A place to snark and vent about CoC doctrine and/or our experiences in the CoC. This is a place for SUPPORT and AGREEMENT only, not a place to tell someone their experience and feelings are wrong, or why we disagree with them.
It's like 1Cor.11:22 being used to teach, "you can't eat in the church building." Well, of course that's not what it's saying, but in the so-called anti branch of the COC, that's what it means and there is no room for discussion.
My mother related a story about this to me. One of our former neighbors was an elder in an "anti" or "non insitutional" C o C. He was chiding my aunt and uncle because they attended a mainline C o C which had a fellowship hall, kitchen, etc.
The elder told my aunt that the Bible didn't give authority for such things in the "church building." She asked this guy if his church building had electric lights, heat, AC., etc..to which he replied "of course."
When my aunt asked him where in the Bible he found authority for those there was silence!
Ha! he was caught in his own loophole. He stayed silent but i'm sure it didn't change him. He would have to "leave the fold" if he changed
It's like 1Cor.11:22 being used to teach, "you can't eat in the church building." Well, of course that's not what it's saying, but in the so-called anti branch of the COC, that's what it means and there is no room for discussion.
My mother related a story about this to me. One of our former neighbors was an elder in an "anti" or "non insitutional" C o C. He was chiding my aunt and uncle because they attended a mainline C o C which had a fellowship hall, kitchen, etc.
The elder told my aunt that the Bible didn't give authority for such things in the "church building." She asked this guy if his church building had electric lights, heat, AC., etc..to which he replied "of course."
When my aunt asked him where in the Bible he found authority for those there was silence!
Ha! he was caught in his own loophole. He stayed silent but i'm sure it didn't change him. He would have to "leave the fold" if he changed
They pick and choose just like every other religious sect does.....but they refuse to see it.
One time around 15 years ago I was walking down the hall way at the CoC I went to. The sermon was about why instrumental music was wrong and why the elders and good members would never tolerate it. I happened to walk by the nursery where they keep the babies and toddlers and noticed someone brought in a child's xylophone toy. It was sitting on the carpet with a kid playing on it I thought "The instrument was in snuck in by a change agent. And it wants to do mortal battle with the preacher and elders".
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.----Karl Marx
It's like 1Cor.11:22 being used to teach, "you can't eat in the church building." Well, of course that's not what it's saying, but in the so-called anti branch of the COC, that's what it means and there is no room for discussion.
My mother related a story about this to me. One of our former neighbors was an elder in an "anti" or "non insitutional" C o C. He was chiding my aunt and uncle because they attended a mainline C o C which had a fellowship hall, kitchen, etc.
The elder told my aunt that the Bible didn't give authority for such things in the "church building." She asked this guy if his church building had electric lights, heat, AC., etc..to which he replied "of course."
When my aunt asked him where in the Bible he found authority for those there was silence!
Ha! he was caught in his own loophole. He stayed silent but i'm sure it didn't change him. He would have to "leave the fold" if he changed
Don't forget the toilet and water fountain either. They pay for it out of the church treasury but let nonmembers use it out of kindness and mercy . Why is it wrong to help an orphan then?
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.----Karl Marx
To become an acceptable member of the CoC one must be baptized, and if you were baptized in a denominational church your baptism is automatically considered null and void ... Rebaptism is the standard procedure for anyone previously baptized in any church, for whatever reason.
To become an acceptable member of the CoC one must be baptized, and if you were baptized in a denominational church your baptism is automatically considered null and void ... Rebaptism is the standard procedure for anyone previously baptized in any church, for whatever reason.
For the most part they don't rebaptize people who are considered coming from an in error "denominational" CoC. You don't hear of one cuppers rebaptizing mainliners or the mainliners rebaptizing non sunday schoolers. Yet lots of times they will consider the other in error and lost just as much as a Baptist or Christian Church member.
In fairness I have heard some of the nonininstitutional churches rebaptize coCer's coming from a institutional background though it is rare even among them. But my counter to that is even those hardline NI's learn and grow with time. Do they rebaptize everytime they feel they were wrong about something they taught or believed?
There is a point where it is just silly.
I think Petros on his blog said the only reason the CoC does this is just to be different for its own sake. There was a time when the CoC, or at least most of them, did not rebaptise others coming from other groups. I have even heard of cases where Mormon baptism was accepted because it was done for the forgiviness of sin.
