Ex-Church of Christ Support Board

I visited a coc a lot of my family attends this past Mother's Day. In all fairness, it was a decent experience and I was glad to do so to spend time with family I don't get to see too often since I don't live in the area anymore. However, when I was walking through the foyer I saw a chart in salvation and the 5 steps. Along the side of the chart were figures from the New Testament and along the top were the 5 steps and the scriptures they cite for them. Within the chart was check marks denoting which steps the figures of acts did to be saved. None of them did all 5. There was one step (can't remember now which) that only one of them did. So how can one teach the 5 steps when apparently there is no example of anyone doing them all?

Just my humble opinion, but here goes. As I see it, they combine all potentially relevant scriptures together then make sure they incorporate all of them into their unspoken creed. In the c/c mindset, as I remember it, it's safest to go with the highest common denominator to ensure doctrinal purity / superiority and "rightness".

The CoC likes to think that their "5 Finger Plan" is divinely inspired, but one of Alexander Campbell's followers named Walter Scott was the one who actually came up with the idea back in the 1840s. Walter Scott also claimed that he was the one who had single-handedly restored the ancient gospel for the first time since the days of the apostles. To a large degree Walter Scott was also responsible for the legalism that eventually became the hallmark of the CoC denomination. IMO there's not a "5 Finger Plan of Salvation", just a series of verses that have been lifted out of context.

If one accepts the NT Bible, then why would anything be left out or considered unimportant? Seems to me that one then takes the position to judge the author, the intent, the text itself an will decide what is important and what is inconsequential. And that mode of picking and choosing what is important is fine, but it seems to me one person's picking and choosing is no better than any other group's picking and choosing. If a verse or passage can be devalued, marginalized, or ignored then it seems to me just another version of the dreaded "verse chopping" that I hear so much about.

Seems to me all a person can do and could possibly be responsible for is for the stuff they actually know and are aware of...like the 12 at Ephesus.

If one goes with just red-letter references for the 5 step plan, then hearing and confessing as so stated are a bit light, so other epistles are brought to bear. Me personally I find the notion "hearing" to be a bit of a stretch as an "action" separate from "believing"...seems to me those are split just to get to the number 5. I prefer trust and obey, because people act according to how they believe/think.

BTW, here is a 10 step plan (mine goes to eleven)

www.scripturalresearch.com/10_steps_of_salvation.htm

50heaven wrote: Along the side of the chart were figures from the New Testament and along the top were the 5 steps and the scriptures they cite for them. Within the chart was check marks denoting which steps the figures of acts did to be saved. None of them did all 5.

Seems reasonable that Saint Peter will be stationed at the narrow pearly gates to insure that ALL the 5 steps of salvation have the appropriate checkmarks before anyone has access to Heaven. One can only imagine the fate of the poor soul with an unchecked step.

The COC doctrine that I was taught was like a jigsaw puzzle. Take one verse and see if you can somehow make it fit with another verse. Repeat until you get what appears to you to be a clear picture, but what looks to outsiders to be a mess.

Moogy wrote:The COC doctrine that I was taught was like a jigsaw puzzle. Take one verse and see if you can somehow make it fit with another verse. Repeat until you get what appears to you to be a clear picture, but what looks to outsiders to be a mess.

Making one verse "...fit with another verse." was always easy for me; if the square thingy wouldn't fit in the round thingy just get a bigger hammer.

If you guys want to diss the coc, take it to 'how the coc impacted my life'. If you want to segue into a serious (relatively) discussion of Biblical interpretation methods or comparative theology, this can stay here. Otherwise, it will be moved somewhere more appropriate.

Old Paths is not particularly coc oriented, but is a place more for agnostic, academic or skeptical views of religion generally.

agricola wrote:If you guys want to diss the coc, take it to 'how the coc impacted my life'. If you want to segue into a serious (relatively) discussion of Biblical interpretation methods or comparative theology, this can stay here. Otherwise, it will be moved somewhere more appropriate.

Old Paths is not particularly coc oriented, but is a place more for agnostic, academic or skeptical views of religion generally.

So we can be academically skeptical about Baptists and Scientologists here, but we have to move to poke fun at the COC? The new rules are totally confusing and make about as much sense to me as COC's CENI methodology. It's Teresa's site, so she can make the rules she wants, but I can express my discomfort.

Feel free to move this comment to wherever in the heck it belongs.

Generally, in 'Old Paths' one may diss 'religion' as a 'thing' rather than specific theologies of specific denominations. NEW Paths allows people to share what those theologies ARE, without being challenged.

This site is, after all, an ex-COC site, not at ex-Baptist site or an ex-Catholic site, so any bashing of specific denominations outside the coc are not really something we often run across.

In case of doubt, Coffee House is eclectic.

However, we've changed forum names before and nothing EVER makes everybody happy. 'How the coc impacted your life' used to be 'coc doctrine', so if it is coc doctrine on the table, that is where the discussion should go - especially if the post starts out talking about a person impact on someone's life related to coc doctrine.

The nature of the forums didn't change, we just have never been able to come up with mutually agreed upon, obvious names for them. Feel free to submit suggestions, though, really.

Here is the original post:

I visited a coc a lot of my family attends this past Mother's Day. In all fairness, it was a decent experience and I was glad to do so to spend time with family I don't get to see too often since I don't live in the area anymore. However, when I was walking through the foyer I saw a chart in salvation and the 5 steps. Along the side of the chart were figures from the New Testament and along the top were the 5 steps and the scriptures they cite for them. Within the chart was check marks denoting which steps the figures of acts did to be saved. None of them did all 5. There was one step (can't remember now which) that only one of them did. So how can one teach the 5 steps when apparently there is no example of anyone doing them all?

hmm. Coc. Personal experience. Coc doctrinal statement observed. Question about coc doctrine follows.
Yep, definitely 'How the coc impacted my life' material, and on that note, this thread is being moved.