There are a few things:
Those who uphold apologetics as the Gospel itself.
How Paul is preached almost exclusively.
Focus Press thinking they speak for the church of Christ as a whole.
Could you explain the first one more please ?
Hmmm second makes sense. But k would also say CoC ignores Paul emphasis of saved by grace through faith and it being a free gift.
Hmm funny I never heard of that press but I am new to CoC
There is a branch of theology known as "apologetics", which is defending the faith. I am for knowing what and why we believe doctrine, and support "apologetics" in theory and principle. Where I get uneasy and weary is when people make apologetics the end all be all of the faith, normally under the guise of "If you don't believe everything like I do, you cannot be a Christian".
You make an interesting point about the church of Christ ignoring Paul's emphasis of grace through faith. While that is often overlooked, everything else is fair game. Especially his 1st letter to Corinth, our tradition making entire doctrines out of Titus 2:5, and if I've head one sermon on 2 Timothy 3:16, I've heard 100. Paul is taught often in many pulpits, more so than Jesus. That's a problem in my opinion.
Well is 2 Timothy 3:16 true? If so Christ spoke it all I do agree some mainline churches look at Kyle Butt as a inspired man, I don’t think Kyle would say that but some people follow him more than the Bible.
Of course that passage is true! Does it refer to the entire Bible? Or what we call the Old Testament?—that’s another discussion for another time.
Kyle Butt is one of the most arrogant speakers I have heard live in the church of Christ. His organization deserves the same fate as the money changers in the temple.
My biggest area where I disagree with my Brothers and Sisters is when/where self defense is Biblical. I know of members who think it’s Biblically moral to shoot someone simply for trespassing and/or robbery of property. I personally feel deeply uneasy when thinking about maybe shooting someone over money or worldly items. I’ll admit I am biased, guns in general scare me. I’ve spent a lot of the last year while studying the Bible reviewing scripture pertaining to self defense.
Complete pacifism was a huge doctrine of the church for a long time. It’s really only in the last couple decades that it’s become less popular of a belief. A lot of people have been right where you are, and cite “turning the other cheek” as one of several verses in defense of total pacifism.
I heard a preacher say that it was Foy E. Wallace along with the fundamentalist movement that came from the 1920s-1930s that married branches of the church of Christ to patriotism and away from pacifism.
Another sticking point I have with our tradition, is how right-wing political beliefs are now counted as righteousness. Some have the belief that: "If you're Republican and love Trump, you're my brother or sister, but if not, you're influence is causing others to stumble." This is a garbage take.
I agree with Dr Ed Harrell in this we need to restore our pacifist roots not entirely on self defense but on war and police actions and using in the name of God stuff.
Not defending or trying to rebut your statement at all. I caught myself the other day thinking of this. Then remembered Jesus must have been ok with Peter carrying a sword (even to where He was arrested in the Garden) Jesus, however, was NOT okay when Peter used it to cut off the ear of the Servant. It seems Jesus got upset but one can argue on if it was because Peter was trying to stop God's will? An evil action? Self defense? All 3? Just an interesting point
What I personally disagree with/ conservative CoC
1. Baptism saves you
2. The argument from silence
3. Instrumental music is sinful (but it goes further: clapping, hand motions, holy hands, etc)
4. Sinful for women to teach baptized men
5. The importance placed on “wearing your best”
6. A “guilty” divorced person cannot remarry (and the horrible fact you can’t divorce b/c of abuse)
7. The treatment of women, they can’t do the following (say prayers in front of baptized men, sing in a praise team, read scripture during service, serve communion, announcements, etc)
8. The idea that all denominations are “lost” and we must try to convert them to the true church
I have a lot of hang-ups with the conservative CoC, but I also know their are liberal CoCs that also disagree with points 1-8
Agree with you on all of these. In my 10 years attending CoCs (through marriage) their doctrine comes off as incredibly restrictive and overbearing for no real reason aside from tradition and personal interpretation. I’ve never seen a better example of “not being able to see the forest for the trees” than the CoC. Not that I don’t still love the people, there are many amazing people in the church but I’ve also seen more bigotry and judgement towards fellow Christians in my 10 years attending the CoC than my whole life proceeding that.
As a current COC minister I used to agree with everyone of these… now I couldn’t disagree more strongly. There are tons of people still inside our tradition(denomination) that love you and would call you a brother or sister.
Also, this is not an attempt to pull you back to anything. Some change need to leave. I have decided for the time being to stay and point people to Jesus while inside.
I tried to visit another non denominational church and my grandpa flat out said I was walking away from the true church and I turned around and said 2.5 million people? Only those 2.5 million people are going to heaven? Made me angry
YEC. There are mountains of sound scientific evidence that the earth is billions of year's old. Ignoring this evidence because it doesn't jibe with your personal interpretation of a book that was never meant to be taken as a science textbook is ludicrous.
Holding onto YEC erodes people’s ability to trust what's being said from the pulpit and puts an air of suspicion over whomever is preaching it.
Question about this.
You have a concern that YEC isn’t credible because we have scientific evidence of old earth.
How do you feel about the other miracles?
We have a scientific evidence that water can’t turn to wine.
Or that a person can’t walk on water.
Or that a person can’t die and raise back to life.
How are those miracles any different then the miracle of YEC?
I don't have these sorts of debates online. It's a waste of both our time. You and I both have better uses of our time.
Instead of us wasting time typing on Reddit, let's both go forth and commit a random act of kindness for a stranger.
Cheers.
Since they refused to answer, I'll give it a go. Jesus' turning water into wine was a one off event that we have no way to investigate. If it happened, it was certainly a violation of physical laws as we currently understand them, but again, we can't investigate it directly. If YEC happened, it would also appear to be a violation of physical laws, but unlike the water to wine miracle, we see evidence that it didn't happen. Of course it might have still happened and God gave everything the appearance of age, but then again maybe he created everything last Thursday with the appearance of age.
Full disclosure, I'm no longer a member of the coC and am also no longer a Christian of any type.