Contrary to lots of CoCer's belief many denominations baptise for "the forgiveness of sin". Even though it is less common in American Christianity baptism for the forgiveness of sin and recognized point of salavation was historically and still is in most parts of the world the majority held view.
Last edited by B.H. on Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.----Karl Marx
Lev wrote:...To me, the most egregious wrong-doing of the COC is not that their interpretation of scriptures like these differs from what I think is right. That's to be expected. It's that they thing they've got it figured out and have no need to reevaluate. You can't reduce a complex, two-thousand-year-old letter, written from a Roman/Jewish itinerant preacher to a group of Greek-speaking Christians to a trite list of rules like the ones above and consider your job done. If Paul wanted to say, "you have to sing without instruments and no eating in the church building" he had the Greek words to say these things. If he wanted his instructions to be applied to all Christians who would ever come after him, everywhere in the world, he could have said this too.
Lev
Good points Lev and basically my take as well. I wouldn't say it is a false teaching as much as it is the attitude that this is the only way to do things. If they read it this way and want to practice this way, then fine. But it is not from a POV of something being prohibited or wrong, but from an approach of this is how we see it...of deciding to stay within what they see as a clear boundary. fine. The Lord's Supper on Sundays (every Sunday and only on Sunday) is another type thing. It was not instituted on Sunday, the phrase "as often" is used, and it is no way clear that Acts 20:7 is saying the only time they took LS was on first day of week...nor is it clear when they actually did take it in Acts 20 since the meeting lasted from evening till morning and the only mention of eating was at morning. There is clearly nothing wrong with doing it on Sundays...so fine, do it on Sunday, but I can see why others would not see this weekly frequency strictness in the same way even though reading the same passages.
I want to think Paul would say to stop fighting over this frequency aspect. If you do it this way then fine but do not judge another who does it another way since that arguing over frequency is robbing the whole thing of it's meaning.
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
To become an acceptable member of the CoC one must be baptized, and if you were baptized in a denominational church your baptism is automatically considered null and void ... Rebaptism is the standard procedure for anyone previously baptized in any church, for whatever reason.
Exactly. What puzzles me is that the CoC thinks they have the power to baptize for the remission of sins. In my experience, they say someone's baptism is no good because they were not baptized 'for the remission of sins', but that power belongs to God. No one can add remission to baptism.
Also, they write off Old Testament when convenient. Bring up instrumental music, such as numerous verses in Psalms, and they respond with the infamous CoC phrase "It was nailed to the cross." Keep the discussion going and you get slammed with Nadab and Abihu and strange fire. Shouldn't Nadab and Abihu be "nailed to the cross?" Nope! That would ruin their stance. Old Testament is valid as the book of Acts when it makes a point for them, but when they are backed into a corner the Old Testament is nailed to the cross.
There is a difference between saying "God does not changed" and "God's covenant never changes". Clearly there are things commanded/ordained in the covenant given through Moses that are not part of the new covenant as understood and delivered by through the Apostles. Take sexual impurity for instance. In the OT that included dealing with women's cycle issues...in the NT sexual purity is expressed as being within context of marriage. So God has not changed in regards sexual purity but the exact technical parameters of that purity may have changed. There were rules on touching a dead body also that have gone by the way. Did God change or was it just the covenant?
Arguing that what is "good" in one covenant must therefore be "good" in another seems the weakest argument of all to me. So yes, instruments of music were proscribed in one covenant but that means nothing as to whether they would be defaulted into the next. But it would seem that God would still be as faithful and the same towards keeping and enforcing whatever covenant is currently in play would not change. So aspects of the OT are useful at least to show how God considers keeping his covenant...the specific covenant may change over time.
CofC culture is based on patterns. Since there is no current Spirit "leadership" and no active prophet from God...therefore all that can be done is to assume the first century church was acceptable and that if one follows the same pattern then they too must be acceptable. (sola scriptura) There may in fact be a number of other ways to be acceptable to God but for sure the first century "pattern" is one of them. Just as there may be many ways to be acceptable there are also ways that are not acceptable. So the prudent course is to follow the only known pattern as best it can be determined. There is no other hope. That is it in a nutshell.
If one does not share this POV about one valid pattern only then there is no point in arguing about specifics like instrumental music or LS or baptism. The underlying prerogative is what is at issue, not the specifics. There should be no puzzlement over how and why the CofC acts and decides as it does..it all derives from this concept.
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
