An Observation

[Cootie Brown]

The word worship can be interpreted literally, symbolically, or implicitly. In this particular instance, saying the c of c worships the Bible, a literal interpretation would not fit the intended or implied context. However, an implied or symbolic interpretation would be compatible with the intended context. The same would also apply to worshipping the Apostle Paul.
Their words & actions Imply a form of worship, such as requiring scriptural validation for doctrines & pending actions like attaching fellowship halls to their church building, no instrumental music in worship, & at least giving the appearance that Paul's teaching is equal to Jesus when it comes to doctrine.

Others may disagree but that was my experience.

[Struggler]

I do know some C of C'ers (and others) who worship the Bible and their denomination ("th' church"). Not all do, of course.
My point in this thread was to note how C of C'ers are generally more about their church than they are about God or Christ. The former is constantly mentioned, while the latters are given a perfunctory mention, if at all.

[KLP]

It was never my experience that the CofC only mentions God and Christ "perfunctory if at all". Again, Jesus is the Word and the Word of God is eternal. The word spoken through prophets and Apostles is God's Word. Yes, the Word of God is considered authoritative. How is this possibly an "observation"? According to the Sola Scripture thinking, the Bible is the only way God continues to communicate. Yes, Paul authored most of the Epistles but not on a whim but because he was inspired by God and is communicating God's word. That Paul or Isaiah or Moses or John wrote it is of little to no consequence because it is God speaking.

And yes, CofC thinks and believes whole heartedly that the church established by Jesus is a particular form and function. And the Revelation to John shows that Jesus is serious about preserving that original form and function or else the candlestick gets removed. So yes, preserving the Word of God and the form and function of the church established by Jesus is the highest importance. The church is the body and Jesus is the head of that body, it is described as being "one" and united" in some organic functioning sense.

It is beyond me that any CofCer thought otherwise or that it is not understood now. One may now hold a different POV, but IMO it is silly to assert that somehow CofC sees the epistles of Paul, the church, or the Bible as separate and distinct from God.

[agricola]

klp - I think what some people are saying is that in a coc, the message one gets is not that Paul, the Bible etc are 'separate from God', but that they represent God through the lens of coc interpretation. That's a bit different. The coc worships 'God', but the god they worship is the interpretation of the coc through the words of (quite often) Paul's letters and coc doctrine. There is very little allowance for the idea that maybe God is a bit BIGGER than the epistle to whoever, and that the NT isn't the one and only totally complete and never to be added to, rethought or analyzed total picture without any depth beyond.

I believe that is why coc members so often say, when people leave the coc, that they are 'leaving God'. Because to the coc faithful member, the coc practically IS God and all of God is contained in coc doctrine about God. They have the Truth, and not only do they have it, they aren't sharing: nobody else has the Truth and everybody else is as wrong as wrong can be: either accidentally or purposefully (and too often, coc members think of non-member Christians as deliberate perverters of 'the Truth').

[Pitts S2C]

Late one evening, when I was attending Florida College a few friends & I were sitting outside on one of the 2nd floor balconies of our dorm room. This overlooked N. Glen Arven Ave. A convertible car with 3 people in the car drove by several times yelling "Bible Beaters". We said, did we hear that right? That was the first time I realized that perspective of others.

[KLP]

What you say Agri? People who love to be called "people of the Book" and proudly attest to Sola Scriptura have this idea as you say "little allowance for the idea that maybe God is a bit BIGGER than the epistle to whoever, and that the NT isn't the one and only totally complete and never to be added to, rethought or analyzed total picture without any depth beyond..." What? No kidding. This is CofC, not Jews re-explaining what so-n-so thought so-n-so thought about what Moses said God said.

In CENI thinking, there is no distinction between CofC Doctrine and the word of God because there is no such thing as "CofC doctrine" ,,,,there is only God's Doctrine.

I am afraid for some of you ex-cofcers since it seems that you have so quickly forgotten what cofcism is, namely that

Galations 1 excerpts from NASB

1Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father

8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

11For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ

1 Tim 6:3

If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness

[Cootie Brown]

Fairness requires me to acknowledge that there were positive aspects in my experience with the Church of Christ. The c of c does encourage their members to read and study scripture. Members of the c of c are probably more aware of their doctrines and traditions than just about any other group.

Additionally, most members of the c of c know why they are affiliated with the Church of Christ, that is not always the case with other groups or denominations.