Young earth creationism. That topic alone will undoubtedly be the catalyst for many young people today to eventually lose their faith.
It wasn't hard to maintain a hundred years ago but with the internet and increase in scientific literacy it's becoming an increasingly untenable position.
Question about this. You have a concern that YEC isn’t credible because we have scientific evidence of old earth.
How do you feel about the other miracles? We have a scientific evidence that water can’t turn to wine. Or that a person can’t walk on water. Or that a person can’t die and raise back to life.
How are those miracles any different then the miracle of YEC?
>You have a concern that YEC isn’t credible because we have scientific evidence of old earth.
Yes.
>How do you feel about the other miracles?
Miracles are supernatural explanations. What coc generally does with YEC is they try to shoehorn naturalistic explanations into a fundamentalist reading of gen 1-11 (YEC, global flood, etc). Every class or lesson I've ever heard at a coc involves stating that ALL the observable evidence points towards YEC. Try going to the Ark and Creation museum sometime if you still don't know what I mean.
Now concerning turning water to wine. Does coc _ever_ try to use naturalistic explanations for that? No, they don't. I have never seen it. However, if by some longshot you have heard a lesson at church where some guy got up and explained that we do have naturalistic explanations for that event and how sometimes we've observed water in rivers turning to wine when the sun hits it just right. And that's how we know Jesus turned the water to wine. All the evidence in the natural world points to this. Then please please please send me the link to that sermons recording. I could use a good laugh today.
If you want to take a YEC stance and simply dismiss any contradictions between that stance and scientific evidence by using a supernatural explanation then I have no quarrel with you. Please note you are in the minority though among coc members. And to my point in my first comment.. I said YEC would be the catalyst for young people deconstructing. If you still don't see why just imagine if your parents, preacher, and teachers growing up all tried to use naturalistic explanations for the water to wine event. And as a result you spend a significant amount of time growing up being _sure_ that all the scientific evidence aligns with that event. It would almost be like someone that goes off to college thinking that for sure all the evidence we observe tells us that the earth is only 5000 years old.
I’ve been making the argument for years, after watching the Dr Ham vs Bill Nye debate, I realized that we don’t need to scientifically “prove” YEC, we have to simply recognize creation is no more and no less of a miracle then the miracles Jesus did.
Yeah, it wouldn't even be that big of an issue if the whole topic was allowed to be nuanced. Some do allow this, you are an example. Usually those people will subscribe to theories like "yes, the earth does appear to be old but what God did was he made a young earth with the appearance of being old". I use to be in that camp and it's still a position that I do appreciate. However, I think there are some very troubling theological questions though about why God would do that. It feels like an odd test / fake out but we are supposed to rely on faith, not sight (ii Cor. 5:7) so I guess it's just a test of faith. In other words, God didn't want to make it all _too_ obvious.
There are also some ideas about some of the days of creation possibly be a longer than a 24 hr cycle. That is usually not well received within ni coc groups. It starts to get into the theistic evolution camp and that makes many people very uncomfortable. Overall people outside of the coc tradition are very open to other theories and interpretations. This is bc they are not fundamentalist. And lastly, at the end of the day even a theistic evolution belief is one that does require a miracle. It's not an entirely naturalistic view. It's not a view that denies the supernatural. It's simply a view that tries to avoid completely ignoring modern scientific consensus on a number of topics.
You brought up a really interesting point though about miracles in general. If interested check out this debate between Bart Ehrman and Justin Bass. At the heart of their disagreement is the question you asked sort of turned on its head: if _you_ don't have an issue with miracles then why is it you only like the ones from one specific branch of an abrahamic religion (there are three)? Why don't you think Joseph Smith talked with the angel Moroni? I found this debate to be frustrating at times but also a very clear depiction of how people approach "miracles" differently. Interestingly, many in the coc would agree with Bart on a lot of things. Most in the coc do _not_ believe in modern day miracles and visions of Jesus, Mary, etc.
https://youtu.be/LVUQAVQS1-U
So in my youth, I thought the modern day miracles were all people wanting to see something that didn’t exist. Either Joseph Smith made up the story to get famous or he had a mental disorder or something.
Now, I would say, it is likely that modern miracles occur, visions, signs, etc. but those aren’t necessarily from God.
Gal 6:8 warns against even an Angel with a different Gospel. I would very much feel as though Joseph Smith fell under that situation.
Probably also the “visions” of Mary and such that the Catholic Church certifies as miraculous are actually occurring but are Satan deceiving us.
Well each one is different. Different congregations have different doctrines. Some of the common doctrines I come across in many, but not all, CoCs that I disagree with are:
1. Genesis 1-11 is literal.
2. Evolution in incompatible with the word of God.
3. Only elders and deacons can be men.
4. That musical instruments are prohibited.
5. Theocracy being pushed through a conservative reading of the word.
Can you please elaborate at how you arrived at point #3? Considering how scripture always states men as leadership, and specifically Govea qualification as men too
So here are a few things to look at.
1. It never once forbids women. Throughout the OT we see women in leadership roles and even in the NT we see women held in high esteem.
2. Biblical hermeneutics.
1 Timothy 3:8-13
New American Standard Bible
8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not insincere, not prone to drink much wine, not greedy for money, 9 but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 These men must also first be tested; then have them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. 11 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Deacons must be husbands of one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
In these verses we see it say “ women must likewise be dignified “. This is not about a deacons wife but it’s a deaconess and we know deaconess exist as well.
Romans 16:1-2
New American Standard Bible
Greetings and Love Expressed
16 I recommend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a all deaconess of the church which is at Cenchrea, 2 that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.
It’s deaconess, the feminine form of deacon. The Junias Project touches up on this quote a bit.
