CoC doctrine on authority is highly inconsistent

[bnot]

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.

Oh yes Williamray, the coc loves using the term nailed to the cross because it gives them the ability to write off the old testament like a tax write off. They need to in order to hold their views on instrumental music, which is their crown prince against all denominations. They need the term nailed to the cross in addition to Ephesians 5:19 because that verse doesn't support their view by itself. Then throw in their necessary inference (aka necessary scripture twisting, aka necessary dog crap) and they can feel confident about what they are saying. They are quick to use the old testament when talking about strange fire, but want to throw it away when you quote from Psalms on instrumental music.

[williamray123]

Oh yes Williamray, the coc loves using the term nailed to the cross because it gives them the ability to write off the old testament like a tax write off. They need to in order to hold their views on instrumental music, which is their crown prince against all denominations. They need the term nailed to the cross in addition to Ephesians 5:19 because that verse doesn't support their view by itself. Then throw in their necessary inference (aka necessary scripture twisting, aka necessary dog crap) and they can feel confident about what they are saying. They are quick to use the old testament when talking about strange fire, but want to throw it away when you quote from Psalms on instrumental music.

Very good post. If they can't throw out the old testament, then Psalms with instruments in them are legal - and the CoC crown prince (or jewel?) of non-instruments is disturbed. The CENI "hermeneutic" is silly, as they just throw out the examples they don't like - "they celebrate sabbath in acts?" not a valid example. I like your term "necessary scripture twisting" - funny. I like to argue them into a corner, and then they will say verses you show them "Don't mean what they say" but Paul's verses are gold and even better if you take them out of context. Good post bnot.

[KLP]

I find the CofC ideal to be very logical and I doubt you could argue me into a corner on any aspect. If there is any "thing" that is not supportable and leads one to be "cornered" then it needs to be dropped or considered just a matter of personal judgment. I think what many here are complaining about are the distortions and traditions that are set up as "Word". This IMO is the problem with "overstatement". So for instance many CofC will assert that it is a sin, and that God sees it as a sin, to use instruments of music....that is overstatement. At best one can say there is no direct mention of it and likely it seems IM was not being used in synagogues at the time....at that point it is a choice on how to proceed. But claiming it is in fact a delineated sin is overstatement. People have a need to be sure that everything is so defined and known. IMO it is the same in evolution and the 13billion age of universe and big bang...people tend to overstate these as not only known to be true but to marginalize anyone who does not agree. This is just how "orthodoxy" stuff works...people accept/enforce a set of tenets and constructs and then demand compliance.

I do not see that as a fault of God, Jesus, Paul, the Gospel, or even the establishment of the new and greater covenant of Jesus Christ and His church. The whole point of the sacrifice of Jesus was to fulfill and therefore do away with the inadequate system of sacrifices set up under Moses. So yes, then at least some of the "OT" is gone away. Now we are down to arguing how much of it goes away, but to argue that none of it goes away is nonsense and such is the argument made in Romans and Hebrews and elsewhere. Why after the ultimate sacrifice that covers everything is made would inferior specific sacrifices continue?

IMO the CofC ideal dealt, or would deal, in logic to the exclusion of emotion. And being logical to a fault if anything else. I think missing emotion was a fault. But of course that ideal always gets mixed with junk from surrounding culture and so things become good/bad for reasons other than logic based on text. So for example the CofC has a great bias against all thing RCC and Baptist. And the CofC follows branding and marketing concepts in much the same way to "distinguish" their product because of course they are preaching a "distinctive" gospel...or so many will say over and over.

And yes, I know the natural argument for some here is to deny that substitutionary sacrifice ever existed as a real thing or ever made sense or was ever held by any Jew worth his salt...but that is a totally unrelated question and just argues the basis of everything and begs the question...so that is for another thread IMO. But yes, I know some of you deny substitutionary atonement as a concept but in this forum of CofC doctrine that IMO is a non-starter as CofC tends to accept a uniform view of LEV 1:4

So for instance, back on IM or weekly observance of LS or on collections or having a budget and treasury...when pressed on their specific views as being the Word of God they will at various times resort to "well it was so well known in 1st century Christians that there was no reason for it to be mentioned in an epistle". Right...and what about the so called "law of silence" and of the RCC making the same argument about Peter not being mentioned as the head elder...everyone just knew it? So yes, when pressed the CofC is inconsistent...but IMO it is due to them taking positions which are due to overstatement and claiming they know every last detail of the will of God in terms of the church.