Members of the c of c attempt to follow scripture as literally as possible. They still, IMO, cherry pick scripture but not to the degree that other groups do.

In my case I admit their dogmatic focus on following scripture as literally as possible motivated me to eventually take a closer look at the Bible. I understand that the more conservative Christians are absolutely convinced the Bible contains no errors, contradictions, or inconsistencies. I once believed that too, but with the passing of time I reached a point where I could not longer pretend that the Bible is without error or at least inconsistent teaching.

In the beginning I just wanted to find valid reasons for the problems I thought I saw. I wanted to find some authority that could explain these apparent problems with scripture. I could not find a plausible explanation from an apologetics perspective, so I switched my emphasis to a historical approach.

Until then I was not aware of a field of study identified as the historical critical approach to religion. Once I discovered this discipline I soon became captivated by it. I quickly began reading several books a month authored by historical bible scholars. What I discovered both shocked and amazed me. That began more than a decade ago and I am still engaged in that study.

I found the answers I was searching for, at least answers that I believe are true, accurate, and have withstood intense peer review. Needless to say that ongoing study has changed my life. Some would probably say it changed my life in negative ways, but I'm convinced it changed my life in positive ways.

I acknowledge that is a dangerous door for a committed Christian to open. If you are happy and content as a Christian I would definitely recommend that you do not investigate the historical critical approach to religion. It's kind of like in the movie the Wizard of Oz. You definitely don't want to look behind the curtain.

[KLP]

Fairness requires me to acknowledge that there were positive aspects in my experience with the Church of Christ. The c of c does encourage their members to read and study scripture. Members of the c of c are probably more aware of their doctrines and traditions than just about any other group.

Additionally, most members of the c of c know why they are affiliated with the Church of Christ, that is not always the case with other groups or denominations.

Members of the c of c attempt to follow scripture as literally as possible. They still, IMO, cherry pick scripture but not to the degree that other groups do.

In my case I admit their dogmatic focus on following scripture as literally as possible motivated me to eventually take a closer look at the Bible. I understand that the more conservative Christians are absolutely convinced the Bible contains no errors, contradictions, or inconsistencies. I once believed that too, but with the passing of time I reached a point where I could not longer pretend that the Bible is without error or at least inconsistent teaching.

In the beginning I just wanted to find valid reasons for the problems I thought I saw. I wanted to find some authority that could explain these apparent problems with scripture. I could not find a plausible explanation from an apologetics perspective, so I switched my emphasis to a historical approach.

Until then I was not aware of a field of study identified as the historical critical approach to religion. Once I discovered this discipline I soon became captivated by it. I quickly began reading several books a month authored by historical bible scholars. What I discovered both shocked and amazed me. That began more than a decade ago and I am still engaged in that study.

I found the answers I was searching for, at least answers that I believe are true, accurate, and have withstood intense peer review. Needless to say that ongoing study has changed my life. Some would probably say it changed my life in negative ways, but I'm convinced it changed my life in positive ways.

I acknowledge that is a dangerous door for a committed Christian to open. If you are happy and content as a Christian I would definitely recommend that you do not investigate the historical critical approach to religion. It's kind of like in the movie the Wizard of Oz. You definitely don't want to look behind the curtain.

I'm not sure, but to me what I hear you saying is that one must be ignorant or not too smart or not intellectually honest/courageous enough to look behind "the curtain" if they choose to believe in Christianity. That is all I hear you saying when it boils down.

[Cootie Brown]

Fairness requires me to acknowledge that there were positive aspects in my experience with the Church of Christ. The c of c does encourage their members to read and study scripture. Members of the c of c are probably more aware of their doctrines and traditions than just about any other group.

Additionally, most members of the c of c know why they are affiliated with the Church of Christ, that is not always the case with other groups or denominations.

Members of the c of c attempt to follow scripture as literally as possible. They still, IMO, cherry pick scripture but not to the degree that other groups do.

In my case I admit their dogmatic focus on following scripture as literally as possible motivated me to eventually take a closer look at the Bible. I understand that the more conservative Christians are absolutely convinced the Bible contains no errors, contradictions, or inconsistencies. I once believed that too, but with the passing of time I reached a point where I could not longer pretend that the Bible is without error or at least inconsistent teaching.

In the beginning I just wanted to find valid reasons for the problems I thought I saw. I wanted to find some authority that could explain these apparent problems with scripture. I could not find a plausible explanation from an apologetics perspective, so I switched my emphasis to a historical approach.