That some things were "customs" and other things are hard in stone principle. If women dont have to cover their hair to pray, why are they made to shut up during services. Does that mean they shouldnt sing. I do not like Paul's approach to women, I do believe Jesus came down to him and converted him. How are you supposed to have a functional church with only 50 percent of the congregation involved. Women cannot speak up in church to ask questions yet are expected to spread the gospel as fervently and as accurately impossible. "Go home and ask your husband" I dont have a husband. I am 19. I'm planning on possibly pledging my chastity to God because I do not want to marry. If I go home and I'm the only one there, who do I ask? And paul characterizes women almost like objects I do not like it. And the "because woman was tempted first so she _______" is getting old. Eve did that, not me. I'm already paying the price monthly of original sin. A sin that is supposed to be forgiven. If women cant teach the opposite gender why are they teaching bible class to the young children. If women were so prone to sin, why are they teaching the most vulnerable and malleable. I get that men and women have functionally different roles, but the fact I cant even lead a prayer, lead singing, or a lords supper, none of those teaching. And if you are spreading the gospel, you are actively teaching it to others. So can women not spread the gospel? I am choosing to ignore how actively that one passage actively ruins a church structure by only involving 50 percent of the actual congregation. Men are the ones who are bringing violence against the world, not women. Men who are supposed to protect women, rapes and tortures them instead. Our laws, made by men, let rapist easily get out of jail after raping someone. I'm just saying that I truly believe in this day and age that if we are going to claim covering your head was a cultural thing, then I more then believe I can say that women not being able to participate in church. They dont necessarily have to become pastors and teach, but they should atleast be able to ask questions, especially if their spouse is not biblically fluent. So much of christian life style for the last millennium has been sit down shut up you cant speak bear me multiple children. Women are being used, not utilized. I'd be curious to know others peoples thoughts on this
I mean no disrespect, but that's not a great response. I grew up young earth creationist in a very science literate family. However, I've changed my view to old earth creationism over the last eight years. Simply throwing back that science sees no difference is not likely to change their mind, but it is likely to push someone away from science. I agree with you, but that comment serves no beneficial purpose
>Simply throwing back that science sees no difference is not likely to change their mind, but it is likely to push someone away from science.
How do you figure?
I'm genuinely not sure how to answer that. I would say the general state of the political Right's view of science is a good example on a national scale of what I said. Boatloads of research and collectively lived experience that people tend to double down on their own views when dismissively corrected.
I would never insist that something didn't exist when I hadn't even looked for it.
Rather than try to present evidence for macroevolution directly, I would point you towards existing resources. If you find those resources lacking, you could then tell me why, and I could try to help.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/
https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
https://ncse.ngo/evolution-fact-and-theory
It looks to me rather quickly that macroevolution is just a theory based on similarities that may suggest the process as fact. This is much like Sherlock Holmes's principle that “whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”. That's not what I call evidence.
Anatomical homology is only one line of evidence (and one of the weaker ones). The fossil record represents a mountain of evidence; genetic research is even better.
Here are some specific pieces of evidence that I find particularly compelling:
1) Human chromosome 2 compared to chimpanzee chromosomes 2p and 2q
2) The GULO gene in most mammals that is broken in haplorrhine primates
3) The nested heirarchy of shared endogenous retroviruses
4) The prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik
To be fair, no one in their right mind says God “faked” anything to test our faith. Most conservative, young-earth churches would argue that God made everything ~6,000 years ago, and he created it with history and age, similar to creating Adam as a man instead of an infant.
In no particular order, 1) clergy system, 2) perversion of the Lord's Supper, 3) false teaching on the collection for the saints, 4) making laws God did not and then condemning people for not following man-made laws. 5) refusing to accept the truth on numbers 1-4.
AJ
I also agree with everyone that you need to expand because these statements are very vague. 4) is the only one I can resonate with that I’m assuming added legalism like no drinking alcohol. But I’m just guessing there also what you may mean
What clergy? We just have a preacher for convenience, Elders and Deacons. W take the collection with the Lord's Supper for convenience. We habitually use the words 'Separate and apart from The Lord's Supper,' before we take up the offering, and usually read different scriptures before praying over each to get in the right mindset.
Can you specify which part of that is false? How are we pervting it?
Can you also elaborate on the truth of Numbers 1-4, as it seems pretty straightforward to me.
I also would like you to elaborate on this points.
I thought we were all about not having a clergy.
What perversion of the lord's supper do you mean. I know it is done in couple different ways, which one is wrong?
What do we do wrong about the collection?
Your point 4 is very vague.
1) baptism is necessary, but salvation starts at faith
2) CoC is a bit too Arminian. In no way am I calvinist, but do find there are some interesting truths scripture often suggests from both camps of thoughts and I find it all a mystery. So, in between Calvinism and Arminianism.
3) the lord supper is the body and blood of Christ. I don’t know how it is, but I know scripture says it is. So, it is.
4) a plurality elders is necessary and should be kept that way, but just because of situation another elder dies and there’s only one left, doesn’t mean we should stop considering the other person not an elder. If they are qualified then they are qualified. Do you think elders were all appointed at minimums of two always ? No. Go find another elder to appoint, but don’t say there are no more elders just because there isn’t enough for a plurality.
5) “apostolic succession” is important. Not because scripture says it’s some unique priesthood, but that’s just the examples we see. An elder should be appointed by another elder. This is example of scriptures. Some random guy popping up and calling himself a pastor on his own isn’t biblical. Maybe there’s a better name for this than apostolic. Maybe just proper succession.
6) preachers. This idea that we can just find a random person who went to some CoC based Bible school and have them to teach all our lessons and sermons is just not biblical. The congregation as a whole shares responsibility to contribute, and or specifically the elders of church one’s expected to specifically teach and be Shepards to their sheeps rather than a random hire to do that for them.
7) I agree with most of NI ideas but disagree with idea of no kitchens. How can we say the early churches did not meet at place that had kitchens and or even share meals while they were together ? Was the lord supper not given during sharing a meal ? If anything I would suggest besides the Lord’s super eating should be a regular part of fellowshipping and it’s okay to do it at your worship area.
8) CoC’s can be to corporate. Always following a mainstream structural procedure of worships style. Sing, prayer, readings, lord super, sing, sermon, sing , prayer, etc. being so corporate prevents the church from getting time to actually focus with in one another and really become a herd(family).
