Ex-Church of Christ Support Board

There were some c of C doctrines and beliefs that I didn’t agree with.

1. Salvation was obtained by water baptism. I was a Baptist for 12 years prior to the c of C so I firmly believed baptism was a symbolic cleansing of sin.
2. A believer would lose their soul every time they sinned and would remain lost until they confessed their sin to God and asked for forgiveness. Again, my Baptist background pretty much convinced me once saved always saved had to be true. In my mind the only way a believer could lose their soul was by choice. They had to renounce their belief in God and walk away. In my mind God saves but doesn’t force anyone to stay saved. Ephesians 2:8-10 had been burned into my brain and I believed it. If that wasn’t true then it seemed to me Jesus sacrifice was for naught.
3. Marriage Divorce and Remarriage. I never bought into that. If God forgives sin then it’s forgiven. If one has to earn forgiveness then it isn’t a free gift. And in that case heaven must also be earned.
4. With the passing of time the whole idea of there being a Heaven and Hell became problematic for me. Not only that but the entire Biblical concept of God became problematic for me. Why would God demand to be worshipped? Why would God get angry, or seek revenge? And why would God torture anyone for all eternity? And why was Adam and Eve’s sin my problem? And where is God when mass human tragedies occur?
5.And the likelihood of anyone being saved depends heavily on where they are born. That is anything but fair.
6.I was told God always answers prayer. He may say yes, no, maybe, or wait. It seemed to me like no and wait was God’s preferred answers. And the circumstances where people believed God said yes seem suspicious to me. It often seem more like a coincidence than an answer to a prayer
7.In time I realized the God of the Bible had to have been created by humans because a real God would not have human emotions. The God of the Bible is a super human being with severe mental health issues and is extremely narcissistic. The God of the Bible is too much like Donald Trump and that makes him unqualified to be the God of the Universe. Besides, Trump already has taken claim to that job.
8.Marcion believed the God of the OT was evil and could not possible be the God of the NT. Marcion believed the NT God of love, grace, and mercy was more powerful than the OT God and simply overpowered him and sent him into oblivion. I don't know if Marcion was right or not, but it seems to me the God of the OT and the God of the NT were not the same God. Either that or the OT God got some help with his "issues".

I eventually had problems with the gender issues too. Ancient cultures were Patriarchal so obviously their writings would reflect that. Women were property to be bought, sold, and used to pleasure men. Civilizations evolve and our present culture reflects that, but the Bible cannot and does not evolve. It was written by and to ancient cultures and it's writings reflect that.

Telling people that God told them what to write what they did was done simply to give the writings authority that was above reproach. In spite of what some Christians believe today the Bible wasn't written for all people for all time. It was culturally specific and reflected the norms of the culture that produced it. Cultures, customs, and norms change with time. The Bible was written thousands of years ago and much of it simply does not apply to present day societies and cultures.

The Bible contains some unchanging truth and that isn't surprising. Murder, stealing, adultery were wrong then and they still are. And they probably always will be.

Homosexuality was not considered sinful or wrong by many ancient cultures. But it was for the writers of the OT and they claimed God said it was wrong so it could not be questioned. That has pretty much remained unchanged since ancient times, but it is changing now and evolving. Christians are not likely to evolve with the times because they are convinced homosexuality is condemned by God. I can't imagine much of anything changing their minds anytime in the foreseeable future about that issue.

That is so because it is unlikely conservative Christians will ever acknowledge the Bible was written by and for ancient cultures. Much of it simply does not apply to present day cultures and with the passing of time that gap will continue to get wider.

When I was still in the choc I thought most of the ones that opposed one cup did so more out of sanitary concerns and not because they could refute the one cupper claim the container represented the new covenant. I thought the one cuppers wrong in insisting everyone had to put their lips to one cup to drink. They could have had one container representing the new covenant and then poured its contents into other cups that had no significance in themselves and served those who feared germs.

As you note it “represented” the blood of Christ/New Covenant. Just like baptism it was a symbolic ritual that was a representation of something else that is believed to be real.

The Catholics believe a cracker and juice become the actual body and blood of Christ. The c of C believes water actually washes away sin even though it is only a symbolic representation of Christ blood. And members of the c of C would be critical of Catholic beliefs.

When people’s faith is based on beliefs rather than science & evidence they end up “believing” a lot of interesting things.

B.H. wrote:When I was still in the choc I thought most of the ones that opposed one cup did so more out of sanitary concerns and not because they could refute the one upper claim the container represented the new covenant. I thought the one clippers wrong in insisting everyone had to put their lips to one cup to drink. They could have had one container representing the new covenant and then poured its contents into other cups that had no significance in themselves and served those who feared germs.

My church uses one cup and then people dunk a torn piece of bread in it—Intinction—a new word I learned a while back. The minister says a little spiel about how on the night Jesus was betrayed he broke bread and he actually tears a loaf of bread. He says something else about the wine symbolizing his blood and pours the juice into a chalice.

Cootie Brown wrote:I eventually had problems with the gender issues too. Ancient cultures were Patriarchal so obviously their writings would reflect that. Women were property to be bought, sold, and used to pleasure men. Civilizations evolve and our present culture reflects that, but the Bible cannot and does not evolve. It was written by and to ancient cultures and it's writings reflect that.

Telling people that God told them what to write what they did was done simply to give the writings authority that was above reproach. In spite of what some Christians believe today the Bible wasn't written for all people for all time. It was culturally specific and reflected the norms of the culture that produced it. Cultures, customs, and norms change with time. The Bible was written thousands of years ago and much of it simply does not apply to present day societies and cultures.

The Bible contains some unchanging truth and that isn't surprising. Murder, stealing, adultery were wrong then and they still are. And they probably always will be.

Homosexuality was not considered sinful or wrong by many ancient cultures. But it was for the writers of the OT and they claimed God said it was wrong so it could not be questioned. That has pretty much remained unchanged since ancient times, but it is changing now and evolving. Christians are not likely to evolve with the times because they are convinced homosexuality is condemned by God. I can't imagine much of anything changing their minds anytime in the foreseeable future about that issue.

That is so because it is unlikely conservative Christians will ever acknowledge the Bible was written by and for ancient cultures. Much of it simply does not apply to present day cultures and with the passing of time that gap will continue to get wider.

My church agrees with a lot of this. They understand a lot of it was written for ancient cultures.

One of the main doctrines that I did not agree with is that religious non-cofc people are "not christians", "not saved", etc; only cofc people were christians. The arrogance of it was appalling to me.

Ivy wrote:One of the main doctrines that I did not agree with is that religious non-cofc people are "not christians", "not saved", etc; only cofc people were christians. The arrogance of it was appalling to me.

I had the same problem with the same doctrine, Ivy. A CoC preacher told me one time that his mother "had been a Baptist until she became a Christian". That's code-speak for "until she changed to the CoC denomination." All I could do was roll my eyes and shake my head in disbelief when he said that. Arrogance to the extreme!

Ivy and Opie, I always disliked that, too.

FinallyFree wrote:Ivy and Opie, I always disliked that, too.

It's like fingernails on a blackboard when I hear someone say that!!