Until then I was not aware of a field of study identified as the historical critical approach to religion. Once I discovered this discipline I soon became captivated by it. I quickly began reading several books a month authored by historical bible scholars. What I discovered both shocked and amazed me. That began more than a decade ago and I am still engaged in that study.

I found the answers I was searching for, at least answers that I believe are true, accurate, and have withstood intense peer review. Needless to say that ongoing study has changed my life. Some would probably say it changed my life in negative ways, but I'm convinced it changed my life in positive ways.

I acknowledge that is a dangerous door for a committed Christian to open. If you are happy and content as a Christian I would definitely recommend that you do not investigate the historical critical approach to religion. It's kind of like in the movie the Wizard of Oz. You definitely don't want to look behind the curtain.

I'm not sure, but to me what I hear you saying is that one must be ignorant or not too smart or not intellectually honest/courageous enough to look behind "the curtain" if they choose to believe in Christianity. That is all I hear you saying when it boils down.

Respectfully, and I mean that sincerely, you are reading things into my post that are not there. Christianity contains a purely faith aspect as well as a purely academic one too. That is hardly a secret. It has been my experience, as a committed Christian for 47 years, that any religion must be accepted and embraced on faith because things like dead people coming back to life, talking serpents and animals, people being turned into pillars of salt and numerous other "miracles' found in the Bible are scientifically and academically not possible.

All those things and more are "possible" in religion because religion accepts that a supernatural realm exists and the laws of science and physics simply do not apply in the supernatural realm. Theoretical physicists have proven this is true in deep space, black holes, and the sub micro level here on earth. So, at least in some situations and places scientists agree with religion that our accepted laws of science do not apply. Then we also have to consider all the invisible forces that we know exists including gravity, dark energy, dark matter and so forth. Then we can add the theories of multiple dimensions and muti-universes.

Whose is to say with any degree of certainty that something we call the supernatural doesn't exists. I certainly don't. Then lets add all the Christians that hold PHD's, medical, law, and science degrees. Are they ignorant. I don't think so.

That said, lets at least be honest. Religion is based on faith and belief in miracles and the existence of a supernatural realm. It is not based on indisputable evidence that the miracles that are written about in the Bible can be proven, beyond any doubt whatsoever, as real factual historical events that could be video taped if time travel was a reality. Some people, like me, accept that possibility that the bible contains elements of truth, but that doesn't mean everything written in it's pages is true or that those events actually occurred. That is why religion is based on faith, a willingness to believe without indisputable evidence that proves truth beyond any doubt.

Let me be absolutely clear about this point. Being a believer doesn't automatically make one gullible or ignorant. Telling people that don't believe the bible that they are bound for hell is another issue. That prediction is based on faith not scientific or historical evidence. Both faith and academic exploration are choices. Choosing either one should not demean or label either party. Debating the merits of those respective choices is a completely separate issue with the likelihood that either party would change their position is slim to none, and that generally makes it a pointless exercise that will end in frustration for both parties.

Now to reply to your specific point. Reading the historical critical findings of scholars has, in my opinion, a very high probability of creating doubt in the mind of a believer. That is why I am saying a great deal of thought should be undertaken by the believer before opening that door. Evidence of that would be that many, if not most, of these historical scholars were deeply committed believes before examining this aspect of religious academia. Many of them were fundamentalist preachers. they are now atheists or agnostic, so if studying the historical evidence changed their minds, and destroyed their faith, I think it is safe to say the average believer would likely be negatively influenced by this information.

You, of course, may see all of this very differently and I respect your right to disagree profusely with my point of view, experience, and current status. I would hope we can find a way to agree to disagree without being disagreeable. Again, I will say again, I do not think you are ignorant klp. I just have a different perspective.

[KLP]

...I would hope we can find a way to agree to disagree without being disagreeable. Again, I will say again, I do not think you are ignorant klp. I just have a different perspective.

I don't care if we disagree or not, but this is a support forum. So again, what I hear you saying are insulting things about Christians. What I hear you saying when you say that people who are happy being Christians should stay away from books/study and by all means they should avoid an intellectually critical approach is that you are asserting that for people to choose to be believers they must remain ignorant of what you "know" and remain intellectual "uncritical". And then I hear you wanting everyone to be all smiles after you have delivered a most disagreeable comment.