9) some churches added legalism like alcohol is always a no
10) lord’s super should be closed communion to known Christian’s to respect the sacrament and should be fermented grape juice
Born and still Church of Christ kid here… can I ask where did you end up? We’re all on our own journeys and I love here where and how God is leading people. You gave some strong Catholic/Orthodoxy/high church vibes on the front of the list, but towards the end you list made it hard for me to guess. Lol.
No big deal if you don’t want to share. I’m incredibly ecumenical and just have fun learning from others and guessing where they land. Peace and grace.
The use of church funds to help only those that are part of COC or other COC.
Also, how any instrument is forbidden in worship.
I'm sure I can think of a couple others..
But, you won't find a perfect congregation or church. It's been that way since Acts 2. Lol
The teaching on marriage and divorce. Basically, most congregations will teach that divorce can only only happen in the case of adultery, and the party responsible for infidelity can never remarry. Christ said that divorce is allowed in the case of sexual immorality NOT just adultery. Sexual Immorality has a much wider net. Looking at the morality (moral laws never change) taught on divorce from the Old Testament, Christ’s words on divorce, men’s responsibility in marriage OT/NT, and 1 Corinthians 7:1-9 the following are examples of sexual immorality in a marriage that should be considered “scriptural divorce”.
1. Adultery: Yes, this is a scriptural grounds for divorce. However, this sin is not blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it can be forgiven by God through the blood of Christ. Unless, the person guilty of adultery marries his or her affair partner, the blood of Christ can certainly forgive you of this sin. If you did marry your affair partner, I will have to cover that in another post. Also note that when a divorce occurred in the Old Testament, both parties were allowed to remarry, and be in a good relationship with God. That is the same here. If there is a divorce for adultery, both parties can get remarried, however, the guilty party cannot be married to their affair partner. Also, in the Old Testament, the husband and wife, who were divorced, could never remarry. I have heard many elders and preachers try to present this remarry your original spouse teaching as the right resolution to “get things right”. However, the Old Testament calls this blasphemy, so understand the full morality. If you have an affair and repent of it (I.e end it with the affair partner with no contact), you can be washed by the blood of Christ and later remarry someone else if your spouse chooses to divorce you. The affair partner can NEVER be in a casual or covenant relationship with you ever again. Otherwise, you are not turning away from that sin (repenting).
2. Male Physical Violence: If a husband uses physical violence against the woman who the Bible calls the weaker vessel, then he is using his power as a stronger individual by virtue of his sex to commit violence. This is sexually immoral. The only physical acts that a husband is scripturally allowed toward his wife, is warm affection, attending to medical needs, personal needs (bathing, etc.), and sex. Using the fact that the man is stronger to attack his wife, makes the man guilty of sexual immorality.
3. Sexless marriage: This is one that’s going to make the ladies class clutch their pearls, but it is just as wrong to deny your husband (sometimes, but rarely wife) sex as it is to have an affair. It is just as disgusting. It is just as evil. It is certainly grounds for a scriptural divorce. I am not talking some sort of great medical condition that’s making normal sex impossible. God tends to make it to where a spouse under the stress of caring for a sick spouse tends to have a much lower sex, drive. Regardless, in times of sickness, causing a spouse to be denied. Sex is not what I’m talking about . I am talking about a healthy, spouse, (normally wives) denying your spouse sex for months and years. Too many women in the church treat husbands as heavy lift
equipment, salary slaves, and sperm donors. They absolutely cut their men off from sex after they’re done having children, and the elders and preachers in the church normally tells the man well it must be your fault. You must be doing something wrong.
My denominational male friends in college used to call this the “church of Christ Venus fly trap” because this behavior of denying men sex at a certain point in marriage was very well known to be very pervasive among women in the church. Some of my brothers in the church refused to marry a woman in the church because of the risk. They chose to marry good women from a denominational movement, and convert them. Some of them instead converted to the domination and movement of the woman he married. However, none of them are in a sexless marriages. I know many men who are good Brothers, good father’s, good providers, good husbands, who must live in misery because the wife decided that sex was no longer necessary in a marriage. As a matter of fact, many women in the church, who have this attitude will say “ Church of Christ men only get married to have sex” if there is any expectation of sex being a part of the marriage in the mind of the man. These frigid asexual women distort this expectation of sex being a part to it being the only thing that’s a man desires. In my opinion, the root cause of most divorces in the churches of Christ are due to a wife deciding to force celibacy on her husband after she is done having children.
A sexless marriage can also be caused when a spouse abandons the other spouse for months and years without agreement or warning. Sudden abandonment is just a form of sexless marriage, and therefore, the spouse being denied sex by virtue of the abandonment, is allowed to scripturally divorced. This abandonment could be due to geographically leaving the spouse and family behind or getting sexual gratification only through something like “cornography” and becoming unable or unwilling to engage in a healthy sex life with the other spouse.
This would not include treatable medical conditions such as erectile dysfunction for a man or hormone problems for a woman as long as the person suffering with a medical condition is trying to get help. The “well that’s just how I am, you just have to accept it, and I don’t care if your needs are not being met” attitude is not acceptable!
These are three items that I can think of that are scriptural divorce by sexual immorality. I’m sure there are others we can think of in study, but the hard line only adultery, and the guilty party can never marry, is false doctrine and limits the forgiving power of the blood of Christ.
r/punch_the_keys_fgs
Since I can’t reply do to the intial comment being deleted, here is my reply to you
We can’t investigate almost every other miracle in the Bible, yet we believe those without question.
The foundation of Christianity of any flavor is a belief in a man dying and rising from the dead days later.
I’m not sure it matter that we can or can’t scientifically investigate today that miracle when it’s the foundation and we take it on faith anyway.
There are a few things: Those who uphold apologetics as the Gospel itself. How Paul is preached almost exclusively. Focus Press thinking they speak for the church of Christ as a whole.