[williamray123]

I find the CofC ideal to be very logical and I doubt you could argue me into a corner on any aspect.

Really? You find the CoC to be very logical? If you don't vary from their prooftexts maybe - but if you read the whole bible? I would disagree.

The CoC says the law is nailed to the cross and dead - but 3 times the Psalms refer to the law as eternal - Psalm 111:7-8, Psalm 119:151-152 and Psalm 119:160.

The whole basis of the new covenant is the law would be written on our hearts - not nailed to the cross. Jer 31:33, Heb 8:10 and 10:16.

When confronted with these, CoC people I have talked to will explain "eternal" doesn't mean "eternal" and the law on our hearts is a different law. What say you?

[agricola]

So yes, when pressed the CofC is inconsistent...but IMO it is due to them taking positions which are due to overstatement and claiming they know every last detail of the will of God in terms of the church.

Sounds like klp isn't so far off that opinion as the beginning of his post might look.

[agricola]

I think - and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong! - that klp is saying that the interpretational method or plan of CENI isn't necessarily WRONG as a method, but that it is (often? usually? sometimes?) misapplied and then the interpretations from that are dogmatically declared absolutely and reliably 'Biblical'. Is that close?

[KLP]

I find the CofC ideal to be very logical and I doubt you could argue me into a corner on any aspect.

Really? You find the CoC to be very logical? If you don't vary from their prooftexts maybe - but if you read the whole bible? I would disagree.
...

Well obviously we disagree, which is why I posted my opinion. Thanks, but I think I might have read the entire Bible and then some. And Yes, in line with Agricola's more succinct version of my position, I just do not invalidate the "ideal" of the CofC because of the people you or I may have encountered. Notionally I can see either Agricola's chosen path or one based on the logic and assertions of the NT epistles in how to handle the OT and NT relationship.

[KLP]

This is how I see things. The ancients commented that God's ways are not Man's ways and that His ways are inscrutable. Wanting or requiring that Man can understand and agree with God's ways before complying has been the problem from the get go. How God judges or deals with souls in the afterlife is also on His end of the stick. It was understood from the early days that relatively "few" would be "saved" ala Noah.

In any case, since there is no control case or parallel universe then there is no basis to assert that God is either under or over performing.

[agricola]

Not necessarily, chrisso - a lot of that 'all/omni' stuff is either late or a later interpretation. The God in the earlier parts of the Bible isn't always 'omni'. He is a storm god out of the desert - certainly very powerful, but not necessarily ALL powerful. Not every story with God in it has God presenting as knowing everything including the future. Sometimes, but not always.

There are some interesting books out there showing a view of God that changes through time.

The OT as it sits now wasn't written consecutively in chronological order, which makes it tougher, though.

[agricola]

One and almost the same - the coc was an early supporter and adherent to 'the Fundamentals of the Christian Religion' after all.

One of the 'fundamentals' was the accuracy and inerrancy of scripture. If anything, the adherents of fundamentalism became MORE rigid about how to understand 'inerrancy' over time.

the 12-volume study The Fundamentals, published 1910-1915.[18] Sponsors subsidized the free distribution of over three million individual volumes to clergy, laymen and libraries. This version[19] stressed several core beliefs, including:

The inerrancy of the Bible
The literal nature of the biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis
The virgin birth of Christ
The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross

Like Princeton Theology, The Fundamentals reflected growing opposition among many evangelical Christians towards higher criticism of the Bible and modernism.

'Fundamentalism' as an idea and movement within western Christianity probably began as early as the 18th century. 'The Fundamentals' was actually a kind of 'intermediate' attempt at a reconciliation between even more extreme groups and less extreme ones within the overall movement - and I think it is no special coincidence that the Church of Christ officially was 'born' at about the same time (ca. 1910) as this set of The Fundamentals was published and distributed. Yes the split from DC/CC was precipitated by 'instrumental music' but that wasn't the whole story.

I do know my home coc had that full set of books in the church library (which wasn't all that large - maybe 500 books total) and they were highly regarded and considered 'basic' - fundamental, in fact.