the so called class time they have accumulated. And these are folks who cannot even make a CENI argument for not using instrumental music or baptism or Lord's Supper or any of the other earmarks of CofCism...these folks often just seem to be on auto-pilot and doing the traditions and rules because that is how they have "always" been done.

I had similar experiences in the NICOCs that I attended in the past. I don’t miss it at all.

I have read the bible all the way through from "Genesis to maps" as they say, and have never found any indication in the holy scriptures that it is important for any group to look exactly like the church of the first century. It seems to me that the primary concern of the holy scriptures is that we become like Christ, and not like some church of 2,000 years ago. It also seems to me that the CoC preoccupation of trying to restore the 21st century church to some imagined state that existed way back in the first century is based on a faulty and mistaken reading of the holy scriptures. In fact, it is so faulty and mistaken that it just might border on heresy.

Opie wrote:I have read the bible all the way through from "Genesis to maps" as they say, and have never found any indication in the holy scriptures that it is important for any group to look exactly like the church of the first century. It seems to me that the primary concern of the holy scriptures is that we become like Christ, and not like some church of 2,000 years ago. It also seems to me that the CoC preoccupation of trying to restore the 21st century church to some imagined state that existed way back in the first century is based on a faulty and mistaken reading of the holy scriptures. In fact, it is so faulty and mistaken that it just might border on heresy.

Ditto!

KLP wrote:At some cofc places I know, the speakers were pretty close to illiterate and had no notion of critical thinking, logical argument, or skills in presentation of an argument.

There was a popular Gospel Meeting preacher in my NI circles who was illiterate. I don't know if he's still making the rounds, he's in his 70s if he is. He's probably the only CoC preacher I knew who could get away with only citing 3 or 4 scriptures in a sermon. His repertoire was very limited. I never could understand his popularity but I'm an intellectual.

I think the illiterate preacher thing must be more common in the NICOC. I never experienced that.