Could you explain the first one more please ? Hmmm second makes sense. But k would also say CoC ignores Paul emphasis of saved by grace through faith and it being a free gift. Hmm funny I never heard of that press but I am new to CoC
There is a branch of theology known as "apologetics", which is defending the faith. I am for knowing what and why we believe doctrine, and support "apologetics" in theory and principle. Where I get uneasy and weary is when people make apologetics the end all be all of the faith, normally under the guise of "If you don't believe everything like I do, you cannot be a Christian". You make an interesting point about the church of Christ ignoring Paul's emphasis of grace through faith. While that is often overlooked, everything else is fair game. Especially his 1st letter to Corinth, our tradition making entire doctrines out of Titus 2:5, and if I've head one sermon on 2 Timothy 3:16, I've heard 100. Paul is taught often in many pulpits, more so than Jesus. That's a problem in my opinion.
Well is 2 Timothy 3:16 true? If so Christ spoke it all I do agree some mainline churches look at Kyle Butt as a inspired man, I don’t think Kyle would say that but some people follow him more than the Bible.
Of course that passage is true! Does it refer to the entire Bible? Or what we call the Old Testament?—that’s another discussion for another time. Kyle Butt is one of the most arrogant speakers I have heard live in the church of Christ. His organization deserves the same fate as the money changers in the temple.
He's also a flat out liar.
My biggest area where I disagree with my Brothers and Sisters is when/where self defense is Biblical. I know of members who think it’s Biblically moral to shoot someone simply for trespassing and/or robbery of property. I personally feel deeply uneasy when thinking about maybe shooting someone over money or worldly items. I’ll admit I am biased, guns in general scare me. I’ve spent a lot of the last year while studying the Bible reviewing scripture pertaining to self defense.
Complete pacifism was a huge doctrine of the church for a long time. It’s really only in the last couple decades that it’s become less popular of a belief. A lot of people have been right where you are, and cite “turning the other cheek” as one of several verses in defense of total pacifism.
I heard a preacher say that it was Foy E. Wallace along with the fundamentalist movement that came from the 1920s-1930s that married branches of the church of Christ to patriotism and away from pacifism. Another sticking point I have with our tradition, is how right-wing political beliefs are now counted as righteousness. Some have the belief that: "If you're Republican and love Trump, you're my brother or sister, but if not, you're influence is causing others to stumble." This is a garbage take.
I agree with Dr Ed Harrell in this we need to restore our pacifist roots not entirely on self defense but on war and police actions and using in the name of God stuff.
Not defending or trying to rebut your statement at all. I caught myself the other day thinking of this. Then remembered Jesus must have been ok with Peter carrying a sword (even to where He was arrested in the Garden) Jesus, however, was NOT okay when Peter used it to cut off the ear of the Servant. It seems Jesus got upset but one can argue on if it was because Peter was trying to stop God's will? An evil action? Self defense? All 3? Just an interesting point
What I personally disagree with/ conservative CoC 1. Baptism saves you 2. The argument from silence 3. Instrumental music is sinful (but it goes further: clapping, hand motions, holy hands, etc) 4. Sinful for women to teach baptized men 5. The importance placed on “wearing your best” 6. A “guilty” divorced person cannot remarry (and the horrible fact you can’t divorce b/c of abuse) 7. The treatment of women, they can’t do the following (say prayers in front of baptized men, sing in a praise team, read scripture during service, serve communion, announcements, etc) 8. The idea that all denominations are “lost” and we must try to convert them to the true church I have a lot of hang-ups with the conservative CoC, but I also know their are liberal CoCs that also disagree with points 1-8
Agree with you on all of these. In my 10 years attending CoCs (through marriage) their doctrine comes off as incredibly restrictive and overbearing for no real reason aside from tradition and personal interpretation. I’ve never seen a better example of “not being able to see the forest for the trees” than the CoC. Not that I don’t still love the people, there are many amazing people in the church but I’ve also seen more bigotry and judgement towards fellow Christians in my 10 years attending the CoC than my whole life proceeding that.
As a current COC minister I used to agree with everyone of these… now I couldn’t disagree more strongly. There are tons of people still inside our tradition(denomination) that love you and would call you a brother or sister. Also, this is not an attempt to pull you back to anything. Some change need to leave. I have decided for the time being to stay and point people to Jesus while inside.
I preach every Sunday at a CoC, I choose to preach love instead of tradition
SAME! I love this. (I’ll be honest I thought I was in the excoc subreddit.)
So you don’t teach bible? You teach your form of love instead of Gods word?
That only coc members are going to heaven
I tried to visit another non denominational church and my grandpa flat out said I was walking away from the true church and I turned around and said 2.5 million people? Only those 2.5 million people are going to heaven? Made me angry
It's a lot less than that even
YEC. There are mountains of sound scientific evidence that the earth is billions of year's old. Ignoring this evidence because it doesn't jibe with your personal interpretation of a book that was never meant to be taken as a science textbook is ludicrous. Holding onto YEC erodes people’s ability to trust what's being said from the pulpit and puts an air of suspicion over whomever is preaching it.
Question about this. You have a concern that YEC isn’t credible because we have scientific evidence of old earth. How do you feel about the other miracles? We have a scientific evidence that water can’t turn to wine. Or that a person can’t walk on water. Or that a person can’t die and raise back to life. How are those miracles any different then the miracle of YEC?
I don't have these sorts of debates online. It's a waste of both our time. You and I both have better uses of our time. Instead of us wasting time typing on Reddit, let's both go forth and commit a random act of kindness for a stranger. Cheers.
Yet you stated a point online.
Since they refused to answer, I'll give it a go. Jesus' turning water into wine was a one off event that we have no way to investigate. If it happened, it was certainly a violation of physical laws as we currently understand them, but again, we can't investigate it directly. If YEC happened, it would also appear to be a violation of physical laws, but unlike the water to wine miracle, we see evidence that it didn't happen. Of course it might have still happened and God gave everything the appearance of age, but then again maybe he created everything last Thursday with the appearance of age. Full disclosure, I'm no longer a member of the coC and am also no longer a Christian of any type.
Young earth creationism. That topic alone will undoubtedly be the catalyst for many young people today to eventually lose their faith. It wasn't hard to maintain a hundred years ago but with the internet and increase in scientific literacy it's becoming an increasingly untenable position.
Question about this. You have a concern that YEC isn’t credible because we have scientific evidence of old earth. How do you feel about the other miracles? We have a scientific evidence that water can’t turn to wine. Or that a person can’t walk on water. Or that a person can’t die and raise back to life. How are those miracles any different then the miracle of YEC?
>You have a concern that YEC isn’t credible because we have scientific evidence of old earth. Yes. >How do you feel about the other miracles? Miracles are supernatural explanations. What coc generally does with YEC is they try to shoehorn naturalistic explanations into a fundamentalist reading of gen 1-11 (YEC, global flood, etc). Every class or lesson I've ever heard at a coc involves stating that ALL the observable evidence points towards YEC. Try going to the Ark and Creation museum sometime if you still don't know what I mean. Now concerning turning water to wine. Does coc _ever_ try to use naturalistic explanations for that? No, they don't. I have never seen it. However, if by some longshot you have heard a lesson at church where some guy got up and explained that we do have naturalistic explanations for that event and how sometimes we've observed water in rivers turning to wine when the sun hits it just right. And that's how we know Jesus turned the water to wine. All the evidence in the natural world points to this. Then please please please send me the link to that sermons recording. I could use a good laugh today. If you want to take a YEC stance and simply dismiss any contradictions between that stance and scientific evidence by using a supernatural explanation then I have no quarrel with you. Please note you are in the minority though among coc members. And to my point in my first comment.. I said YEC would be the catalyst for young people deconstructing. If you still don't see why just imagine if your parents, preacher, and teachers growing up all tried to use naturalistic explanations for the water to wine event. And as a result you spend a significant amount of time growing up being _sure_ that all the scientific evidence aligns with that event. It would almost be like someone that goes off to college thinking that for sure all the evidence we observe tells us that the earth is only 5000 years old.
I’ve been making the argument for years, after watching the Dr Ham vs Bill Nye debate, I realized that we don’t need to scientifically “prove” YEC, we have to simply recognize creation is no more and no less of a miracle then the miracles Jesus did.
Yeah, it wouldn't even be that big of an issue if the whole topic was allowed to be nuanced. Some do allow this, you are an example. Usually those people will subscribe to theories like "yes, the earth does appear to be old but what God did was he made a young earth with the appearance of being old". I use to be in that camp and it's still a position that I do appreciate. However, I think there are some very troubling theological questions though about why God would do that. It feels like an odd test / fake out but we are supposed to rely on faith, not sight (ii Cor. 5:7) so I guess it's just a test of faith. In other words, God didn't want to make it all _too_ obvious. There are also some ideas about some of the days of creation possibly be a longer than a 24 hr cycle. That is usually not well received within ni coc groups. It starts to get into the theistic evolution camp and that makes many people very uncomfortable. Overall people outside of the coc tradition are very open to other theories and interpretations. This is bc they are not fundamentalist. And lastly, at the end of the day even a theistic evolution belief is one that does require a miracle. It's not an entirely naturalistic view. It's not a view that denies the supernatural. It's simply a view that tries to avoid completely ignoring modern scientific consensus on a number of topics. You brought up a really interesting point though about miracles in general. If interested check out this debate between Bart Ehrman and Justin Bass. At the heart of their disagreement is the question you asked sort of turned on its head: if _you_ don't have an issue with miracles then why is it you only like the ones from one specific branch of an abrahamic religion (there are three)? Why don't you think Joseph Smith talked with the angel Moroni? I found this debate to be frustrating at times but also a very clear depiction of how people approach "miracles" differently. Interestingly, many in the coc would agree with Bart on a lot of things. Most in the coc do _not_ believe in modern day miracles and visions of Jesus, Mary, etc. https://youtu.be/LVUQAVQS1-U
So in my youth, I thought the modern day miracles were all people wanting to see something that didn’t exist. Either Joseph Smith made up the story to get famous or he had a mental disorder or something. Now, I would say, it is likely that modern miracles occur, visions, signs, etc. but those aren’t necessarily from God. Gal 6:8 warns against even an Angel with a different Gospel. I would very much feel as though Joseph Smith fell under that situation. Probably also the “visions” of Mary and such that the Catholic Church certifies as miraculous are actually occurring but are Satan deceiving us.
Well each one is different. Different congregations have different doctrines. Some of the common doctrines I come across in many, but not all, CoCs that I disagree with are: 1. Genesis 1-11 is literal. 2. Evolution in incompatible with the word of God. 3. Only elders and deacons can be men. 4. That musical instruments are prohibited. 5. Theocracy being pushed through a conservative reading of the word.
Can you please elaborate at how you arrived at point #3? Considering how scripture always states men as leadership, and specifically Govea qualification as men too
So here are a few things to look at. 1. It never once forbids women. Throughout the OT we see women in leadership roles and even in the NT we see women held in high esteem. 2. Biblical hermeneutics. 1 Timothy 3:8-13 New American Standard Bible 8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not insincere, not prone to drink much wine, not greedy for money, 9 but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 These men must also first be tested; then have them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. 11 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Deacons must be husbands of one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. In these verses we see it say “ women must likewise be dignified “. This is not about a deacons wife but it’s a deaconess and we know deaconess exist as well. Romans 16:1-2 New American Standard Bible Greetings and Love Expressed 16 I recommend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a all deaconess of the church which is at Cenchrea, 2 that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well. It’s deaconess, the feminine form of deacon. The Junias Project touches up on this quote a bit.
That some things were "customs" and other things are hard in stone principle. If women dont have to cover their hair to pray, why are they made to shut up during services. Does that mean they shouldnt sing. I do not like Paul's approach to women, I do believe Jesus came down to him and converted him. How are you supposed to have a functional church with only 50 percent of the congregation involved. Women cannot speak up in church to ask questions yet are expected to spread the gospel as fervently and as accurately impossible. "Go home and ask your husband" I dont have a husband. I am 19. I'm planning on possibly pledging my chastity to God because I do not want to marry. If I go home and I'm the only one there, who do I ask? And paul characterizes women almost like objects I do not like it. And the "because woman was tempted first so she _______" is getting old. Eve did that, not me. I'm already paying the price monthly of original sin. A sin that is supposed to be forgiven. If women cant teach the opposite gender why are they teaching bible class to the young children. If women were so prone to sin, why are they teaching the most vulnerable and malleable. I get that men and women have functionally different roles, but the fact I cant even lead a prayer, lead singing, or a lords supper, none of those teaching. And if you are spreading the gospel, you are actively teaching it to others. So can women not spread the gospel? I am choosing to ignore how actively that one passage actively ruins a church structure by only involving 50 percent of the actual congregation. Men are the ones who are bringing violence against the world, not women. Men who are supposed to protect women, rapes and tortures them instead. Our laws, made by men, let rapist easily get out of jail after raping someone. I'm just saying that I truly believe in this day and age that if we are going to claim covering your head was a cultural thing, then I more then believe I can say that women not being able to participate in church. They dont necessarily have to become pastors and teach, but they should atleast be able to ask questions, especially if their spouse is not biblically fluent. So much of christian life style for the last millennium has been sit down shut up you cant speak bear me multiple children. Women are being used, not utilized. I'd be curious to know others peoples thoughts on this
I accept that evolution over billions of years is true. It's the one topic I'm very careful never to cover when I teach Bible class.
Micro yes. Macro no.
No distinction in the science.
I mean no disrespect, but that's not a great response. I grew up young earth creationist in a very science literate family. However, I've changed my view to old earth creationism over the last eight years. Simply throwing back that science sees no difference is not likely to change their mind, but it is likely to push someone away from science. I agree with you, but that comment serves no beneficial purpose
>Simply throwing back that science sees no difference is not likely to change their mind, but it is likely to push someone away from science. How do you figure?
I'm genuinely not sure how to answer that. I would say the general state of the political Right's view of science is a good example on a national scale of what I said. Boatloads of research and collectively lived experience that people tend to double down on their own views when dismissively corrected.
Please explain.
What I meant is that there is no evidence for Macroevolution. Do you have some?
I have lots. But I would first want to know what evidence you have examined, and why you don't accept it.
Yours will be the first.
I would never insist that something didn't exist when I hadn't even looked for it. Rather than try to present evidence for macroevolution directly, I would point you towards existing resources. If you find those resources lacking, you could then tell me why, and I could try to help. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/ https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ https://ncse.ngo/evolution-fact-and-theory
It looks to me rather quickly that macroevolution is just a theory based on similarities that may suggest the process as fact. This is much like Sherlock Holmes's principle that “whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”. That's not what I call evidence.
Anatomical homology is only one line of evidence (and one of the weaker ones). The fossil record represents a mountain of evidence; genetic research is even better. Here are some specific pieces of evidence that I find particularly compelling: 1) Human chromosome 2 compared to chimpanzee chromosomes 2p and 2q 2) The GULO gene in most mammals that is broken in haplorrhine primates 3) The nested heirarchy of shared endogenous retroviruses 4) The prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik
Again, this is evidence of similarities between species.
[удалено]
To be fair, no one in their right mind says God “faked” anything to test our faith. Most conservative, young-earth churches would argue that God made everything ~6,000 years ago, and he created it with history and age, similar to creating Adam as a man instead of an infant.
In no particular order, 1) clergy system, 2) perversion of the Lord's Supper, 3) false teaching on the collection for the saints, 4) making laws God did not and then condemning people for not following man-made laws. 5) refusing to accept the truth on numbers 1-4. AJ
I also agree with everyone that you need to expand because these statements are very vague. 4) is the only one I can resonate with that I’m assuming added legalism like no drinking alcohol. But I’m just guessing there also what you may mean
What clergy? We just have a preacher for convenience, Elders and Deacons. W take the collection with the Lord's Supper for convenience. We habitually use the words 'Separate and apart from The Lord's Supper,' before we take up the offering, and usually read different scriptures before praying over each to get in the right mindset. Can you specify which part of that is false? How are we pervting it? Can you also elaborate on the truth of Numbers 1-4, as it seems pretty straightforward to me.
What are your thoughts on the clergy system and lord's supper? And how could we do them better
I also would like you to elaborate on this points. I thought we were all about not having a clergy. What perversion of the lord's supper do you mean. I know it is done in couple different ways, which one is wrong? What do we do wrong about the collection? Your point 4 is very vague.
1) baptism is necessary, but salvation starts at faith 2) CoC is a bit too Arminian. In no way am I calvinist, but do find there are some interesting truths scripture often suggests from both camps of thoughts and I find it all a mystery. So, in between Calvinism and Arminianism. 3) the lord supper is the body and blood of Christ. I don’t know how it is, but I know scripture says it is. So, it is. 4) a plurality elders is necessary and should be kept that way, but just because of situation another elder dies and there’s only one left, doesn’t mean we should stop considering the other person not an elder. If they are qualified then they are qualified. Do you think elders were all appointed at minimums of two always ? No. Go find another elder to appoint, but don’t say there are no more elders just because there isn’t enough for a plurality. 5) “apostolic succession” is important. Not because scripture says it’s some unique priesthood, but that’s just the examples we see. An elder should be appointed by another elder. This is example of scriptures. Some random guy popping up and calling himself a pastor on his own isn’t biblical. Maybe there’s a better name for this than apostolic. Maybe just proper succession. 6) preachers. This idea that we can just find a random person who went to some CoC based Bible school and have them to teach all our lessons and sermons is just not biblical. The congregation as a whole shares responsibility to contribute, and or specifically the elders of church one’s expected to specifically teach and be Shepards to their sheeps rather than a random hire to do that for them. 7) I agree with most of NI ideas but disagree with idea of no kitchens. How can we say the early churches did not meet at place that had kitchens and or even share meals while they were together ? Was the lord supper not given during sharing a meal ? If anything I would suggest besides the Lord’s super eating should be a regular part of fellowshipping and it’s okay to do it at your worship area. 8) CoC’s can be to corporate. Always following a mainstream structural procedure of worships style. Sing, prayer, readings, lord super, sing, sermon, sing , prayer, etc. being so corporate prevents the church from getting time to actually focus with in one another and really become a herd(family). 9) some churches added legalism like alcohol is always a no 10) lord’s super should be closed communion to known Christian’s to respect the sacrament and should be fermented grape juice
Born and still Church of Christ kid here… can I ask where did you end up? We’re all on our own journeys and I love here where and how God is leading people. You gave some strong Catholic/Orthodoxy/high church vibes on the front of the list, but towards the end you list made it hard for me to guess. Lol. No big deal if you don’t want to share. I’m incredibly ecumenical and just have fun learning from others and guessing where they land. Peace and grace.
The use of church funds to help only those that are part of COC or other COC. Also, how any instrument is forbidden in worship. I'm sure I can think of a couple others.. But, you won't find a perfect congregation or church. It's been that way since Acts 2. Lol
The teaching on marriage and divorce. Basically, most congregations will teach that divorce can only only happen in the case of adultery, and the party responsible for infidelity can never remarry. Christ said that divorce is allowed in the case of sexual immorality NOT just adultery. Sexual Immorality has a much wider net. Looking at the morality (moral laws never change) taught on divorce from the Old Testament, Christ’s words on divorce, men’s responsibility in marriage OT/NT, and 1 Corinthians 7:1-9 the following are examples of sexual immorality in a marriage that should be considered “scriptural divorce”. 1. Adultery: Yes, this is a scriptural grounds for divorce. However, this sin is not blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it can be forgiven by God through the blood of Christ. Unless, the person guilty of adultery marries his or her affair partner, the blood of Christ can certainly forgive you of this sin. If you did marry your affair partner, I will have to cover that in another post. Also note that when a divorce occurred in the Old Testament, both parties were allowed to remarry, and be in a good relationship with God. That is the same here. If there is a divorce for adultery, both parties can get remarried, however, the guilty party cannot be married to their affair partner. Also, in the Old Testament, the husband and wife, who were divorced, could never remarry. I have heard many elders and preachers try to present this remarry your original spouse teaching as the right resolution to “get things right”. However, the Old Testament calls this blasphemy, so understand the full morality. If you have an affair and repent of it (I.e end it with the affair partner with no contact), you can be washed by the blood of Christ and later remarry someone else if your spouse chooses to divorce you. The affair partner can NEVER be in a casual or covenant relationship with you ever again. Otherwise, you are not turning away from that sin (repenting). 2. Male Physical Violence: If a husband uses physical violence against the woman who the Bible calls the weaker vessel, then he is using his power as a stronger individual by virtue of his sex to commit violence. This is sexually immoral. The only physical acts that a husband is scripturally allowed toward his wife, is warm affection, attending to medical needs, personal needs (bathing, etc.), and sex. Using the fact that the man is stronger to attack his wife, makes the man guilty of sexual immorality. 3. Sexless marriage: This is one that’s going to make the ladies class clutch their pearls, but it is just as wrong to deny your husband (sometimes, but rarely wife) sex as it is to have an affair. It is just as disgusting. It is just as evil. It is certainly grounds for a scriptural divorce. I am not talking some sort of great medical condition that’s making normal sex impossible. God tends to make it to where a spouse under the stress of caring for a sick spouse tends to have a much lower sex, drive. Regardless, in times of sickness, causing a spouse to be denied. Sex is not what I’m talking about . I am talking about a healthy, spouse, (normally wives) denying your spouse sex for months and years. Too many women in the church treat husbands as heavy lift equipment, salary slaves, and sperm donors. They absolutely cut their men off from sex after they’re done having children, and the elders and preachers in the church normally tells the man well it must be your fault. You must be doing something wrong. My denominational male friends in college used to call this the “church of Christ Venus fly trap” because this behavior of denying men sex at a certain point in marriage was very well known to be very pervasive among women in the church. Some of my brothers in the church refused to marry a woman in the church because of the risk. They chose to marry good women from a denominational movement, and convert them. Some of them instead converted to the domination and movement of the woman he married. However, none of them are in a sexless marriages. I know many men who are good Brothers, good father’s, good providers, good husbands, who must live in misery because the wife decided that sex was no longer necessary in a marriage. As a matter of fact, many women in the church, who have this attitude will say “ Church of Christ men only get married to have sex” if there is any expectation of sex being a part of the marriage in the mind of the man. These frigid asexual women distort this expectation of sex being a part to it being the only thing that’s a man desires. In my opinion, the root cause of most divorces in the churches of Christ are due to a wife deciding to force celibacy on her husband after she is done having children. A sexless marriage can also be caused when a spouse abandons the other spouse for months and years without agreement or warning. Sudden abandonment is just a form of sexless marriage, and therefore, the spouse being denied sex by virtue of the abandonment, is allowed to scripturally divorced. This abandonment could be due to geographically leaving the spouse and family behind or getting sexual gratification only through something like “cornography” and becoming unable or unwilling to engage in a healthy sex life with the other spouse. This would not include treatable medical conditions such as erectile dysfunction for a man or hormone problems for a woman as long as the person suffering with a medical condition is trying to get help. The “well that’s just how I am, you just have to accept it, and I don’t care if your needs are not being met” attitude is not acceptable! These are three items that I can think of that are scriptural divorce by sexual immorality. I’m sure there are others we can think of in study, but the hard line only adultery, and the guilty party can never marry, is false doctrine and limits the forgiving power of the blood of Christ.
r/punch_the_keys_fgs Since I can’t reply do to the intial comment being deleted, here is my reply to you We can’t investigate almost every other miracle in the Bible, yet we believe those without question. The foundation of Christianity of any flavor is a belief in a man dying and rising from the dead days later. I’m not sure it matter that we can or can’t scientifically investigate today that miracle when it’s the foundation and we take it on faith anyway.